From Scone to Colmkill: “Macbeth” and history

With “Macbeth”, I think, there is always this temptation to do what I would also do, even though it‘s SO obvious: to make it circular and end with the beginning. Having the three sisters somewhere, on the stage or from the of, say: “When shall we three meet AGAIN?” Ouch, spoiler – but it IS so obvious, isn’t it? So, why is that?

 

I got into the historic Macbeth by beginning to look into all the petty issues, like strange words and names, and, generally, the background of the characters involved, almost a year ago now. As I was also looking into the main source Shakespeare had – Holinshed’s “Chronicle of Scotland” – and – reading the text so closely – the historical issues of Shakespeare’s own time, all this became so complex that it is really difficult to break the tangle at one point by teasing out a thread … So, I’d just try and start with what I remember as the beginning: SWENO – “the Norway’s king”.

 

It was just a coincidence, as he is in the second scene and was the first name that “lept out”. Was this Sweno just a name from Holinshed, and we don’t really know who he was, or was he a real king of Norway? Of course he was! In this case, a quick check with Wikipedia delivered everything I needed. (Wikipedia, by the way! I hope ChatGPT will not be the end of it. I was so happy to have it that I donated, for the first time, for online content. It sent me into the Scottish woods in the end, but not before I had retrieved great input about Gruoch, daughter of Boite mac Cinaede, the historical “Lady Macbeth”. There definitely is a story in it …) But first: Sweno = Svein Knutsson (1016-1035). He probably wasn’t even a king of Norway in his own right, but some kind of “pawn” of his father’s, the “great” King Canute who arranged a marriage with an English noblewoman and sent him over to govern. Svein was there only a few years and failed spectacularly campaigning in Scotland where he got cheated by King Donnchad I (“our” king Duncan) newly come to office upon the death of his father. He negotiated a peace with Sweno and provided his army generously with food and drink while they were waiting for the silver to be paid. During the night, Donnchad sent his “dux” (= general) Macbethad mac Findláech – the future king Macbeth! – with his troops to slaughter the inebriated Norsemen. Sweno himself got away and had to return to Norway where he died only about a year later at the age of eighteen or nineteen. I was thrilled as I now had a DATE for the beginning of “Macbeth”: 1034 – the year Donnchad took over as king and had to deal with the Norse invasion. The historical Donnchad was about the same age as Macbethad and got killed by him in battle in 1040 because he attacked Moray, Macbethad’s province, obviously thinking his former general had become insubordinate, and a threat. As it is known that Macbethad was defeated and killed in the battle at Dunsinane Hill in 1057 by Donnchad’s son Malcolm who invaded Scotland with the help of English troops provided by King Edward the Confessor, we have now gathered all the historical dates for “Macbeth”:

 

1034-1040 for Act I

 

1040 for Act II

 

1040-1057 for Act III-V

 

Of course, timelines like this don’t matter when a play is produced, but they provide this historical context that changes what kind of a story it is in my mind. And I wouldn’t have expected it to be so precise! On top of this, as it is in Holinshed – with just a few years difference – Shakespeare must have been aware of it.

 

Even though Wikipedia might have saved him a lot of time – as it did me! - it wouldn’t have furnished him with the STORIES the way Holinshed’s “Chronicle of Scotland” did. A surprising amount of detail about Macbeth, his contemporaries, and the broader history of Scotland ended up in the play, a lot of it as “historical background.” It is an artificial separation anyway – though not unimportant for my decision what kind of text I am reading! - but Holinshed let me revisit “Macbeth” as one of the “histories” as well as a “tragedy”. In truth, the historic anchor point is so obvious: both the crowns of Scotland and England coming together on one head with King James I.

 

I am tempted to start with the year 830 where great King Kenneth made WAR on the Picts, effectively annihilated them – BLOODbath! - and then moved the famous marble seat from Argyle to a place called SCONE; the seat on which the Scottish kings sit when they receive their crown. After this decisive victory, there follows a time of PEACE for Scotland as it has not seen in a long time, and would probably not see anytime soon, accompanied by extensive legislation. When King Kenneth dies in 856 and is BURIED AT COLMKILL, everthing is well.

 

Under his reign, for a few decades, Scotland also seems to have been as big as it would ever be, after he had pushed the Picts back to the fringes of Cumberland. Already under his successor, his brother Donald – apparently the first king having been CROWNED AT SCONE - the Britons and the ENGLISHmen join with the Picts pretending to help them get back their land – in truth, obviously, to lay their hands on it. Donald loses this WAR, and considerable BLOODshed ensues at the hands of the victors. A treaty is sealed that fixes the border with the Britains on the Clyde, the one with the English on the Forth. So, PEACE restored, at a considerable price, but this king doesn’t work out as well as his brother. He falls into such DEPRAVITY that he gets deposed and ends his life in prison in 860. (Obviously the first of quite a few rulers Macduff refers to whose vices have cost them their throne!)

 

Constantine, King Kenneth’s son, succeeds him and is CROWNED AT SCONE. He appears to have been a man of order and stern justice ( -> PEACE!) and is ascribed a part in having made the Scots as tough as they are still perceived in our day and age. Not a day too soon, one might say, as he is also the first king having to deal with a Norse invasion. The GREAT DANISH ARMY simultaneously covers England and Scotland with WAR, leaving chaos and BLOODshed in their wake. Kind Constantine is captured and MURDERed, and BURIED AT COLMKILL. The invaders continue into Northumberland where they anihilate the joint armies of King Osbert and King Ella – two more kings slain! - then East Anglia where King Edmund suffers the same fate. From a Scottish and English perspective, this is the beginning of very dark times.

 

Rather chaotic times too, politically, until Gregory, son of the Thane of Argyle, takes the reins of the kingdom, is CROWNED AT SCONE, and becomes an exceptional WARleader. He scores a decisive victory over the DANES at Berwick, pushes the Britons back behind the Welsh border for good and takes possession of York, which makes King Alfred remember the “old alliance” (against the Norse), granting Scotland possession of Northumbria in exchange for its loyalty. We are now in the year 780, and things are looking up for Scotland! A time of PEACE and quiet follows. Having restored order to his kingdom, Gregory dies, an old man, and is BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

The next CORONATION AT SCONE is for Donald V, a descendant of Constantine, who applies himself to keeping up the good order of Gregory’s reign (PEACE!), but there is “malice domestic brewing: a BLOODY CONFLICT between Rosse and Murreyland (= MORAY!). (CIVIL WAR) Even though the Thane of Rosse seems to have been the instigator, it ends with draconic measures against Moray. PEACE is restored. King Donald dies in 903 and is BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

Constantine the III succeeds him, son of Ethus, who has been king for a short time before Gregory. He is CROWNED AT SCONE and soon challenged by the ENGLISH kings Edward and his son Aethelstan for Cumberland, Northumbria and Westmoreland. This leads to an alliance between DANES and Scots which gets DEFEATED at Brunanburgh by the English under King Aethelstan. (The first English victory over the Scots inscribed into the “Making of England” story King Alfred “triggered” when his kingdom of Wessex first resisted the Norse invaders.). King Constantine dies in 942 and is BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

Malcolme, son of Donald, Constantine’s general, succeeds him as king in 942/43 and is CROWNED AT SCONE. Under his reign, the ALLIANCE between ENGLAND and Scotland is renewed. England under Aethelstan gains Northumberland, Scotland keeps Cumberland and Westmoreland. Indulphe, the son of Constantine III, is made PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND and heir to the crown of Scotland. (“Prince of Cumberland” having become a Scottish equivalent of the “Prince of Wales”, that is: the heir apparent – which Malcolm will become in “Macbeth”!) Scotland experiences a period of PEACE under a king who is looking after his subjects in worldly and spiritual matters. He gets MURDERed in 959 and BURIED AT COLMEKILL.

 

The heir apparent, Indulphe, is CROWNED AT SCONE. His nine years of reign are shaped by continuous WAR with the DANES. In league with the ENGLISH king Edmund he gains a decisive victory over the Northumbrian Danes which leads to another massive Danish and NORSE INVASION. Indulphe is slain in battle and BURIED AT COLMEKILL in 968.

 

His successor Duff, son of King Malcolme, is CROWNED AT SCONE. He has to deal with a REBELLION of the WESTERN ISLES, which results in his antagonizing the thanes there (– a problem that pops up in “Macbeth” when the rebel Macdonwald is recruiting from the isles!) A sickness of the king encourages further rebellions, with MORAY at the forefront. (There is also precedent for witches, as King Duff is healed after the witches who caused his illness are found out and executed.) The Captain in charge of the castle of Forres in Moray, Donwald, turns traitor when his kinsmen, who partook in the rebellion, are hanged. On the instigation of his wife – “though he abhorred the deed greatly” - he bribes his servants to MURDER King Duff in his sleep. He kills the servants and blames the murder on them. (The story of “Macbeth” therefore seems to be an amalgamation of the biography of the rebel Donwald and the actual King Macbeth!) After the murder, for months together, there is such bad weather that neither sun nor moon appear in the sky, outrageous lightnings and tempests are causing great destruction, and “unnatural” phenomena are reported, for example a sparrowhawk strangled by an owl, (some of which Shakespeare used in “Macbeth”.) Initially, the king’s body was buried in a ditch but got later recovered and BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

After having pursued the crime and dealt with the rebels in Moray, Culene, son of King Indulph and former PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND, is CROWNED AT SCONE in 972. He doesn’t work out in the way he initially promised as he succumbs to sensual lust – “sparing neither maid, widow, nor wife, …, sister nor daughter” – and neglects the administration of his kingdom. (DEPRAVITY!) He gets “punished” by contracting a “filthy disease” and is MURDERED by REBELLIOUS thanes in 976 and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (Obviously another of the depraved Scottish kings Macduff refers to in his conversation with Malcolm.)

 

Thereupon Kenneth, the son of King Malcolm I, is CROWNED AT SCONE. He is the exact opposite of Culene, a model king, but so severe in his execution of the law that he antagonizes his thanes and soon has REBELLION on his hands. After PEACE is restored, it is immediately threatened by a new DANISH INVASION. Again the king acts decisively and utterly destroys the invading army, but the notorious “Kernes of the WESTERN ISLES” perceive their chance to raid Rosse, other countries join the fray. King Kenneth suddenly has to deal with CIVIL WAR but again succeeds in restoring the PEACE and, this time, keep it for almost 20 years. He has his cousin Malcome, Prince of Cumberland and heir apparent, poisoned because he wants the throne to go to his own offspring (MURDER!), and has a law passed for succession by birthright. His own son Malcolm is made PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND. (I found it interesting that Malcolm passed the law using the same reasoning as Shakespeare did indirectly: to keep the peace. Garantied succession by birth should forestall rebellion because, if there is an heir apparent, killing the king to get the throne won’t work - but, in both cases: Just see what happened!) Malcolm ultimately repents and does penance to avert divine retribution. Nonetheless he gets MURDERED by a relative of the murdered cousin in 994 and BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

The legislation King Kenneth instigated under the pretence of preventing rebellion had the opposite effect. REBELLION raises its head instantly upon his death when a rival king, Constantine, gets himself CROWNED AT SCONE. Malcolme, the PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND and heir apparent, raises an army. (CIVIL WAR … again!) Whilst the country is divided, King Edward (alternatively: Ethelred?) entreats Malcolm for help against the DANES. Whilst Malcolm is fighting in England, his cousin meets Constantine in battle at the Forth. Constantine is killed and, as he was crowned at Scone, inevitably BURIED AT COLMEKILL in the year 1002.

 

Grime (or Gryme – does he really have a Norse name = Grim???), brother of Malcolm, gathers the remains of Constantine’s following behind him and gets himself CROWNED AT SCONE. Because of the accomplished fact Malcolm has to negotiate. He gets the rule of Cumberland, and succession is granted to him and his heirs. Grime turns out as the most abominable tyrant and oppressor (- another example of the misdemeanor Macduff laments!) to the point that his nobles REBEL and make WAR upon him. He is defeated, dies of his wounds, and is BURIED AT COLMEKILL in 1010.

 

Malcolm summons the thanes to Scone but refuses to take the crown before his father’s succession legislation is confirmed. After that he gets CROWNED AT SCONE and becomes an exemplary king. Justice is “ministered (…) throughout the kingdom, with such equity and uprightness, as had not been heard of in any age before him …” So, finally, BLISS!!! Of course not! This is the moment (the first) Sueno – in Holinshed apparently the father of “our” Sweno from “Macbeth” – invades England with a large army of Danes, Norsemen, Swedes and Goths. WAR again, and the old ALLIANCE of ENGLAND and Scotland against the NORSE threat is revived. It suffers a disastrous defeat which leads to England temporarily falling under Norse reign. DARK TIMES indeed - for England AND Scotland because Sueno continues his campaign in the North, taking Moray. After many BLOODY battles, though, Malcolm can persuade the invaders to leave Scotland. Follows a time of PEACE, but Malcolm cannot settle the internal conflicts and is slain by REBELS in 1034, and, of course, BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

His grandson DUNCAN succeeds him and is CROWNED AT SCONE. His general is Macbeth, who is also his first cousin (their mothers being both daughters of Duncan). His reign begins PEACEfully, but he is a weak king and soon has to deal with REBELLION against Banquo, Thane of Lochaber and King Duncan’s steadfast ally. He sends Banquo and Macbeth to deal with the rebels under Macdonwald who is recruiting “Kernes and Gallowglasses” from the WESTERN ISLES. (CIVIL WAR again!) They defeat the rebels; Macdonwald kills himself. “Justice and law restored again” (PEACE!) But not for long, as SUENO, King of NORWAY, arrives at Fife with a mighty army to bring the whole of Scotland under his reign. (WAR!) Duncan is defeated and retires to Bertha where he is besieged by the Danes; meanwhile Macbeth gathers a new army. As their provisions are running out, Duncan can persuade Sueno to raise the siege. The food and drink he sends are “spiced” in a manner to induce sleep. During the night Macbeth arrives with his troops to slaughter the Norse. (Massive BLOODshed!) Sueno escapes with a few of his followers and sails back to Norway. Dealing with the remaining Norse, Macbeth gets a fair amount of gold out of them for letting them bury their dead at St. Colme’s Inch. PEACE restored ,,, (These events, occurring in the sixth year of Duncan’s reign, deliver the context of “Macbeth” and are related rather faithfully and in great detail at the beginning of the play – apart from the fact that the Danes were not vanquished in battle but betrayed and slaughtered in their sleep, which would have put such a damper on heroism!)

 

(In like detail Shakespeare uses the following) encounter of Macbeth and Banquo with the three “weird sisters” on their way to meet King Duncan. “Whereupon Macbeth devises how he might attain the kingdom.” Even more so, apparently, his ambitious wife “brenning in unquenchable fire to bear the name of Queen.” He gathers supporters, “amongst whom Banquo was the chiefest”, and MURDERS king Duncan in the sixth year of his reign. His body is CARRIED TO COLMKILL.

 

Macbeth “usurpeth the crown” and gets himself CROWNED AT SCONE. We are now in the year 1046. The sons of Duncan, Malcolm and Donald Bane escape from Scotland and are taken in by the English King S. Edward, son of Etheldred, and the Irish king respectively. In the beginning, Macbeth becomes an exemplary king who “set his whole intention to maintain justice and to punish all enormities and abuses which had chanced through the feeble and flouthful administration of Duncan.” Even though he administers justice with outstanding brutality, people, at long last, enjoy “ good PEACE and tranquility”. He also passes a good deal of legislation, mostly for the benefit and security of the crown. (I had read in Wikipedia that he was surnamed “the Red” – which made me automatically think of red hair. Probably the most likely explanation, but, reading Holinshed, another interpretation came to mind: BLOOD on his hands???) This cruel streak seems to have grown throughout his reign. “He began to show what he was, instead of equity practising cruelty. For the prick of conscience (…) caused him ever to fear, least he should be served the same cup as he had ministered to his predecessor.” (Here Shakespeare even dug into the imagery!) He arranges for Banquo and his son Fleance to be MURDERed, but Fleance escapes into Wales, and there follows a lengthy account of how his descendants became the house of STEWARD (to the king) and ultimately ascended to the throne of Scotland which they did currently hold. (Quite an important contemporary issue, as we shall see …) Macduff, the Thane of Fife, joins Malcolm in England to help him get the Scottish crown. (REBELLION!) As soon as Macbeth learns this, he sends people to Fife to MURDER his family. Malcolm obtains ten thousand soldiers under the command of Syward, Earl of Northumberland, to invade Scotland, and Macduff facilitates his plan by communicating with the Scottish nobility. CIVIL WAR ensues. Macbeth withdraws to his fortress at Dunsinane. He is put to flight and slain by Macduff (- very much in the way Shakespeare tells it in his play -) in the year 1057. It appears that, as a “usurper”, he is not buried at Colmkill. (The issue of rightful succession and usurpation of the throne will be the subject of further discussion.)

 

Malcolm gets CROWNED AT SCONE and immediately sets upon repairing the rift the rebellion caused by calling a Parliament and advancing many of the Nobles, giving them the title and privileges of (ENGLISH) earls. So, PEACE reigns again in Scotland …

 

This was an extremely condensed extract of Holinshed’s “Cronicle of Scotland” from great King Kenneth to great King Malcolm (surnamed “Big Head” according to Wikipedia, which might be a physical description but, more likely in my opinion, due to his importance as a ruler). There is much more, especially about the reign of King Macbeth which I will examine further. (On his account, it seems, the master of historical empiricism and tedious detail, Holinshed, temporarily aspired to become the Ken Follett of his age. Steep template for Shakespeare who doesn’t see the need to invent anything.) But, at the moment, I will do the contrary and condense the account even further, leaving out all the specifics and concentrate on the recurring features that, in my perceptions, stood out:

 

830) King Kenneth. WAR. BLOODbath. PEACE. BURIED AT COLMKILL. (856) King Donald CROWNED AT SCONE. ENGLISH invasion. WAR. BLOODshed. PEACE. DEPRAVITY. Downfall. (860) King Constantine CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. DANISH invasion. WAR. BLOODbath. King Constantine MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. Intervall of chaos. (870) King Gregory CROWNED AT SCONE. WAR against the DANES. Victory. PEACE. King Gregory BURIED AT COLMKILL. King Donald V CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. CIVIL WAR. BLOODshed. PEACE. King Donald BURIED AT COLMKILL. (903) Constantine III CROWNED AT SCONE. ENGLISH aggression. Alliance with the DANES. WAR. Defeat. King Constantine BURIED AT COLMKILL. (942/43) King Malcolme CROWNED AT SCONE. Alliance with ENGLAND. PEACE. Indulphe PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND. King Malcolm MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (959) King Indulphe CROWNED AT SCONE. WAR with the DANES. Alliance with ENGLAND. NORSE invasion. More WAR. King Indulphe slain in battle and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (968) King Duff CROWNED AT SCONE. REBELLION. King Duff MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (972) King Culene, fomer PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND, CROWNED AT SCONE. DEPRAVITY. REBELLION. King Culene MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (976) King Kenneth CROWNED AT SCONE. REBELLION. PEACE restored. DANISH invasion. WAR. Victory. REBELLION. CIVIL WAR. PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND MURDERed. King Kenneth MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (994) King Constantine CROWNED AT SCONE. REBELLION. Malcolm, PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND, raises an army. CIVIL WAR. Alliance with ENGLAND against the DANES. King Constantine slain in battle and BURIED AT COLMEKILL. (1002) King Grime CROWNED AT SCONE. Tyranny. REBELLION and CIVIL WAR. King Grime slain and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (1010) King Malcolm CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. NORSE invasion. Alliance with ENGLAND. WAR. BLOODshed. Utter defeat. Agreement with the Norse. PEACE restored. King Malcolm slain by REBELS and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (1034). King Duncan CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. REBELLION and CIVIL WAR. PEACE restored. NORSE invasion. Norse defeated and slaughtered (BLOODshed). PEACE restored. King Duncan MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (1046) King Macbeth CROWNED AT SCONE. Malcolm, PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND exiled to ENGLAND. PEACE. Tyranny (BLOODshed.) Former ally Banquo MURDERed. REBELLION. CIVIL WAR. Malcolm invades Scotland in alliance with the ENGLISH. King Macbeth slain. (1057) King Malcolm CROWNED at SCONE. PEACE restored …

 

So, that’s two hundred and thirty years of Scottish history in a nutshell. And there IS a bit of a pattern, isn’t there? Speaking of CIRCULAR … I usually don’t see history in this way because I don’t think it’s interesting. For me history is this river we don’t jump in twice, but the trouble is that the water doesn’t feel so different at times – especially “dark times”! At the moment, it feels as if “we” - as Europe – might have arrived at such a juncture. It’s still not so bad where I am, but heavy clouds are gathering, the past raises the ugliest of its many heads, and there is very little in terms of a a silver lining …

Interlude: „My Macbeth“ - Instruments of darkness

Now to something completely different: I´ll give myself a break from all the heavy stuff and am working on my own production of “Macbeth” which has substantially evolved lately – that is, since London. And I have like a billion more ideas than I had for my first version, especially about the weird sisters which, in my ideal production, would not be somewhere on the side but kind of the pivotal part – the one we need to actually UNDERSTAND the play.

 

The essential idea to implement this was the one about them being INSTRUMENTS OF DARKNESS = essential agents in the spreading of evil. The idea is that this should be visible on the stage as much as possible. So, in my inner production of “Macbeth”, they wouldn’t be underprivileged - though subconsciously dreaded - parts of some marginalized social “minority”. And they should be seen to be actively plotting and planning. So, my newest idea is that they’d be real AGENTS – that is: spooks! This would entail that they could be on the stage ALL THE TIME without anybody noticing, taking on all kinds of different disguises, revealing themselves only to the people they “target”.

 

Every decision we take about how a certain element would show on the stage, though, entails that there are aspects we have to “ditch” which would also be nice to have or even essential. In my first imaginary production of “Macbeth” it seemed really important to me that the weird sisters actually be SISTERS, that is, visibly so. I wanted them to be triplets, or at least extremely similar in appearance. There was also the element of the androgynous in imagining them extremely thin, kind of emaciated. Both of these ideas got ditched, respectively modified, as my understanding of the sisters evolved. The reason behind the sisters really being sisters is, as I explained, their relation to the Greek Fates. That I ditched this idea had - apart from practical reasons, as to casting triplets! – its origin in the way my imagined production has evolved. In the beginning, I had kind of a “timeless” version in mind – with smartphones and swords, and mythical beings or spirits of nature roaming alongside people in combat uniforms and pinstripe suits. Now it has become decidedly contemporary. And even though I think that the idea of FATE should be born in mind, to “spell it out” on a 21st century stage wouldn’t be much use because few people would automatically associate triplets with Greek goddesses anyway. (I, with a master in literary criticism, did not!)

 

The second idea – about them being androgynous - stemmed from the part where Banquo and Macbeth are meeting the sisters on the heath and don’t know what to make of them. In my opinion, they should be confused and scared – or put on their guard – as Elizabethans would be by an encounter with witches, or rather people they SUSPECT might be witches! But as I definitely don’t want old hags with beards, and witches are as pointless on a 21st century stage as creatures from Greek mythology, there has to be a manner how the effect of confusion and repulsion could be achieved. Obviously – and, of course, regrettably – queerness still is a good vehicle to at least indicate this. Having had to protest against the ban of gender-appropriate language for the administration, universities and schools in Bavaria has made me unpleasantly aware that there is still so much irrational fear attached to these issues.

 

But there is also a semantic aspect which I think is important. Banquo and Macbeth should be very uncertain about what to make of the sisters, NOT obviously afraid or repulsed, as they should be meeting witches, but rather curious and intrigued. I think Shakespeare makes a very strong point about the INDISTINCTNESS of the sisters, way beyond them possibly being witches. Had Macbeth – or Banquo! – been CERTAIN about their association with evil, they would instantly have distanced themselves from them. Macbeth is clearly shown as somebody with strong and clear moral principles – maybe strongest by his remorse after the murder of Duncan which - interestingly! - doesn’t ever seem to end up on the stage. But I think the “vapour” around the weird sister comes very handy in what he REALLY wants: a reason to throw these principles overboard. And Banquo is very suspicious, and seems strongly principled as well, but is prepared to take the weird sisters on board as his “oracles”. This is how “instruments of darkness” work: by stealth and “equivocation” = playing on the expectations and secret aspirations of people by “double-dealing”. That Banquo is also vulnerable makes it clear that Macbeth is essentially the same: not special or “flawed” from the start, but a human being with good principles and essential weaknesses which make them susceptible to evil. – So – “in conclusion” - to translate the element of irrational fear but also fascination and curiosity, I decided that my sisters should be non-binary people or transsexuals.

 

My preference would be non-binary people, but this would be more difficult to achieve – as to casting non-binary actors; actors playing transsexuals wouldn’t necessarily have to BE transsexuals! – and not as effective on the stage, I believe. So, in my ideal “Macbeth”, I’d have two trans-women and one trans-man as weird sisters though this might not be as satisfactory aesthetically as a more uniform set-up. It would certainly have to be tested …

 

There are such a number of perks to the sisters being spooks that I am getting more and more excited about it. But there is also one major drawback. In general, actually “using” the sisters as instruments of darkness makes us focus on the darkness as a major issue, and we cannot just avoid the issue, or vaguely put it on the war as the source of all evil. But still everybody can decide for themselves what they think about it. If the sisters are spies, there are political implications we might not want. My first idea was that they would be Norse spies, but couldn’t see what was to be gained from that. The other possibility, that they might be English spies, appears a lot more promising … At the moment I am excited by the idea, but it isn’t completely thought through and might not work out.

 

I plan to write a historical post about “Macbeth” soon, not only but also in order to make up my mind about this issue. Anyway, “we” only THINK we can avoid the question about evil by ignoring or marginalizing it, or vaguely pinning it on war, there is always a statement involved. For example, if the weird sisters are refugees or bag-people, the evil gets located in society, or capitalism, and – maybe to my own surprise?! – I don’t want that. At least I do not think that it provides a useful context for understanding the play.

 

So, enough of the preliminaries, now to the fun part:

 

Act 1,1

 

Thunder, lightning, rain … A storm brewing. A bit of vegetation in the foreground to indicate the “blasted heath”. (Absolutely classic “Macbeth” – up to THIS point!) The exterior of a ruined building in the background is illuminated by lightning. There is a partly functional neon writing above the door, reading: “The Heath”. Discarded weapons and bits of military gear, body parts and a couple of dead bodies are scattered about the stage.

 

Enter the weird sisters in combat uniforms, carrying guns and backpacks which they throw down centre-stage, close to the ramp. The first sister – who is a trans-man with short hair, shorter than the others and quite muscular - is checking on the building, gun at the ready. The second sister (a trans-woman) is retrieving something from her rucksack (torch, cigarettes, phone), the third (another trans-woman) is checking her watch. (I continue to refer to them all as “she”, as I continue to refer to them as “sisters” and can’t ask them which pronouns they’d prefer.) They are in a hurry.

 

Third sister (matter-of-factly, checking her watch and looking at the others): “When shall we three meet again?”

 

First sister (coming forward and looking disgustedly up at the sky): “In thunder, lightning, or in rain!” (= is it always raining in this f…ing country?)

 

Second sister (lighting a cigarette and pointing it at the surrounding mess, dismissively): “When the hurly-burly’s done. When the battle’s lost and won.” (= when all the unnecessary commotion is over and done with)

 

Third sister (looking around, judging the situation): “That will be ere the set of sun.” (= not long now!)

 

First sister (practically): “Where the place? (= Where do you propose?)

 

Third sister (pointing her cigarette at the derelict building): “At “The Heath”?”

 

Second sister (grinning, slyly): “There to meet with Macbeth!”

 

There is a commotion in the background. They sisters suddenly get together in a half-circle, arms around each other’s shoulders, like footballers before a match, shouting: “The weird sisters, hand in hand, posters to the sea and land!”

 

They separate while other soldiers run or stumble across the stage. One goes down on hands and knees in front of them, close to the ramp, panting and heavily bleeding. One of the fallen soldiers unfreezes and robs inconspicuously towards the back of the stage. The second sister throws her pack and gun over her shoulder and joins other soldiers running past, leaving the stage with them. The first crouches and freezes until the commotion has passed her, then moves towards the soldier creeping across the floor. She retrieves a serrated combat blade from her boot and kills him, then checks his backpack and pockets. She stealthily disappears while Duncan and entourage are marching onto the stage. The third sister shrugs and retreats to the entrance of the derelict building where she switches on the light above the entrance. She is getting out of her uniform, then retrieves a short, glittery dress, fishnet stockings and high heels from her backpack and leisurely dresses and puts on make-up using a small hand-mirror. Together with extras in combat trousers and muscle shirts she transforms the back of the ruined building into a makeshift bar, adding a counter, beer-pull and glasses, and putting bottles into recesses and window-sills in the wall. A camping table and folding chairs are added, and a couple of beer crates, which have just been emptied, are added as additional seats. Two extras are sitting down at the table, getting served drinks and starting to play cards. The others leave, taking most of the “rubble” and body parts with them. At some point, the first sister enters, grabs a bottle of beer off the counter and drops down on a beer crate in the foreground of the bar, alternately drinking and checking/writing messages on her phone. The third sister has retired behind the bar, wiping glasses with a bored look on her face. This takes until the end of scene two.

 

(The most important element, in my opinion, in making a stage-production aesthetically convincing, is a sense of the time that is passing, and a sense of timing. One of the reasons I liked the Stratford Macbeth was the “countdown” which gave a sense of urgency and temporal unity to the production that structured everything time-wise kind of “on its own”. I think my own “time-scheme” would be a little more complicated. There should be a sense of bustle and a lot going on on the stage in very fast succession, as in the first scene, most of the time – many extras, which might be a problem! - but also intervals of slowing-down and extreme quiet in between when there are “intimate” scenes, as Lady Macbeth reading the letter, or the conversations between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, or Macbeth and Banquo and so on. These parts might also be set apart by strong lighting suddenly illuminating the scene, or parts of the scene where the main action is playing, whereas the “commotion” is going on in the background, though maybe slowed-down and muted. There should be a strong sense of “dark dealings” and things we don’t know going on in the background CONTINUALLY, and the audience just getting glimpses of them, predominantly through the actions of the weird sisters.)

 

Act 1,2

 

The “bloody man” in the foreground is questioned by Malcolm and Duncan and is helped away by red cross staff as Ross enters, delivers his tale and receives his commission from Duncan. Duncan and followers are leaving the stage on the left/opposite side of the makeshift bar. Lennox and Ross consult briefly and leave in the opposite direction. The spotlight moves to the bar.

 

Act 1,3

 

Enters the second sister, now in some kind of suit with high heels and offensive lipstick, hands and arms covered in blood up to her elbows.

 

The third sister (throwing her a towel and kind of annoyed): “Where hast thou been, sister?" (We were waiting for you!!!)

 

The second sister (obviously lying): “Killing swine.” (As if you don’t know!)

 

The first sister has turned the attention off her phone and is listening avidly, her elbows propped on her knees. The second sister notices her and turns towards her:

 

Second sister: “Sister where thou?”

 

First sister (bouncing to her feet, grinning broadly): “A sailor’s wife had chestnuts in her lap, and munched and munched. ‘Give me!’ quoth I. ‘Aroint thee, dyke!’ the rump-fed ronyon cries. Her husband’s to Aleppo gone, master of the Tiger.” (Drumming on the counter, kind of rapping, making the glasses rattle.) “And in a sieve I’ll thither sail, and like a rat without a tail, I’ll do, I’ll do, and I’ll do.”

 

All three laughing and meeting in front of the counter, with hugs and blown kisses.

 

Third sister (with an obscene gesture): “ I’ll give thee a wind.”

 

First sister (giggling): “Thou art kind.”

 

Second sister (mimicking the third): “And I another.”

 

First sister (snorting uncontrollably, indicating the same gesture but instead doubling over with giggling): I myself have all the other. (She retrieves a beer bottle from the counter and drinks, then leans back on the counter and, with sudden vengefullness: ) ” I’ll drain him dry as hay. Sleep shall neither night nor day hang upon his pent-house lid. He shall live a man forbid. Weary sev’nights nine times nine …”

 

The second sister has retrieved a small bloody item wrapped in a handkerchief from the pocket of her suit, partly removes the wrapping and shoves it into the first sister’s face. (Triumphantly): “Look what I have!” (Doesn’t THIS come in handy?)

 

Third sister (moving towards her, avidly trying to grab the item): “Show me, show me!”

 

Second sister (moving the item up and out of reach): “Here I have a pilot’s thumb, …”

 

Macbeth and Banquo have arrived at the doorlike opening to one side of the counter. One of them is knocking the back of the wall forcefully as if asking for permission to enter.

 

Second sister: “… wrecked as homeward he did come.”

 

First sister (at the same time, hissing, warningly): “Macbeth does come!”

 

She drops back onto her beer crate, retrieving her phone and tapping with both thumbs, seemingly uncaring about the goings on in the background. The second sister removes behind the counter, trying to conceal “the evidence”. The third sister has moved in front of her and takes up polishing glasses and looking bored. Neither is taking any notice of the two men entering, as if they were customers in a crowded bar. One of the card-players throws his hand on the table, laughing. The others are reluctantly moving their money across the table towards him.

 

Spot on Macbeth and Banquo in the foreground, looking round and kind of adjusting their eye while the rest of the stage goes almost dark. The lighting in the background is brightening slowly, revealing the three sisters. The first sister is now leaning with her back against the counter, arms crossed. The second is standing to one side of the counter, one hand on top, legs crossed. The third sister behind her counter has stopped polishing, towel and glass still in her hands. All three are staring.

 

Banquo (kind of whispering to Macbeth and visibly disconcerted): “What are these – so wild in their attire they look not like the inhabitants of the earth and yet are on it?” (When the staring silence becomes intolerable, he moves forward with an effort to address the sisters): “ Live you, or are you ought that man may question?” (The sisters raise their fingers to their lips in a uniform gesture of mockery but otherwise stay immovable apart from a slight grin. Banquo continues, slightly angered: ) “You seem to understand me – by each at once laying her finger upon her skinny lips. (Moving forward, curiosity suddenly getting the upper hand: ) ” You should be women, and yet your looks forbid me to interpret that you are so!”

 

Macbeth, who had stood back with a bemused expression joins him (authoritatively, in a no-nonsense tone: ) “Speak, if you can! What are you?”

 

The spot has now moved to the sisters. They suddenly seem to have morphed into different beings, just for the moment, looking stern and remote.

 

The third sister (in a deep voice): “All hail Macbeth. (Pause) Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis!”

 

The first sister: “All hail Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor!”

 

Macbeth, who has moved forward upon being addressed (correctly), freezes. He now stands slightly to one side of the second sister who turns towards him, an eery grin on her face. (Mockingly): “All hail Macbeth! That shalt be king hereafter.”

 

Macbeth’s face “falls”.

 

(to be continued)

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”.

 

“What’t wrong with Macbeth?” part 2: The “Stratford Macbeth”

From where I am standing now, my experience with the “Stratford Macbeth” - as I now refer to the production - was incomplete, partly because I didn’t SEE everything – there is a limit to what you can see of the acting if you are looking down on the top of the actors’ heads most of the time - but predominantly because of my own limited perspective on the play and the resulting expectations – as if I couldn’t see the woods because of all the trees … The production wasn’t spectacular, in an obvious way, and I think, even if not consciously, every time I expect anew to be dazzled by a “sparkling”, brand-new “Macbeth”. Compared to my inner “Macbeth”, this one felt reduced: all these great scenarios and landscapes crammed into some kind of dusty, limited space: a bedroom where the three little sisters are playing with their dolls – they WERE triplets, by the way! A hospital room where the already decrepit Duncan rises awkwardly from his bed to greet the conquering heroes, and so on … A “compressed”, dreary reality, not just where space is concerned but also “time-wise”: at the murder of Duncan a digital stop watch is set to be counting downwards for two hours, and the porter – here more like a sinister caretaker – is always there in the background, making the count of the dead with chalk on a brick wall … In my imagination the world of “Macbeth” had always been “bigger” – more glamorous, more scary …? But to make the woods appear behind all the trees, REDUCTION turned out to be a good thing.

 

The other thing I had so wrong – and why it proved so useful to go through all these experiences again as I did – was that I always focused – and put the whole tragedy – on the main protagonist. I had liked the Stratford “Macbeth” mainly because I finally saw a Macbeth who was like a human being I could understand, and I liked it even better in the aftermath, when I read an interview with Chris Eccleston which contained rather a few things I could connect with – though I only remember his scepticism about the issue of manliness and the male image which was really revealing. (The biographical background and the striking sensitivity of the interviewer conveyed an impression of him as a totally “no bullshit” person who knows what he wants and what he can do, and would call a spade a spade no matter what others might call it. Which rather corresponds with what I have seen of his acting that always struck me as exceptionally honest – in the sense that he just wouldn’t do anything he isn’t completely convinced about.) And I liked it still more, watching the DVD again, finally able to put the pieces together and appreciate how precise his acting was, and also what everybody had done on that stage. Obviously, Chris Eccleston pulled his weight, but it also became clear that I had to shift my focus. “The Tragedie of Macbeth” is in fact a misleading title, though not, as I thought, because of the “tragedy” bit. This was actually the moment where I saw the woods appear behind the trees and understood that an important part of what’s wrong with Macbeth were just my own expectation. In a very literal sense that had gradually be dawning on me, even Macbeth is ONLY JUST HUMAN

 

. But before I come to the bigger picture, I’ll come to the details of the production, that is, the “positives”:

 

HUMOUR

 

Compared to other “dark” plays like “Othello”, “Richard III” (which I have down as Shakespeare’s best comedy!), even “Hamlet”, “Macbeth” seems rather devoid of humour. At least I can’t see it, apart from a very dark irony that is not really a laughing matter. This kind was well represented by the porter, or rather “caretaker”, taking care of death in the manner his colleagues in the sixties took care of the facilities in their schools or apartment blocks: not over-enthusiastically. A subtle hint not to take all the fuss too seriously. “Things at the worst will change …” It will probably all be reset in two hours. The humour in “Macbeth” is kind of an underhand affair, but it is there. In retrospect – and apart from the “Shakespeare Retold” that wasn’t really Shakespeare – this production was actually the funniest I have seen, but there might be room for improvement …?

 

I forgot to mention the Globe Theatre’s “Macbeth” in my general survey, which I also have on DVD (– makes me wonder how many more I may have seen and dismissed!?) It wasn’t one of the worst, though not very entertaining or surprising either, with Macbeth meeting the usual clichés; but one scene stood out which usually belongs to the boring bits: the meeting between Macduff and Malcolm at the English court which they played as a funny scene – as if Macduff didn’t take Malcolm quite seriously. Strictly speaking, that doesn’t really work, but it made me aware of the absurdity of the situation Macbeth has initiated. It was a bit like “The Death of Stalin” which is in fact a funny film that gives you the creeps: Sometimes humour is much better at making us see how WRONG things are than highlighting the atrocities we got used to a long time ago. (This totally changes, of course, as soon as they start happening TO US!) I notice that I am still undecided about humour in “Macbeth”; the play cannot be the exception to my rule that “Shakespeare” without humour is not “Shakespeare”. The two kinds I detected so far certainly worked.

 

MADNESS

 

The single feature I am most grateful for – apart from Christopher Eccleston playing Macbeth! – was the ABSENCE OF MADNESS. At least where Macbeth is concerned. His Macbeth didn’t go mad, and as this was the best Macbeth I have seen on a stage, I know now that I have been right all this time. It totally works!

 

As I have to raise the issue of madness at some point and it never seems to fit in, I’ll do it now. I have always been totally convinced that it is not just unnecessary for Macbeth to go mad but a distortion of the story. Lady Macbeth’s madness, in my opinion, is a completely different affair, and I’ll come to that. There are two points, though, that have to be cleared up about Macbeth and madness. The first one is that he “sees things” that other people cannot see. On an Elizabethan stage, Macbeth panicking because he sees Banquo’s spirit in the banquet scene whereas nobody else can see him would have been greeted as first rate entertainment. Nobody would have wondered about his state of mind because the kind of psychological consistency “we” are trying to create on a stage didn’t apply. WE would certainly want to make up our mind about WHAT KIND OF GUY this Macbeth is – or at least the actor would want to do that. And THIS guy already HAS seen or heard things nobody else could see or hear.

 

There probably is a significant contradiction between my awareness that psychology was of little consequence on an Elizabethan stage and my conviction that Shakespeare’s real calling was the workings of the human mind and soul. I have actually no clue how to overcome this contradiction – thrilling because this tells me I must be wrong about SOMETHING – yeah!!! - but my experience is that in most cases I examined a convincing psychological explanation could be found, either by me or some actor who played it. They are, of course, almost always reductive. Unless proved otherwise, the opposite might work just as well. Still, I am always looking for consistencies. And I found one, I think, about Macbeth “seeing things”.

 

Of course, all of this stuff about Banquo appearing on the stage in person and the dagger being there for everybody to see or not initially is about what works on the stage, not about psychology. Usually, the dagger is not really there for the audience to see, and that seems entirely consistent. In the banquet scene sometimes different solutions are tried out. Claudia reported one where they repeated the scene the first time without Banquo, the second time with him (or the other way round?). Not having seen it, I cannot imagine what this would achieve. In the “Stratford Macbeth” they only brought in Banquo at the second “call” and played the beginning of the scene without him. Not a bad idea because it brings in a sense of escalation. I am always slightly pissed off that the ghost never enters on Macbeth’s call, but this is actually intended. I checked the first folio, and there the ghost turns up both times BEFORE Macbeth mentions Banquo. I’d like to find an explanation for this!

 

(Oh – and I might have done so! That’s my “easter egg”, see below …)

 

Looking at it through psychological glasses, the bodily appearance brings the AGGRAVATION of a situation that has been there already before Macbeth has any reason to become “mad” = before the killing of Duncan. It could be seen as obsession. Macbeth becomes obsessed with the idea of the murder and conjures the dagger and the atmosphere of darkness and horror to go with it. It is something that Lady Macbeth does as well – strategically! – when she conjures the “spirits” that must be somewhere out there to “tend on mortal thoughts” and help her follow through with her evil plan; but there is a difference. Only a slight difference in the beginning, but Macbeth doesn’t have to conjure the dagger, he SEES the dagger, and THEN the mental image initiates the other fantasies. After the murder, Macbeth is visibly shocked, whereas his wife is not affected RIGHT THEN in the same way; her attempt at convincing herself that “the sleeping and the dead are but as pictures” and it is “the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil” works for the time being. She cannot deal with the blood, as we will see, whereas Macbeth is dealing with it on the spot – which actually gives him a better chance of overcoming the trauma! In my opinion, he doesn’t “crack” later – that is: become dysfunctional - whereas his wife does. He also hears voices in the aftermath of the murder - whereas Lady Macbeth only hears what is really there - and gets so scared that we must assume they are real for him. Again, this gives him an opportunity to mentally deal with what has happened.

 

So, when Banquo actually appears on the stage, this is an aggravation of something that has occurred before, especially as it now becomes public, but also because it has become impossible for him to attribute it to his imagination as he did with the dagger; and the audience can appreciate the climax when Banquo turns up for real – if only because of the shock effect. - It struck me recently, thinking about this scene, that the excuse Lady Macbeth makes for his behaviour – that he has been like this “from his youth” – might not have been entirely made up. She is the one who knows that he has seen things – the only one he could have told about the “air-drawn dagger”. It is something that comes to her at this moment to use – something she has never really understood about her husband: that he has this vivid imagination which makes him get awe-struck and over-excited quite easily. In fact, this already plays a role in the beginning, considering how different he and Banquo react to the weird sisters, respectively in the way this misunderstanding is created about how to deal with the prophecies: Macbeth still “toys” with the possibility of killing Duncan – as ONE option that, in my opinion, he never really intended to see through! – whereas for his wife it’s an unequivocal call to action.

 

This “disposition” might not really have caused a problem BEFORE HE MET THE WEIRD SISTERS. Thinking this through, it struck me how fundamentally Shakespeare deals with the reality of EVIL in “Macbeth”. It would definitely go beyond any scope to reflect to what extent “we” have come to rationalize evil, almost to the point of total denial, and how impressed I was therefore – and still am! – by Tolkien having reinstated it as a REALITY that CAN be defeated … In “Macbeth”, the evil is equally real – that is: existent “outside” of evil people and their “timely” dealings - but we tend to rationalize it away by marginalizing its “instruments” or putting a piece of actual reality in its place we think we understand - like war in the National Theatre’s “Macbeth” with Rory Kinnear. But even if we were able to understand it, there would be little chance to defeat it because the devil cannot be targeted directly, and his ways are entirely too clever for us. I think that, in coming in contact with the weird sisters, the inherent danger in Macbeth’s condition becomes aggravated because his human weaknesses are the places where evil can take root. In more than one respect, the aggravation of his “infirmity” endangers his own state of mind and, like a virus, makes evil spread to other people. The banquet scene is such an important step in Macbeth’s downfall because it damages his standing as king and therefore the loyalty of his followers, and, “in conclusion”, the institution of kingship itself. A state of affairs that, in Shakespeare’s world, can only beget tyranny.

 

Having come so far, I can suddenly see that the second aspect of madness in “Macbeth” – the more important one – is in fact closely linked to the first. I always had this feeling that this change from a basically decent person in the beginning into a bloody tyrant – to be crammed into two hours of stage time! – is impossible to explain – or represent – convincingly. There the madness helps, but the reason I fundamentally object is that it achieves nothing apart from “explaining” everything “away”. It sweeps aside psychology together with any social and political implications which, I think, Shakespeare laid down in depth. The problem is, as so often in “Shakespeare”, that it is actually MORE complicated than I – or most directors dealing with the play – are prepared to consider. There are psychological reasons – like stress and fear – AND social reasons – like distrust and isolation – AND political reasons, as I just explained, that alter Macbeth, AND, on top of all that, EVIL as this kind of catalyst that nobody can predict or understand … The human being Macbeth struggles with all of them, and the struggle might sometimes make him appear insane because he has put himself into such a perverse position. But, in my opinion, this struggle shouldn’t be shown as a mental condition.

 

So, I am surprised one more time of how much can be achieved by taking psychological issues in “Shakespeare” seriously! – Not so good: In fact, I must appear mad to anybody but myself given the amount of time I have now spent on this already epic treatise that nobody will ever read, neglecting my health, my household duties, my social relationships and probably my work – and still It feels as if I have only scratched the surface. It is obvious that this kind of complexity can never be adequately represented on a stage. My inner “Macbeth” may contain all this and try to find solutions, but in an actual stage situation lines have to be cut and decisions have to be made. In fact, the “Stratford Macbeth” showed me the meaning of “adding by subtracting”.

 

THE LADY

 

As I already mentioned, in the case of Lady Macbeth madness is entirely acceptable, probably even necessary. I still think there will be a post about the lady, and this one is already too long, so I am just stating it at this point. Nonetheless, I don’t like it. I didn’t like Niamh Cusack running about the stage like a crazy hen, and I didn’t like her acting which seemed to me overdone and without depth. When I watched it again recently, I didn’t like it much better, but it suddenly made sense. I saw that I had dismissed her Lady Macbeth more on a point of principle than bad acting because I hate Lady Macbeth being shown as weak and damaged FROM THE START. She has to be the one who has this sway over Macbeth to turn him around, she cannot be this pitiful creature … This time, the broadening of my perspective in the meantime allowed me to see what they were doing. I still don’t think that it is what Shakespeare has written, but what he has written might not be what serves his purpose best under any circumstances. In the context of THIS production, the relationship between Macbeth and his wife had to be clear and concise, and obvious, as it was clearly just a little piece in a complicated puzzle, but has to contain this important turning point. I am always trying to see a relationship between husband and wife on the stage and usually fail, and I could see nothing on the part of Lady Macbeth this time – but the way Macbeth REACTED to her made me glimpse, just in one moment, the COMPLETE relationship and history of this couple! I always had this feeling that Macbeth – though he adores her – is a little bit afraid of his wife. In this case, he is more than a little bit afraid FOR his wife because he knows that she is vulnerable. And as soon as I saw it, the behaviour Lady Macbeth displays makes complete sense. Macbeth doesn’t dare to go against his wife because he fears the consequences for their relationship – which is kind of what Lady Macbeth says, just from a “stronger” position, when she threatens: “From this time such I account thy love”. But frailty can be as powerful a weapon in a relationship, even if it is not wielded consciously, and the more I think about it, the more I can see how it worked because it made me see a lot I always WANTED to see in a production of “Macbeth” but never did. First of all, there IS a relationship of a couple with a long history – predominantly painful, but they are visibly and strongly linked through this pain. And it provides an opportunity to show Macbeth as somebody who CARES – who is capable of empathy = the “milk of human kindness” Lady Macbeth is talking about. At the end, all this is gone. Macbeth cares about nobody but himself, and this is enough to show the enormous change he has undergone as a human being. The desired effect is achieved “quietly”, without raving and shouting, with marvellous efficiency. And even though I still don’t like it, it is much easier for Lady Macbeth to become mad when she is “unstable” from the beginning. I regret it because a lot of great “Lady Macbeth stuff” just goes down the drain, as usual, but in the context of this production, where time and timing literally are “of the essence”, it is a comparatively small sacrifice. As I already wrote, there are greater things at stake …

What’s wrong with Macbeth? – (the accidental birthday issue)

This has already become so complex, I have to make some kind of synopsis of the important issues in “Macbeth” and the decisions I made about the play:

 

TRAGEDY

 

I have always read “Macbeth” as one of the first modern tragedies – where the main protagonist takes a wrong decision with catastrophic consequences and engages our empathy (not necessarily because they are a “good person after all” but because we understand that something like this could have happened to us) – but this is NOT the only way to read it. It is likely that the play is somewhere on a scale between Greek (= fate-driven) and modern (= guilt-driven) tragedy, but where exactly is difficult to establish. (I have also developed a feeling that these assignations are a “crutch” – useful at times but not to be taken too seriously! It will come up again …) Theoretically, it could even be nowhere on that scale because the Macbeths could just as well be seen (and played!) as “medieval” villains, not as “tragic” protagonists. I consider this to be an unlikely reading because of the enormous height of the fall Shakespeare makes Macbeth take, but there is a possibility - and more than a little evidence! - that people have read and might still be reading it like this. “Tragedy” is not just a fact, it involves a DECISION every reader has to take. My infallible proof of the decision I took was that, in my inner “Macbeth”, “Heroes” by David Bowie is playing on the stereo when Lady Macbeth enters to speak with Macbeth before the fatal banquet (- and she switches it off.) I thought it such an obvious decision, but most of the productions I have seen either went against it or didn’t succeed in showing it. So, proof of tragedy is still outstanding …

 

DARKNESS

 

Apart from blood, the most important “matter” in the play is DARKNESS. Quod esset demonstrandum, but the proof would be a waste of blog space because of the omnipresence of references to night/darkness in the play. The really interesting fact is anyway that there is so much more of it in “Macbeth” than in any other of Shakespeare’s thirty-odd plays, and the proof of THAT would definitely go beyond ANY scope, so I have to rely on my recollection of the thirty-five plays I have actually read, so: Quod ERAT demonstrandum (= proved)

 

As the “weird sisters” are INSTRUMENTS OF DARKNESS – which Banquo suspects, but there is confirmation on a plot level because they are instrumental in Macbeth’s decision to commit murder – a relation between them and the darkness is clearly implied. (proved) They have therefore to be central to the play and cannot be marginalized (proved), which they usually are (proved on the basis of my knowledge; empirical proof on a larger scale would be desirable.) So, why do the weird sisters not “work” in the way they are supposed to? They might not merely because of my own expectations being wrong – though I think I’d go with anything except boring! - or it may have something to do with the contradictory semantical issues I have unfolded. It might also just be tradition that is to blame (= that there are things you can and cannot do with the weird sisters)? “We” certainly don’t want to see witches on the stage anymore, but what do “instruments of darkness” look like in the 21st century? (And WHAT is the darkness?)

 

(I am aware that this “proved” thing becomes annoying, but I need to do it to establish where I leave the firm ground of “provability”, which invariably happens.)

 

FATE

 

Fate is certainly a central issue of the play, for plot-reasons and as a general matter of importance in “Shakespeare”. (as proved) The designation of “weird(wyrd!) sisters” for his witches is additional proof. Accordingly, there is a strong logical link – via the weird sisters - between fate and darkness = The weird sisters being instruments of darkness should have something to do with them being in charge of fate.

 

Matters I have to look into further:

 

What exactly is the DARKNESS?

 

The exact “job description” for the sisters as “instruments of darkness”

 

EQUIVOCATION (and its relation with fate)

 

LADY MACBETH

 

THE MACBETHS and their fatal relationship

 

What’s wrong with MACBETH?

 

So, now I am back where I thought I had been already, and, even though there are unsolved issues on previous points, I’ll take up the question which has bothered me for years:

 

WHAT’S WRONG WITH MACBETH?

 

The link between tragedy and Macbeth as the main protagonist has already been established. If I want to read this play as a tragedy - which appears to be such an obvious choice – it should be represented in this way on the stage. All these great, coveted “tragic” roles like Lear, Hamlet and Othello seem to have a “limp” that is more or less difficult to overcome. Apart from Hamlet, Macbeth seems to be the worst. Compared to Hamlet or Lear, he is not even that “coveted”, or at least not equally indispensable to a theatre actor’s CV. Why might that be …?

 

I feel exhausted already, but the best thing to approach this issue would be to do what I have been doing on and off, though never systematically: to examine every single Macbeth I have seen on a stage or a screen and establish what was “wrong” with them. Basically: Why were they all BORING?

 

(To be precise, two of them were not: Christopher Eccleston in my most recent RSC “Macbeth” and James McAvoy in the “Shakespeare Retold”, but they stand out as the exceptions.)

 

The EARLIEST – and one of the first – productions of Macbeth I have seen is the old Polansky film from 1971 which might be a work of art in its own right but didn’t offer me any clues about the play or its protagonist. I don’t remember who played him, nor do I want to because the acting was grotesquely “off”, not only where the lead was concerned; but it doesn’t compare because it was a time where the absence of psychological depth in the acting might have been seen as “naturalism” and which I am quite glad to have “skipped”. I don’t even REMEMBER Lady Macbeth – and this also says a lot. It is quite revealing how seldom I can remember Macbeth and Lady Macbeth TOGETHER on a screen or stage, considering the long and substantial scenes between them in the first three acts of the play. As I stubbornly continue to understand the Macbeths as an item, the absence of the lady from my memories is never a good sign. So, as to a theory of WHO Macbeth is supposed to be, I draw a BLANK, apart from the fact that he seems to be a BRUTE without any regrets about what he has done, or any recognizable psychology, and I am rather sure he WENT MAD – which is often the reason it LOOKS like bad acting … (Great British actors won’t want to believe this, but their attempts at madness are – similar to their attempts at speaking American, or German for that matter! – INVARIABLY doomed to fail.)

 

This is probably quite unfair, but my MEMORIES of the Polanski film are rather close to those of the WORST “Macbeth” I’ve ever seen – and probably the first! - by an American University theatre group when I was still at uni in Munich, so: pre-1996. There is nothing at all to say about it apart from it containing a lot of wild hair and beards – like the Polanski film! – and appallingly bad acting, a lot of shouting, no Lady Macbeth that I remember and definitely MADNESS – a recurring theme very badly in need of being looked into … (I am not chuffed!)

 

Having remembered this, I’ll effortlessly jump to the “Macbeth” with Sean Bean – the second worst production I have seen (on a par with the Polanski version) but with ONE point of interest to it … I might ask myself why these frankly horrible experiences hadn’t put me off my favourite play early on – and why it BECAME my favourite play in the first place before I ever saw it on a stage. I think the first Shakespeare I actually saw - on the telly - was the Derek Jakoby “Hamlet” (with Patrick Stewart as Claudius who was the greater revelation at the time). I am not sure but think we read “Macbeth” at school, in German, and that might actually have been the reason, even though it was in German, so not really Shakespeare. As I wasn’t interested in the English language at the time because we had such bad teachers and never read anything interesting but was very much into stuff like Schiller, it might have been sufficient for me to get thrilled. That it REMAINED my favourite play of all times until the big “revival” post-2013 – though almost on a par with “Richard III” – is more strange. It might not even be such a bad thing that I don’t remember how “Shakespeare” began because it feels as if it had always been there - before I began - like the air I breathe …

 

As I am going about it more in the order of my experience than of when the respective version of the play had been produced, it is actually Sean Bean next. That was in 2004 or – most likely – the beginning of 2005, that is post-Lord of the Rings! I must have seen a decent German production not long before that or afterwards, at Nuremberg theatre, but I don’t remember much apart from a tall, dark, striking Macbeth – rather more like my inner Macbeth than any of the others! – and a stage that was very red. (If it was to symbolize the blood, it didn’t work because that only came to me right now … It certainly isn’t my idea of creating a bloody MESS!) So, the only thing I remember about the Nuremberg “Macbeth” is that it was mostly conventional but less offensive than the one with Sean Bean where bad acting and a severed head – something all the other theatre productions could do without - are basically the only things I remember. (Or didn’t the Ralph Fiennes version have a severed head? Appalling! - If it had, I forgot right away, but I’ll get to check because it will come to the “Cinema” next month, and I’ll definitely see it again because of Indira Varma.) In any case, it was very “literal” and unimaginative. One good thing – there WAS a lady; I remember flowing red hair and very energetic acting. (I should have enjoyed that more than I probably did because this would be the only adequate Lady Macbeth I would see in a long time …)

 

But there must have been at least SOME idea about who Macbeth is supposed to be. I read part of a review because I was looking for a date, and there Sean Bean was quoted in the sense that he played a SOLDIER – so, intentionally rather physical and BRUTAL, not “brainy” at all – and that was probably just what he did. It is on a par with the old BBC adaptation for television with an actor I don’t remember who did the same thing. Macbeth is just this athletic, virile, brutal guy – potentially a villain! – who kills to get to the throne and continues as remorseless and inhuman as he had always been … Taken literally, “The Tragedie of Macbeth” is NOT a tragedy but a slaughter. More than that: it seems to be the “default setting” for this character = what “happens” when nobody can be bothered to think about it further: a murderer who becomes a tyrant and – disputably! – gets mad in the end. It’s the part of Macbeth that remains if we chose not to give a shit about neither what people are saying about him in the beginning, nor what HE is saying, nor any of these fascinating human relationships so carefully displayed … and, above all, it’s such a BORING choice!

 

Anyway, this was the first of several great actors I have seen making a hash of Macbeth, therefore probably the most painful. In 2013 I revived my interest in the play in the wake of the “Hobbit hype” because Richard Armitage mentioned Macbeth as one of the models for his character. (In this sense, Thorin Oakenshield actually became the first convincing Macbeth I have seen, and my “inner Macbeth” – when I started to learn the play by heart – certainly had his voice in it …) Subsequently, I started to collect all the versions of “Macbeth” I could get on DVD – some of which were so horrible I won’t mention them, apart from a very Scottish “Macbeth” with Jason Connery – whom I had down as a terrible actor already since the (great) Robin Hood series … I think I decided there and then that Macbeth is NOT SCOTTISH. Of course he IS Scottish (– nothing against the Scots, on the contrary; Graham McTavish is the only actor I indelibly “casted” for my inner Macbeth, as Macduff -) and probably a BODYBUILDER. I am not joking! (Even Chris Eccleston – my best Macbeth on a stage so far - thought it relevant to show us that Macbeth kept fit and could do some fighting if he had to.) So, MUSCLES are definitely a requirement, and he SHOULDN’T BE OLD.

 

A muscled brute in military garb who can wield a sword convincingly (respectively use a machine gun), or a half-naked Scot with long hair and a wild beard – how could it get any worse? I was in for a surprise when I saw the film from 2010 with Patrick Stewart. He played Macbeth as a twentieth century USURPER and DICTATOR. That is, this was the concept of the film, so this was what he did – and it was BORING!!! As the film was based on Shakespeare’s text, the first three acts virtually got skipped, and of course there was “no” Lady Macbeth. Or, if there was, she didn’t have anything to do as everything was decided from the beginning. The worst thing was, though - which I encountered here for the first time: Macbeth – even though he looked fit to fight! – definitely was AN OLD MAN!

 

I was surprised that the film version of the RSC’s “Macbeth” with Antony Sher which I saw not much later – interestingly the only one that left any traces on the internet or in their shop between 2001 AND 2018! – was so much older than the Patrick Stewart film because, on the surface, it appears so much more sophisticated. (I still have a fondness for it, if only for the reason that it is the only trace Richard Armitage left as a member of the RSC. He played Angus, I believe, and had about two sentences to say and to stand with spread legs all the time so as not to look so much taller than the other soldiers …) But only on the surface; as a new adaptation of the play it is appallingly “empty”. Macbeth is an OLD MAN without illusions or energy or ambition - or wife to speak of (even though she was played by Harriet Walter!) The whole thing is so empty of any kind of interpretation or psychology that this emptiness itself became interesting - almost as if a spell was cast over the play for it to be put to sleep to be kissed awake at a more opportune time. I think it is from this moment that I was actively waiting and hoping for a hero to come and break the spell …

 

Of course I cannot continue to say nothing at all about Ralph Fiennes playing Macbeth, so I will say one sentence. If I am thinking about it, he played him much as Antony Sher did – so, even NOTHING can create a tradition of sorts!? – only that he got PROPERLY mad in the end. (At least I think this was the intention; as I said: it never works!)

 

I know there must be “method” behind the madness, but not even Michael Fassbender could convince me of it, probably because I am still stubbornly denying the necessity. I have no clue what the point is of Macbeth becoming mad – though I am probably not right. I shall have to deal with the madness, but frantically pacing the room like a caged wolf I see as an excuse for NOT dealing with it! There isn’t much more to say for or against the “Macbeth” film with him released in 2015, at least not in its capacity as an adaptation of the play. I don’t even think this was the intention, even though they used a cruelly reductive version of the Shakespeare text. If it was, it was clearly still under the “aesthetic” spell of 2001. Quite like the latest attempt at a film from 2021 with Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand that definitely hit the mark of “totally noncommittal”. Maybe certain texts get so emptied of meaning by endless repetition that the “timelessness setting” no longer works, and this was just happening to “Macbeth”? At least their Macbeth, like Michael Fassbender’s, was still middle-aged …

 

So, back to great OLD MEN playing Macbeth. Interestingly, in “The Hobbit” they made Thorin – the dwarf king with a beard so long that he has to tuck the ends through his belt so as not to tread on them - YOUNGER because they knew this whole story would only WORK if he isn’t already an old king without a crown trying to take it back but the HEIR to the throne who still has a lot to look forward to. In my opinion, it’s exactly the same for Macbeth. The tragedy of Macbeth is valid because he has this fatal decision – and this enormous fall – to take, but it is “bugged”, probably in more than one way. One of them is a “time-bug”.

 

The problem is that, on the stage, there is just NO WAY of showing convincingly how much time has passed. The downfall of Macbeth requires at least a few years - more likely many years - from his access to power until his death. At the end, Macbeth is at least on the brink of old age when he speaks about his “way of life” that “has fallen into the seer, the yellow leaf …” I don’t want to say that the play is bugged from the beginning because on an Elizabethan stage there wouldn’t have been a problem. The same way an “average” Elizabethan would have been perfectly fine with witches, they wouldn’t have been the least bit interested in these finer psychological points “we” find so fascinating in Shakespeare’s text. (This is something I am always trying to ignore whilst being well aware of it!) My idea for dealing with the problem is that Macbeth should be still middle-aged, and the “yellow-leaf” stuff at the end would come out slightly ironical and self-pitying, kind of like a “midlife crisis”.

 

By the way, I HAVE SEEN my perfect “Macbeth”! I have seen it – but it was not by Shakespeare. It must have been shortly after 2013 that I hit upon the “Shakespeare Retold” with James McAvoy. In this story, everything that never works on the stage works because the “time-bug” has been removed. The “ban” on tragedy is lifted. It is the perfect version of this story with Joe Macbeth as YOUNG and ambitious sous chef who is doing all the work and therefore thinks he should inherit from his lazy and conceited employer who is taking all the credit for the new Michelin star. He kills him, of course with the help of his attractive and ambitious wife – brilliantly played by Keeley Hawes – who is the one with the social and management skills but also a chink in her armour because of the loss of their child. (“My” Lady Macbeth until Indira Varma came along!) Banquo, his co-worker and best buddy, is killed by an illegal worker whom Macbeth blackmailed while biking with his son on the heath. It also has the best – and weirdest – “weird sisters”, the only ones I saw that really “worked” because of the great "binmen" idea I already mentioned. Perfect “Macbeth”! I realized only recently how much it has shaped my inner “Macbeth”. Actually, more than it should have!

 

It wasn’t even Macbeth, respectively James McAvoy - who is a genius, but so are/were Sean Bean, Antony Sher, Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender and Ralph Fiennes, all of whom I have seen doing incredible things as actors. James McAvoy as such wasn’t that much more interesting as Macbeth, he was just YOUNGER! The main thing was that, for the first time, I could detect an IDEA what this play might be about. I got convinced that Macbeth is about how far somebody would go to advance their career and the consequences of this choice. I still don’t think I am entirely wrong, but there are even bigger things at stake …

 

There was still one “Macbeth” to “sit through” before it gets REALLY interesting. 2018 was clearly a “Macbeth” year. Before we departed for Stratford we saw Rory Kinnear as Macbeth in the “Cinema”. I didn’t expect anything at all because he is one of the most boring actors I know - and got something more. There was actually one scene that was remarkable – psychology-wise – and this is not a mean feat where “Macbeth” is concerned! It was the scene after the murder of Duncan where he displayed the most genuine and devastating REMORSE I have seen on a stage. Therefore I will probably remember him fondly to the end of my days because I don’t suppose that anybody will ever again try and do the OBVIOUS!!! At least I had now proof that it’s not impossible to play WHAT SHAKESPEARE HAS WRITTEN …

 

And there was even a Lady Macbeth in this production: Anne-Marie Duff. She is exceptional, so there was ONE human being on the stage the moment she turned up. But I belief they casted her because she is so great at playing these damaged people – and a Lady Macbeth damaged from the beginning was not at all what I WANTED to see …

 

Then, in the summer of 2018, Claudia and I flew to Birmingham and travelled to Shakespeare’s hometown to meet Irmi - the third member of our “Macbeth Club” that only sits every other decade on special events – to see the RSC’s brand-new “Macbeth” with Christopher Eccleston. I pause just a moment to recall our sitting on a sunny bench opposite the swan-filled river and the theatre where we MIGHT have seen Chris Eccleston on a balcony. I was sceptical at the time but, in retrospect, I think we did … (one of the top moments of my life actually!), and then us meeting Irmi at the “Swan” … Even though my mates were not chuffed, the actual event I recall as a break-through of sorts.

 

A lot of what I described just now I have on DVD but I didn’t watch anything again because I had already dismissed it as unsatisfactory, respectively – for the “Shakespeare Retold” – remembered it really well. But it is a great thing that the RSC still produces DVDs, and of course I had “Macbeth”. It was a really good idea to watch it again as this made me aware what a break-through it actually had been. As I am writing this on Shakespeare’s birthday – after I drank a Limoncello Spritz to commemorate – I toast him vigorously as one of the few people who never cease to surprise me. The experience seemed “patchy” at the time – kind of incomplete - but now I can appreciate this production as an exceptional effort because - without knowing it! - I have come a long way. And - better still, though it didn’t feel so good at first! - in “one fell swoop” it eradicated some of my most persistent errors …

First interlude: Weird sisters?!

 

Having found a very short, sweet and satisfactory answer to the key question about the WEIRD SISTERS, I have skipped all the work I had already done. So, before entering the “final battle” about the Macbeths, I thought I’d give myself a break and walk a path I already cleared – or that was what I thought!

 

The first step of the long journey had been taken years ago, when we went to Stratford to see “Macbeth” with Christopher Eccleston. On this occasion I bought the RSC’s latest edition of the play. In the preface the editors explained their unorthodox spelling of the “weyard sisters”. This was the first time I heard that the weird sisters are NOT, actually, WEIRD.

 

I must say I was a bit disappointed because I liked them “weird” – and my inner “Macbeth” rather relied on the weirdness, aesthetically - they couldn’t be weird enough for my taste - and plot-wise: Why are Macbeth and Banquo usually so little surprised – and confused, maybe even to the point of distraction!? – when they have this run-in with the sisters?

 

In retrospect, it was more than a bit of semantics but a big eye-opener because it awoke my suspicion that nothing about the weird sisters might actually be what it seemed, and I already began to gather “stupid” questions without answering them, which is something I always do. Questions like: Why is Lady Macbeth “always” wearing a green dress? Of course she is not, literally, but I saw it twice now and got the idea that it MIGHT be traditional and might carry some sort of meaning. Probably just bullshit, but I know that it will bother me until I’ve found an answer … (or know why I was asking the question; in this case it made me aware of the importance of TRADITION where “Macbeth” is concerned. All this is “heavily loaded” stuff, most of which has nothing to do with “Shakespeare”.)

 

This is my catalogue of silly questions concerning the sisters:

 

#1 Are the weird sisters really WITCHES?

 

#2 Are the weird sisters really WEIRD?

 

#3 What are they, if they are not WEIRD?

 

#4 Are they really SISTERS (= blood relatives)? (And, if they are, why?)

 

#5 And – if they are not (just) witches - which side are they on?

 

I’ll do the answers before breakfast, but they are only the beginning. In fact, each of them turned out to contain its own little can of worms.

 

#1 Yes and NO.

 

#2 NO (and yes)

 

#3 WYRD.

 

#4 (Emphatically) YES. (Because they say so. For the “real” reason refer to #3!)

 

#5 Anybody’s guess.

 

#1 WITCHES??? Perversely, I always took it that the weird sisters were NOT witches. The reason is probably that nobody ever calls them witches, not event they themselves: “The weird sisters, hand in hand …” (the sisters), “and oftentimes the instruments of darkness tell us truths“ (Banquo), “… by which title before these weird sisters saluted me” (Macbeth), “I dreamt last night of the three weird sisters” (Banquo), “You secret, black, and midnight hags” (Macbeth), “And betimes I will to the weird sisters …” (Macbeth), “Saw you the weird sisters?” (Macbeth).

 

This ambiguity – if it is not just due to a convention of not NAMING witches!? - calls for an explanation, but not the one I chose, unless I believed that a thief is not a thief, even though they have stolen something, just because nobody knows it and can CALL them a thief. There is no doubt that the sisters are practicing black magic and ARE therefore witches. The ambiguity, if intended, is not for the audience, who is in on it at the latest when they are boasting about their dark deeds before they meet with Macbeth and Banquo. In fact, the animal attributes (“graymalkin” and “paddock”) make sure it is in on it from the beginning. It is for the “benefit” of the protagonists. Banquo strongly suspects. He is the one who interrogates them and refers to them as “instruments of darkness”, but, in the end, it might not have made much difference. He is prepared to make them his “oracles as well”, and who knows what would have ensued … Macbeth clearly uses the ambiguity for his own ends. Blinded by ambition, he doesn’t WANT to know. (“Such supernatural soliciting cannot be ill, cannot be good …”)

 

So, witches it is!? - Not quite. There is a another, more potent, argument that there is more to them than just witchcraft … see #3!

 

#2 WEIRD??? The RSC’s editors used the historic spelling “weyard sisters” to avoid the contemporary connotations of “weird” (= (extremely) strange). According to them, the intended meaning was “wayward”, as in “wayward behaviour” = selfish, bad, unpredictable, difficult to control. Great attributes for the sisters! I was instantly persuaded and didn’t even think of checking. In fact, it’s “weyward” (not “weyard”) in the First Folio (– which rather plays into the editor’s argument, but the chutzpah might have raised my suspicion …)

 

As almost anything where the weird sisters are concerned the argument isn’t exactly FALSE, just incomplete and therefore misleading. Something good certainly came of it: I knew now that the weird sisters are not WEIRD. (Although the description – “so withered and so wild in their attire” that they “look not like the inhabitants of the earth” and Banquo’s confusion about their sex might still make them weird enough for me?)

 

Exhausted already … but it’s getting worse! Seems to be a “two coffee problem” …

 

One coffee and three chocolate easter eggs later:

 

#3 WYRD ??? When I started to check on everything I still didn’t understand about “Macbeth”, I also looked into the “weird sisters” and instantly discovered that the RSC put me on the wrong track. We know WHO the weird sisters are – in the first place! It is neither a secret nor open to discussion because we know where they come from. Shakespeare’s source for “Macbeth” was Holinshed’s “Chronicle of Scotland” where the protagonist, returning from the battlefield, meets three women who deliver their prophecies about his future. These women are neither weird nor old hags, they are beautiful noblewomen = the Elizabethan version of the Greek Fates, so, clearly not witches but GODDESSES. IN THE FIRST PLACE, they are neither “weird sisters” nor “wayward sisters” but “WYRD SISTERS” – “wyrd” being the Anglo-Saxon word for “fate”.

 

But again it is not as simple as that! Before I am again starting to cast doubt, I insist on setting it down that the “weird sisters” are neither weird nor wayward nor witches IN THE FIRST PLACE, but age-old, powerful goddesses in charge of the fates of men (and women). (HEATHEN goddesses, mind! Whereas in a Christian universe the one and only God is personally in charge of everything, the Olympian gods were usually rather relaxed about humans – unless their doings concerned them personally! – and thus left the petty details to three industrious occupants of the spinning room. This, in my opinion, muddles the issue of fate in “Macbeth” not just a little bit. See #5!)

 

Now to the “buts”: That the sisters are goddesses in HOLINSHED doesn’t mean that they have to be goddesses ON THE STAGE. As usual, Shakespeare takes the liberty to do with his source exactly as he pleases. In “Macbeth” the sisters are vengeful, irresponsible, mischievous old hags who practice black magic and create havoc, therefore WITCHES and as WAYWARD as they come! ON THE SURFACE, the goddesses probably became witches because the producers of the play wanted to please King James I who became an expert on witchcraft after almost having been shipwrecked crossing the channel, a mishap he attributed to the influence of witches. “The yeasty waves” which “confound and swallow navigation up” would have conjured a rather unpleasant memory. But I don’t believe that this is all there is to the witches. Even if not entirely intended, they certainly developed a life of their own.

 

As the Anglo-Saxon word “wyrd” and the “Elizabethan” word “weyward” have no etymological or semantic connection whatsoever, it stands to reason how they came together in the first place. I suppose it is the influence of witches because “wayward” is exactly what they are, and, I suppose, the expression “wyrd sisters” (approximately pronounced as “word sisters”) wouldn’t have made much more sense to an Elizabethan audience than to an audience of the 21st century. Only the part who had a classic education – respectively an inclination to check Wikipedia – would have known what it meant. Therefore I think it most likely that “weyward” wasn’t a spelling error of the First Folio but the intended meaning. (Which is great but created a semantic “storm in a teacup” due to the mixing of entirely independent contexts.) So, in the end, the RSC was probably “right”, but, again, it’s not as simple as that …

 

#4 SISTERS??? The reason why I don’t care for the RSC’s decision is because it is reductive – with consequences I came to dislike. The reason that the witches are not CALLED “witches” I already explained. (Either there was a convention against naming witches or the ambiguity was intended for the protagonists.) But this doesn’t explain why they are called the “weird SISTERS” by everybody who refers to them = Macbeth, Banquo, and the sisters themselves. This is actually rather noteworthy, and I think the likeliest explanation for this is that they are intended to BE sisters, and this can only be because Shakespeare wanted to keep the semantics of the FATES – who ARE three SISTERS. (Intuitively, this had been important for me from the beginning, so that I liked to imagine the witches of my inner “Macbeth” as weird triplets!)

 

So, using “weird” instead of “wyrd” or “wayward”, in my opinion, I keep both intended semantic contexts alive because the word “weird” didn’t exist before Shakespeare invented the “weird sisters” and therefore the expression constitutes an amalgamation of both contexts. Using “weird”, a new word, I don’t cancel out either meaning. Sorry, I just love this etymological stuff – but there actually is more to it …

 

#5 WITCHES OR NOT - WHICH SIDE ARE THEY ON??? The reason that both contexts have to be kept alive to understand and – which is more contestable! – represent the sisters on the stage is, in my opinion, that FATE is such a central and contested issue in “Macbeth”. In Elizabethan times, fate is probably not as “absolute” as in ancient Greece, but it is a central term of Protestant faith and therefore omnipresent in “Shakespeare”. “Hamlet” is one of these works of fiction that constantly teach me that understanding is overrated; there are much better things one can do with them. It is supposed to be the most “modern” of Shakespeare’s plays; in truth it might have become that much later and originally have been the exact opposite because, as Claudia and I recently established, it is pure Greek tragedy. The protagonist already got into a tragic position before he is actually grown up and in a position to act. Hamlet’s solution, in the end, is total acceptance of fate: “The readiness is all!” Along the way, there certainly is a bit of action but also what always feels like too much monologue on the stage – which basically was the chorus in Greek tragedy: coming to terms with things. In “Macbeth” the fate issue is trickier because “modern” tragedy is all about guilt, not fate, and as soon as “we” start to act, we also become guilty. The problem with Elizabethan tragedy, respectively an Elizabethan “mindset”, is that “Elizabethan” is not just Elizabethan. It is, if anything, a default name for an extremely dynamic social conglomerate, full of factions and irreconcilable contradictions. This is probably one of the features that made “Shakespeare” so versatile and enduring. (The bloody thing doesn’t add up!)

 

The way the three sisters are placed in the play suggests that they have, in some way or other, a part in the tragic development. It suggests that Macbeth would not have become guilty if they hadn’t told him his fate, but this is only clear-cut if we don’t scratch the surface. Beneath it, the sisters are semantically divided. If they really were goddesses and in league with fate, in a world ruled by the one God, they couldn’t be “instruments of darkness”. And they cannot be “wayward” – irresponsible and, in consequence, not to be taken seriously – and “wyrd” – important and influential – at the same time. So, it seems we have to decide – and, doing this, one way or the other, we give them real influence over the story we are going to read. Goddesses or old hags – they are the SPINNERS = makers of text. We might not WANT to grant them this power, but, try as we might, we won’t succeed …

 

Here I’ll come back unexpectedly to the question of the green dress. I haven’t solved this one, but it struck me as a decision that was already made unconsciously before somebody thought of dressing Lady Macbeth. In my opinion, there are a few settings already set before a new “Macbeth” is even thought of. One of them is that Banquo has to be present in the banquet scene. Both Claudia and I tried to change that – and failed. Another seems to be about the weird sisters, and it finds an expression in the RSC’s decision for “wayward”. In Elizabethan times, witches were not a problem. The general public believed in their existence and knew what they could do and in what way they were “instruments of darkness”. There was also no ambiguity about where the darkness came from. In a twenty-first century production of “Macbeth”, I’d be outraged if the sisters were witches. If I see a contemporary production of “Macbeth” I expect to see … do I even know what I expect???

 

At the Dock X the sisters were refugees of war – the least powerful, most marginalized of people. In the “old” RSC production with Antony Sher they were some kind of ragged homeless, if anything even more irrelevant and powerless. In the new one with Christopher Eccleston they were little girls – children, the least powerful part of society from the point of view of generation. The “Shakespeare Retold” with James McAvoy – still my favourite “Macbeth”, though unfortunately without any “Shakespeare” in it - brings the tradition to a head in a very entertaining way: The sisters are binmen, and their prophecies work exactly BECAUSE nobody really listens to them. Binmen are about the basest part of society as to career choice. They are irrelevant. Who listens to the prattle of binmen?!!!

 

So, even BEFORE a new “Macbeth” is thought of, the decision to marginalize the sisters is already made, and I am already in for a new disappointment. At second glance it doesn’t even work, they are too important a structural feature to be obliterated. And the choice what to do with them – apart from marginalizing – is more relevant because it tells us where “we” today locate the DARKNESS. Poverty and destitution make people powerless but threaten society because they lay bare its self-delusions. (Beware the binmen! In fact, they are almost omniscient because they see EVERYTHING!) The powerless immigrants wield an enormous impersonal power to destabilize “western” societies by making the brown filth overflow once more. And children are the most “wayward” of people, basically uncontrollable, selfish, and unreliable. They have to be supervised or referred to institutions. In fact, we couldn’t even imagine a world where children actually were allowed to run free …!!! (Even though it was ALMOST like that when I was a child, but today cars run free everywhere, so children have to stay at home.) But the little girls on the Stratford stage, though creepy enough, were extremely docile. They probably existed only in Macbeth’s imagination, therefore: no real threat. Most importantly: They DIDN’T DO ANYTHING.

 

THIS is one of the settings I’d most definitely change.