What’s wrong with Macbeth?, part 3: Playing Macbeth

Seeing the “DocX Macbeth” again in the cinema on the 2nd of May was interesting and, at the present moment, a bit stressful because I had just been “through” with the “Stratford Macbeth” and felt as if I had finally found my footing “in this play”. Before that, it had been a bit like cloudcuckooland … Again, in the “screen version” – this time I became extremely aware that, as soon as it is filmed, there is a screen version! – where all the random, disruptive elements of the theatre experience were removed, I could see more of what they had been doing. It was EXACTLY the opposite of the “Stratford Macbeth”: Bloody, bold and “dark” – on a scale to fill the big hall - and with the Lady Macbeth of my dreams: brazen and strong in the beginning, thrilled and optimistic about what is promised, she “cracks” when she sees her husband go mad and everything they have gained fall apart. It was Indira Varma who carried this off, and it worked because of HER, not Ralph Fiennes who actually was the worst actor on this stage! And, set the many weaknesses aside – and though it was not quite as consistent as the “Stratford Macbeth” – it WORKED almost as well! I especially liked the weird sisters this time because I could see how they were supposed to come from the “darkness” of the war and bring something dangerous with them into people’s lives – so, were “instrumental” in the spreading of the darkness. And – even though it was a lot more brutal than the “Stratford Macbeth”, which I approved of! – thank goodness, there was no severed head!

 

So, maybe it just doesn’t matter that much if Macbeth goes mad or not, or if we get to know who he is …??? Not so for Lady Macbeth, by the way, whom I have now seen to be this “catalyst” in both productions! We HAVE to make up our mind about her. (Though, as I said, there is no definite version. There may be no-goes, but, if the context is right, the opposite might work as well …) Of course, it matters that Macbeth is played by a good actor – which Christopher Eccleston was and Ralf Fiennes was not, in this case. (There is nothing more boring and frustrating, if you know the text word for word, to watch somebody saying it word for word on the stage in the way you are hearing it in your head, which means: NOT PLAYING at all! In my perception, it slowed the production down no end. It seemed much too long, but, looking on my watch in the tube, I noticed that it had probably been shorter than the “Stratford Macbeth” – which must have been 2 ½ hours at most, and pointedly concise …) But it might not be that important WHO this guy actually is – so that I am now entirely relaxed looking forward to my next Macbeth – David Tennant on the 28th of October this year. (Yeah, we got tickets!!!)

 

In retrospect, I am really glad, though, that I saw at least ONE Macbeth who was kind of like the one in my head, just so as to know that I haven’t been entirely wrong. Put Indira Varma and Chris Eccleston together, I have now basically seen all these great Macbeth and Lady Macbeth moments, apart from the one that was covered by Rory Kinnear. I finally added Indira Varma to the “household gods” on my wardrobe door because as Lady Macbeth she convinced me that she is not just a “goddess” but probably not entirely human because she did what nobody has done in my experience: play ALL these moments in such a substantial role – and with such ease that I was permanently going like: Yes, yes, yes – that’s it! It’s not THAT difficult, is it? I even think I have only seen somebody do this ONCE in Shakespeare – when Keeley Hawes played King Edward’s wife in “Richard III” (with Ralph Fiennes): a character being played entirely “naturally” - as if there WAS no “Shakespeare”, no tradition about playing this characters, or other actresses having played them before, or this cumbersome text to be dealt with first … I remember that, at one point, I thought that, if Shakespeare could have seen this – and could somehow have overcome the shock of seeing it played by a WOMAN, with unbound hair and visible cleavage! – he would first have seen how well he had done. (What a pity I won’t have HER on DVD to watch again when I cannot remember the satisfaction!)

 

With Christopher Eccleston – who has always resided among the “household gods” – it’s different. He didn’t play all the moments – though most of them. In my recollection, he only fell short of the remorse and devastation after Duncan’s murder. (And they were on a “time schedule” because of the two hours, there didn’t seem to be “a time” then for remorse.) I didn’t like it that much that he appeared entirely unconcerned about his wife’s death whereas Ralph Fiennes’ Macbeth appeared gutted, but there ARE these two opposite possibilities, and Chris Eccleston’s seemed more consistent. Probably because we are long past taking Macbeth seriously at this point, IF he goes mad. I just accidentally re-read this interview Richard Armitage gave about playing Thorin Oakenshield where he said that we shouldn’t be looking for consistency, in this case, but the opposite. I wasn’t chuffed at the time about Thorin going mad either, but in retrospect I can see what he meant - though this was different because it was this really long film – even more than one! – with a lot more opportunities to delve into inconsistencies.

 

So, if this had been a race, Indira Varma would have won – but in a way the story of Macbeth is more crucial and precarious than that of Lady Macbeth, just not in the way I thought. In my experience, there is exactly one actor who equals Indira Varma in what they are both doing: Ciaran Hinds. He also sees and does EVERYTHING that IS there, and exactly THAT – without ever considering what MIGHT be there. Chris Eccleston – though he played Macbeth entirely “naturally” as well – is all about what might be “behind” the character, not so much what he is doing but WHY he might be doing it, in short: the mystery of total empathy. I think that’s his “secret”, and the reason why I have never seen him do anything that is not natural, or overdone, or somehow “wrong” … This kind of human complexity is not for everybody, and I am not offended if others cannot see it, but it IS there. It is also what I find most interesting, so that – even though I don’t see him anymore – he is probably still my favourite actor. And it’s not surprising that I find it’s exactly the kind of attention that should be given to Macbeth.

 

I already mentioned how he made me see Shakespeare’s “milk of human kindness” by reacting intuitively to the vulnerability of his wife. It was just one moment that made me see the bigger picture of this marriage in its entirety. And, as we have seen the opening, the closing towards other people becomes significant as a change. It was natural and subtle and entirely convincing. No big, disruptive action was needed. – So, I was entirely happy with the “Stratford Macbeth” … Ummm – not true! There was this corner of my mind where I wished somebody would come and make up their mind about Macbeth the way Indira Varma made up her mind about Lady Macbeth (- or probably didn’t even need to because she just played what was there …). To make us see the PERSON behind the tragedy. As far as I could see, Christopher Eccleston had done everything right, still his Macbeth lacked “colour” …

 

This time, though, watching the “Stratford Macbeth” on DVD, the woods definitely began to emerge behind the trees, which also meant to discover that I had been barking up the wrong tree entirely. If it had been so easy to make up one’s mind – or so relevant! – WHO this guy is – as to the special features he has, his biography, or what age he is, or other physical aspects – Ralph Fiennes’ Macbeth would have been ace because this is what he does best, in my opinion: extremely detailed character studies. Chris Eccleston was probably in a better position because of the thing HE does: this weird “empathy thing”. Nothing weird about it, of course, as actors usually have it, but there are only few with this kind of unfailing “instinct”. Focusing on the woods instead of the trees, it is not so strange anymore that so many actors “failed” Macbeth, not knowing what to do, or probably even trying to do the right thing: playing the AVERAGE GUY. Strange thing that this is the most difficult to do: not giving a character special features and still making them interesting. Because – and this is really important for the play as I see it now but only will unfold later! – Macbeth is not special. He is just EVERY MAN – with a decisive emphasis on the MAN aspect! In my opinion, Christopher Eccleston did a totally clever thing to make Macbeth “work”. He focused on the question: what would A MAN do? How would a man react? He’d always feel RESPONSIBLE and compelled to ACT – to the point of absurdity. Rather than stop he would make “the frame of things disjoint – both the worlds suffer”. I am struck by these words every time because this is exactly how “old white men” are running our world into the ground on a regular basis. And I got this feeling that all he really wanted, from a certain point, was to be able to STOP! I just love the way they managed “time” and timing in this production, that they had focused on these moments when everything stops. I hope I’ll get round to this later … Just one example: When I first saw it, I was so entirely focused on Christopher Eccleston that I mistook the ending he “chose” for Macbeth – not to have him defeated and killed but kind of committing suicide the moment he decides it is “enough” – for arrogance. This time I could see that Christopher Eccleston very much had the reigns in his hands but lead the whole production entirely in the right direction. In fact, everybody was cooperative on this stage because everybody knew exactly what this was about. Even the lead knew that it was NOT (just) HIS TRAGEDY! Macbeth is in fact the one most responsible – the one who spreads the virus - but he is still just a small cog in a big machine, traditionally called THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE which Ross describes: “Things at the worst will cease, or else climb upwards to what they were before.” It stops, okay, at one point, to climb up again - but only AFTER it has grinded us into the ground … At the moment, being much less optimistic than usual – and uncomfortably aware of its existence! - I would prefer to call it the “wheel of disaster”.