Freitag, 9. August 2024

Interlude: „My Macbeth“, act one continued

Still brainstorming, respectively taking stock. I noticed that I squarely hit the text vortex in my last post. And I inadvertently came up with the best way of explaining what I mean by it so far. Usually, my reading of a fictional text already has produced crucial ideas on what it is about, but they are still mostly isolated. As soon as I have figured out how they might HANG TOGETHER, my reading enters a new stage. The text begins to “work” and reading becomes real fun. (When I am writing fiction – which, in my experience, always contains a process of reading – this is the moment when I actually begin to write.)

 

Of course I kind of hit the text vortex before – just NEVER when I saw the play in the theatre – and the process released important issues, but I never hit it squarely, and I knew it. I was always aware that “Macbeth” was still going to happen. My two break-through moments so far I can sum up with “tragedy” and “How far would you go to further your career?”. And of course there are a lot of crucial sub-issues and discoveries that fit right in there, but I also knew that there were whole areas I basically left out, for example the weird sisters. I always had this impression they were really crucial but couldn’t figure out in what way. “Instruments of darkness” was a new attempt to get to the bottom of them that contributed to the working of the text vortex. Then there was history. I finally figured out in what way exactly “Macbeth” is a historical play, and, even more importantly, a POLITICAL play. There is probably no play of Shakespeare where you cannot find at least one important political issue that still works for us, but “Macbeth” is political through and through – just not in the way I have seen it represented so far. Tragedy remains an important issue, but tragedy and politics are indissolubly linked. This is what I figured out when I tried to reproduce how Shakespeare “processed” Holinshed. The term that links them, in my opinion, is ESCALATION – and it sums up why I always thought I was still not feeling BAD ENOUGH about this play. Now I do, having a better idea how it works, and why it concerns “us” still – and always will. There will be a separate post about this.

 

Another “sub-issue” also picked up speed, basically without me doing anything: LADY MACBETH. There are a few intricate issues concerning her that were always at the back of my mind, and it seems that my brain produced a few answers – or connections - in the meantime. I hope I will find time to look into this soon.

 

Now to my interlude – which might become my longest post ever – because I have finished Act 1 of my own hypothetical production of “Macbeth”. I changed my way of writing it slightly because I thought I would basically write stage directions and no text, which would have been shorter, but it didn’t work. And it reads much better with the text. I also started to write rather clumsy directions about what characters on the stage should do, when they should move and where, even about pauses and how they should express what they are feeling. They are not meant to be followed to the letter. Partly they are for my own orientation because, as it isn’t real, I have to know who is where at all times. The directions about when to pause and how to express their feelings are even less literal, they are mostly there to give a sense of TIMING. I realized that timing is an absolutely crucial issue of any theatrical production that needs to be “micro-managed”. In “Shakespeare” there is a lot of great timing already written into the text, but you have to get it out of it. (That might be the same with other great dramatists, but I never noticed it in this way. It might be that Shakespeare is special in this respect, as other historical plays get rewritten all the time extremely successfully. Rewriting a Shakespeare play wouldn’t work, and I think this is partly because the timing is impeccable.) I always notice when an actor has an especially good sense of timing, and I always notice and particularly hate it when somebody answers on the stage before giving himself the miniscule amount of time for taking in what the other person has been saying. My worst experience about this is the one I recently had with the DocX “Macbeth” because I know the text by heart. Then I heard it in the same way I am hearing it in my head – mainly by Ralph Fiennes, I am sorry to say – and this is really the worst thing that can happen with Shakespeare. No sense of timing AT ALL! These painful moments, though, are a great lecture about the importance of timing on the stage, and I realized that I had to include my own sense of timing in some way.

 

Another thing I noticed when I wrote this was that I had to imagine the stage this is happening on. This was actually a bit of a downer, as I realized that I imagined it to happen on a proscenium stage – my least favourite kind. But, at some point, I discovered that there was an aesthetical reason for it. I already wrote that I had to shed one of my original ideas, one of them that was in fact about escalation, though I never though of it in these terms. And I noticed that I had been kind of relieved about the absence of blood and violence on the stage in the Stratford “Macbeth”, though I criticized it. (They had a blackboard and chalk instead, and mostly blacked out the killings.) Now I noticed that there is at least one good reason for it – apart from its being gross and obvious, and maybe actors slipping on the blood. As it was a contemporary production, like mine, blood and violence wouldn’t work in the same way as in a historical environment. There certainly is as much bloody and violent action going on in our world, but seldom out in the open. Blood as a means of escalation wouldn’t work because the efforts of HIDING it would exceed those of shedding it – which theoretically could be made an issue as well. But I obviously dropped the blood in favour of a new aesthetical scheme. What I had rather liked about the DocX “Macbeth” was the amount of DARKNESS, though, on my stage, there shouldn’t just be darkness. I would like to use it as a means of contrasting this ominous atmosphere of EVIL with the little everyday-world people make up for themselves – where things are happening exactly as they were planned … (Ha, ha! – that’s the weird sisters from the off.) I would like only to illuminate little areas of the stage fully – where these things are happening. There also are these “natural” intervals of darkness between scenes where the darkness could be enhanced by sound like big iron machines working in the distance or some other kind of ominous, impersonal sound – not loud! (I haven’t thought about music yet, but at this stage I’d say: no music at all, apart from snatches of what people actually might put on, for example at the “Heath” when people are turning up to party.) In addition, the weird sisters could frequently emerge from the darkness and disappear into it. These ideas would work best on a rather high, good-size proscenium stage – which is what nobody likes, really, neither audience nor actors. Minimum requirement would be a stage with a background.

 

Now, finally, the fun bit:

 

 

1,3 (continued)

 

(“All Hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!”

 

Macbeth’s face “falls”.)

 

There is a short interval of darkness, about a second, then the lights come on again, flickering at the beginning. During this interval the sisters have relaxed and are now busy pouring champagne and passing on glasses.

 

Banquo (obviously sceptical about the quaint prophecies): “Why do you start and seem to fear things that do sound so fair?”

 

(Making up his mind about getting to the bottom of this): “I’the name of truth, are you fantastical, or that indeed which outwardly you show? My noble partner you greet with present grace and great prediction of noble having and of royal hope that he seems rapt withal. To me you speak not. If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not: Speak then to me who neither beg nor fear your favours nor your hate.”

 

The sisters, clinking glasses. (Mockingly):

 

“Hail.” “Hail.” “Hail.”

 

“Lesser than Macbeth, but greater.”

 

“Not so happy, yet much happier.”

 

The third sister, ceremoniously clinking with Banquo:

 

“Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none.”

 

Together, raising their glasses:

 

“So, all-hail, Macbeth and Banquo! Banquo and Macbeth – all hail!”

 

At this moment, disco-lights are flaring up, as a number of soldiers in combat-trousers and muscle-shirts and some made-up girls are storming the bar. In the ensuing commotion the sisters disappear. The party-guests are settling, one girl is taking the bar and handing out beer-bottles. The disco-lights are dimmed and stop flickering whilst a stronger light reveals Macbeth and Banquo still standing in the foreground, glasses in hand, looking stupid.

 

Banquo, looking around, then at his glass: “The earth has bubbles, as this water has, and these are of them. Wither are they vanished?”

 

Macbeth, striding towards the door, checking the outside: “Into the air, and what seemed corporal melted, as breath into the wind.” Disappointedly: “Would they had stayed.”

 

He returns and they are now standing together to the left of the bar in the spotlight, their backs to the crowd. Banquo drains his glass, shrugging as if to cast off the dream:

 

“Were such things here as we do speak about, or have we eaten on the insane root that takes the reason prisoner?”

 

Macbeth who has been drinking up, scoffing: “Your children shall be kings!”

 

Banquo: “You shall be king!”

 

Macbeth, collecting their glasses, turns towards the entrance handing them to one of the girls: “and Thane of Cawdor too – went it not so?”

 

Banquo: “To the self-same tune and words.” He has also turned and sees Ross and Angus entering.

 

Chuffed: “Who’s here!”

 

They all meet with hugs and patting backs. While they are joining, the spot phases out and the interior is gradually lit up. The four men are standing in the middle of the bar and are getting served drinks.

 

Ross: “The king has happily received, Macbeth, the news of thy success. And when he reads thy personal venture in the rebels’ fight, his wonders and his praises do contend which should be thine or his. As thick as hail came post with post, and every one did bear thy praises in his kingdom’s great defence and poured them down before him.”

 

Angus (impatiently): “We are sent, to give thee from our royal master thanks. Only to herald thee into his sight, not pay thee …”

 

Ross (interrupting): “And, for an earnest of a greater honour, he bade me call thee from him Thane of Cawdor …” Pausing, raising his glass: “In this addition, hail most worthy Thane, for it is thine.”

 

Instead of the expected pleased reaction, Macbeth and Banquo are petrified, staring at him. Banquo recovers first, blurting out: “What, can the devil speak true?”

 

Macbeth looks at him startled, then addresses Ross. (Subdued): “The Thane of Cawdor lives. Why do you dress me in borrowed robes?”

 

Ross: “Who was the Thane lives yet, but under heavy judgment bears that life which he deserves to lose. Whether he was combined with those of Norway, or did line the rebel with hidden help and vantage, I know not. But treasons capital, confessed and proved, have overthrown him.”

 

There is a moment’s pause, all four men looking grave. The barmaid comes to collect empty glasses and the group gets separated, with Macbeth to the left, slightly in the foreground.

 

Macbeth, facing the audience, muses: “Glamis and Thane of Cawdor. The greatest is behind.” Turning, with a step towards Banquo: “Do you not hope your children shall be kings when those that gave the Thane of Cawdor to me, promised no less to them?”

 

Banquo, noticing the eager tone, becomes even more sceptical: “That, trusted home, might yet enkindle you unto the crown besides the Thane of Cawdor.“ Macbeth frowns. Banquo is about to turn away to address the others, but suddenly turns back. Very seriously: “But tis strange. And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles to betray us in deepest consequence.”

 

Seeing that the others are joining them again, he moves towards them, barring them from this conversation: “Cousins a word, I pray you.”

 

They are chatting amicably, while Macbeth, facing the audience, is slightly set apart from the others through lighting and space.

 

Macbeth: “Two truths are told as happy prologue to the swelling act of the imperial theme. This supernatural soliciting cannot be ill; cannot be good: If ill, why has it given me earnest of success, commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor. If good, why do I yield to that suggestion whose horrid image doth unfix my hair and makes my seated heart knock at my ribs against the use of nature? Present fears are less than horrible imaginings. My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical, shakes so my single state of man, that function is smothered in surmise, and nothing is but what is not …” Forcibly shaking off these terrifying and exciting thoughts: “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me without my stir.” Turning to the others, now quite matter of factly: “Come what come may. Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.”

 

The others are also preparing to leave. Banquo, clapping Macbeth’s shoulder: “Worthy Macbeth, we stay upon your leisure.”

 

Macbeth (apologetically): “Give me your favour: my dull brain was wrought with things forgotten.” Facing Ross and Angus: “I thank you, gentlemen. Your pains are registered where every day I turn the leaf to read them.” (Steering them towards the entrance where the crowd is leaving.) “Let us towards the king”.

 

While the two others are stepping outside, he turns back to Banquo. (Confidentially, in a hurry: ) “Think upon what has chanced, and at more time, the interim having weighed it, let us speak our free hearts each to other.”

 

Banquo: “Very gladly.”

 

The other two have turned in the entrance and Macbeth is hurrying towards them. Over his shoulder to Banquo: “Till then enough.” Touching the others at the shoulder: “Come, friends!”

 

As soon as they have turned their backs, the three sisters reappear from behind the bar, just for a few seconds. The first has retrieved her gun and is covering the window. The second is stuffing things into her backpack while moving toward the door. The third stands there for two seconds, looking at the audience, then switches off the light. Darkness.

 

 

1,4

 

Change of scene. A neutral curtain-wall has descended in front of the ruined building. The whole scene is now interior, a conference room/headquarters with a long conference table to the right, chairs, a projection screen in the background. The third sister, in a smart suit, is placing glasses and water bottles on the table. Malcolm and Duncan are entering from the left.

 

Duncan (impatiently): “Is execution done on Cawdor. Or not those in commission yet returned?”

 

Malcolm: “My liege, they are not yet come back. But I have spoke with one that saw him die, who did report that very frankly he confessed his treasons, implored your Highness’ pardon and set forth a deep repentance. Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it. He died as one that has been studied in his death, to throw away the dearest thing he owed as t’were a careless trifle.”

 

Duncan (turning towards the back of the scene where there is a slight commotion; soberly): “There is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face. He was a gentleman on whom I built and absolute trust.” Seeing Ross, Angus, Banquo and Macbeth approach, he brightens and steps towards them, opening his arms: “O worthiest cousin, the sin of my ingratitude even now was heavy on me. Thou art so far before that swiftest wing of recompense is slow to overtake thee …”

 

He reaches Macbeth. Hugs. They are all hugging, with Malcolm as well.

 

The new arrivals are still in their combat suits. Behind them more people are entering, dressed formally or business-like, among them the first sister, carrying a briefcase. While they are coming in, the third sister is leaving, slyly acknowledging her sister as she is passing.

 

Macbeth (self-effacingly with a convincing air of sincerity): “The service and the loyalty I owe in doing it pays itself. Your Highness’ part is to receive our duties; and our duties are, to your throne and state, children and servants, that do but what they should by doing everything safe towards your love and honour.”

 

Duncan (hugging again): “Welcome hither. I have begun to plant thee and shall labour to make thee full of growing.” Flustered because he has omitted Banquo: “Noble Banquo, that hast no less deserved, nor must be known no less to have done so: Let me infold the and hold thee to my heart.” (Hugging him.)

 

Banquo (genuinely moved): “There if I grow, the harvest is your own.”

 

Duncan (dabbing at his eyes): “My plenteous joys, wanton in fulness, seek to hide themselves in drops of sorrow.” He takes the head of the table, gesturing for the others to take seats. Macbeth sits down at the right-hand corner of the table, Malcolm on the left closest to Duncan. The first sister has retired towards the left of the stage, phone in hand and starts texting when Duncan is speaking.

 

Duncan: “Sons, kinsmen, thanes, and those whose places are the nearest. Know we will establish our estate upon our eldest Malcolm whom we name hereafter the Prince of Cumberland, which title must not unaccompanied invest him only, but signs of nobleness, like stars, shall shine on all deservers.” (Getting up and turning towards Macbeth.) From hence to Inverness, and bind us further to you.”

 

Macbeth, whose face has fallen during Duncan’s announcement, gathering himself together: “I’ll be myself the harbinger, and make joyful the hearing of my wife with your approach; So, humbly take my leave.”

 

Duncan: “My worthy Cawdor!”

 

Duncan is getting up and there is a general bustle as people are leaving. The first sister is approaching somebody with her briefcase, producing papers for them to read. Macbeth remains standing, facing the audience, and is subtly highlighted in the foreground whereas the bustle is going on more subdued.

 

Macbeth (shaking his head): “The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step on which I must fall down or else overleap, for in my way it lies.” (Looking about him to make sure he couldn’t be heard. More subdued while the background lights are fading: ) “Stars, hide your fires! Let no light see my black and deep desires. The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be, which the eye fears, when it is done, to see.”

 

He is leaving in the opposite direction of the background entrance. Meanwhile people have been leaving, Duncan and Banquo last, chatting amicably. The last words of their conversation – casually spoken – are heard while they are passing the entrance: “Let’s after him whose care is gone before to give us welcome. It is a peerless kingsman.”

 

The stage is empty apart from the first sister close to the entrance, facing the audience for a second, smirking. Then she switches off the light. Darkness.

 

 

1,5

 

Swift change of scene again. The curtain wall is now background to a smart apartment in light colours with minimal furniture. A double bed to the right against the wall, a dressing-table with mirror in the foreground to the left where Lady Macbeth is sitting half-dressed. A moveable rack of clothes to one side in the foreground. Through the entrance on the left an atmosphere of a sunny morning permeates the chamber. The second sister enters, in expensive but casual clothes and sets a cup of coffee on the dressing-table. Lady Macbeth acknowledges her absent-mindedly. She lays out clothing-on the bed and leaves. Lady Macbeth’s phone makes a messaging noise. She checks the text and gets up excitedly, pacing the room. At one point she begins to read aloud.

 

“They met me in the day of success, and I have learned by the perfect’st report they have more in them than mortal knowledge. Whilst I stood rapt in the wonder of it, came missives from the king who all hailed me … Thane of Cawdor – by which title before these weird sisters saluted me and referred me to the coming-on of time with … ‘Hail king that shalt be!’ “ She pauses for a moment, eyes closed, the phone held against her heart, then reads on. “This have I thought good to deliver thee, my dearest partner of greatness, that thou might’st not lose the dues of rejoicing by being ignorant of what greatness is promised thee. Lay it to thy heart and farewell.”

 

(Standing still centre-stage): “Glamis thou art, and Cawdor. And shalt be what though art promised.” (Pacing again, thinking fast.): “Yet do I fear thy nature. It is too full of the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way. Thou would’st be great; art not without ambition but without the illness should attend it. What thou would’st highly, that would’st thou holily. Would’st not play false and yet would’st wrongly win.” She moves back to her mirror and remains standing before it, making some adjustments absent-mindedly when she is really concentrating on making plans. “Hie thee hither, that I may pour my spirits in thine ear and chastise with the valour of my tongue all that impedes thee from the golden round that fate and metaphysical aid does seem to have thee crowned withal.”

 

Meanwhile the second sister has appeared at the entrance. This time she is knocking softly because she hears her mistress speaking. Lady Macbeth (startled and annoyed): “What is thy tidings`?”

 

Second sister (coming forward): “The king comes here to-night.”

 

Lady Macbeth (freezes; after a moment, shocked): “Thou art mad to say it.” (Gathering herself.) “Is not your master with him, who, were it so, would have informed for preparation?”

 

Second sister (eagerly): “So please you, it is true. Our thane is coming. One of my fellows had the speed of him, who, almost dead for breath, had scarcely more than would make up his message.”

 

Lady Macbeth (authoritatively) : “Give him tending. He brings great news.”

 

The second sister leaves. Lady Macbeth moves to the middle of the room and stands still, nervously touching her forehead then proceeds to the bed, checking her clothes and starting to dress. She doesn’t finish, though, but moves restlessly towards the forefront with her dress in her hands.

 

(Laughing nervously: ) “The raven himself is hoarse that croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan under my battlements.” Pressing her garment against her breasts, gathering her resolve. When she speaks again, her voice is different. A slight but distinctive change has come over her. There is some change in the atmosphere as well, different lighting or some kind of faint sound:

 

“Come you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts. Unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood. Stop up the access and passage to remorse that no compunctious visitings of nature shake my fell purpose and keep peace between the effect and it. Come to my woman’s breasts and take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers, wherever in your sightless substances you wait on nature’s mischief. Come, thick night, and pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell that my keen knife see not the wound it makes, nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark to cry: Hold! Hold!”

 

Macbeth enters rather noisily, still in his combat gear, breaking the atmosphere. Lady Macbeth turns and gasps in surprise. Then she runs towards him and they embrace and kiss passionately. At some point she moves back, holding him at arm’s length and looking at him: “Great Glamis. Worthy Cawdor. Greater than both by the all-hail hereafter! Your message has transported me beyond this ignorant present and I feel now the future in the instant.”

 

He laughs and they move towards the bed. They tumble on top of it in a mixture of attempting to remove the heavy clothes and foreplay. Suddenly Macbeth sits up, realizing that there are even more pressing things at hand: “My dearest love, Duncan comes here tonight.”

 

Lady Macbeth (immediately): “And when goes hence?”

 

Macbeth (after a pause cautiously): “Tomorrow … as he purposes.”

 

Lady Macbeth (promptly): “O never shall sun that morrow see!”

 

Macbeth turning away from her, getting half off the bed, feet on the floor. She moves to his side and turns his face towards her:

 

“Your face, my thane, is like a book where men may read strange matters. – To beguile the time, look like the time. Bear welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue. Look like the innocent flower but be the serpent under it.” She jumps up from the bed and paces the room, frantically planning: “He that’s coming must be provided for, and you shall put this night’s great business into my dispatch, which shall to all our nights and days to come give solely sovereign sway and masterdom.”

 

Macbeth, seeing her taking over like that, is beginning to have second thoughts. Getting up from the bed he grabs a towel from a pile on the dressing-table and is rubbing himself down, half turned away from her: “We will speak further.” (As in: “We will give this a rest for now!”)

 

As he is proceeding towards the entrance she follows him and turns him towards her. (Pressingly): “Only look up clear! To alter favour ever is to fear.” (Kissing him): “Leave all the rest to me!

 

The second sister emerges behind the rack of clothes where she must have stood all this time and is beginning to gather the shed items of clothing off the floor.

 

 

1,6

 

While the second sister is still tidying up, the furniture is removed by working staff in fashionable jeans and t-shirts. The left half of the background screen is removed so that light is flooding half the stage and the background reveals a blue sky. Fast-flitting birds are projected on it. The second sister disappears towards the backstage and reappears, impatiently overseeing the servants who are struggling to place two high, round tables to the right of the stage for the arrival of the guests that is already taking place. One gets furnished with a flower-arrangement, the other with champaign bottles and glasses. They are just finishing and retreat hastily towards the right when Duncan and Banquo are entering the stage, followed by Malcolm, Macduff with family, and staff. On the staff is the first sister in a smart suit with phone and briefcase. The second sister has stayed behind, pouring glasses of champaign.

 

Seeing nobody to receive them, Duncan is looking around, taking in the view: “This castle has a pleasant seat. The air nimbly and sweetly recommends itself onto our gentle senses.”

 

Banquo (indicating the birds): “This guest of summer, the temple-haunting martlet, does approve by his loved mansionry that the heaven’s breath smells wooingly here. No jutty, frieze, buttress, or coign of vantage but this bird has made their pendant bed and procreant cradle. Where they most breed and haunt, I have observed, the air is delicate.”

 

Lady Macbeth appears from the right in a smart dress or suit.

 

Duncan: “See, see, our honoured hostess!” He greets her delightedly with blown kisses or slight hug. (Lightly: ) “The love that follows us sometimes is our trouble which still we thank as love.”

 

Lady Macbeth (maybe taking his hands, exceedingly grateful: ) “All our service, at every point twice done and then done double, were poor and single business to contend against those honours broad and deep wherewith your majesty loads our house. To those of old and the late dignities heaped up to them we rest your servants.”

 

Duncan (looking around) while the second sister is passing champaign glasses on a tray: “Where is the Thane of Cawdor? We coursed him at the heels, but he rides well and his great love, sharp as his spur, has holp him to his home before us.”

 

Lady Macbeth throws an impatient glance to the right – the passage from the veranda into the house- and then smiles at Duncan apologetically.

 

Duncan, clinking glasses with her and drinking, to relieve her unease: “We love him highly and shall continue our graces towards him.”

 

He takes her arm and begins to lead her towards the indoors: “By your leave, hostess!”

 

They are leading the gaggle of people to the right into the house. Only the first sister is slowly passing to the front, phoning in a subdued voice. She remains standing there for a few seconds, then leaves the stage at the forefront on the right. The second sister is collecting glasses and is spoken to by one of the guests. While everybody is leaving and the stage is getting quiet, the light changes towards a late afternoon glow and the piercing cries of the swallows in the background can be heard over very remote party-noises. A long leisurely afternoon unfolding …

 

 

1,7

 

Macbeth enters at the right-hand front of the stage, pacing towards the centre of the stage, phone in hand, checking messages. He stops and looks around, noticing that he is alone and pockets his phone. He walks to the back of the stage where there are still a few glasses and a bottle left and pours himself a glass but doesn't drink. He is pacing back towards the audience instead. The light changes suddenly, as if a cloud was now covering the sun. All noises have stopped. (The light keeps changing gradually towards sundown during this scene.)

 

Macbeth looks briefly on the glass in his hand, then looks up as if he has just reached a decision, but begins his speech very casually: “If it were done when t’is done then it were well it were done quickly. If the assassination could trammel up the consequence … and catch with his surcease success, that but this blow would be the be-all and the end-all here, but here, upon this bank and shoal of time – we’d jump the life to come.” He makes a few steps. “But in these cases we still have judgement here. That we but teach bloody instruction which, being taught, returns to plague the inventor. This even-handed justice conveys the ingredience of our poisoned chalice to our own lips.”

 

He turns around to the house where, in the meantime, lights have been lit and there is a faint warm glow and very subdued noises. These noises stop when he speaks again, in a lower voice, having made sure that nobody could hear. “He is here in double trust. First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, strong both against the deed. Then as his host who should against his murderer shut the door not bear the knife myself.”

 

He pauses, making a gesture like touching his face to dispel the horrifying thoughts. Firmly and louder: “I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent. Only vaulting ambition that overleaps itself and falls on the other …”

 

During his last sentence, Lady Macbeth has entered from the main entrance of the house, looking for her husband. She sees him and he sees her. She approaches him, relieved, whereas he shows unease.

 

Lady Macbeth: “He has almost supped. Why have you left the chamber?”

 

Macbeth: “Has he asked for me?”

 

Lady Macbeth (annoyed, impatient): “Know you not he has!”

 

Macbeth (getting closer to her. In a low tone, as if fearful to be overheard but impatiently, as if trying to put a lid on a recent discussion): “We will proceed no further in this business. He has honoured me of late, and I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of people which would be worn now in their newest gloss, not cast aside so soon.)

 

Lady Macbeth, stepping back, after a slight pause in a sharp, provocative tone: “Was the hope drunk wherein you dressed yourself. Has it slept since and wakes it now to look so green and pale at what it did so freely?” Stopping Macbeth who makes a movement as if to protest, meaning business: “From this time such I account thy love.” (Which stops him!) “Art thou afeared to be the same in thine own act and valour as thou art in desire?” (Visibly not waiting for an answer): “Wouldst thou have that which thou esteemst the ornament of life and live a coward in thine own esteem, letting ‘I dare not’ wait upon ‘I would’ like the poor cat in the adage?”

 

Macbeth (angrily): “Prithee, peace! I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares do more is none.”

 

Lady Macbeth (with a show or noise of frustration, accusingly): “What beast was it then that made you break this enterprise to me?” (Pause, gathering ammunition, then fast): “When you durst do it, then you were a man. And to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man. Nor time nor place did then adhere, and yet you would make both. They have made themselves, and that their fitness now does unmake you.” (???) Very deliberately, like pulling her last weapon: “I have given suck and know how tender it is to love the babe that milks me. I would, while it was smiling in my face, have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums and dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you have done to this.”

 

Some kind of pause ensues, some visible or invisible movement that makes the finality of this argument clear. She has crossed a line he knew she wouldn’t have crossed under any other circumstances. He CANNOT deal with this.

 

Macbeth, very quietly and matter-of-factly: “If we should fail?”

 

Lady Macbeth (relieved): “We fail? But screw your courage to the sticking place and we’ll not fail.” (She paces.) "When Duncan is asleep – whereto the rather shall his day's hard journey soundly invite him – his two chamberlains will I with wine and wassail so convince that memory, the warder of the brain, shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason a limbeck only. While in swinish sleep their drenched natures lie as in a death, what cannot you and I perform upon the unguarded Duncan? What not put upon his spongy officers that shall bear the guilt of our great quell?”

 

Macbeth (visibly tuning in with her, matter of factly): “Will it not be received, when we have marked with blood those sleepy two of his own chamber and used heir very daggers, that they have done it?”

 

Lady Macbeth (in a tone and stance very much like his): “Who dares receive it other, as we shall make our griefs and clamour roar upon his death?”

 

Macbeth (promising her): “I am settled and bend up each corporal agent to this terrible feat.” (Taking her hand or touching her shoulder and making for the entrance to the house): “Away, and mock the time with fairest show.” (Looking back at the audience in a slightly different, more reflective, tone): “False face must hide what the false heart does know.”

 

Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2024

“Macbeth” and history: Just politics?

So, that was bit of fun, actually! – Now it will become very demanding very fast because there are a lot of conclusions to be drawn from this structured historic data, affecting all sorts of issues I have already raised.

 

First of all: I noticed that, summarizing Holinshed, I inadvertendly got into structuralism which I liked initially at uni but then rejected because I noticed that I just forced structure on text that was already structured, or, if I defined structure that was there, this was mostly just redundant. Now I noticed by chance the real usefulness of structuralism. It only engenders new information if it is used for COMPARING different texts. So, of course I kind of forced structure on “Holinshed” – which might be structured according to totally different categories! – but using it to understand a fictional text that is based on it shows why I felt the inclination to structure it in this way. Using Holinshed, I can nail it why I now regard “Macbeth” as “history” – or rather “historical tragedy”, with both of these categories blended to perfection. I also see more clearly why I was stubbornly barking up the wrong tree when it came to tragedy because I didn’t take the political issues seriously enough - which I now do as I think I know what they are. And I think I did a step forward on the matter of EVIL – the key issue of the play in my opinion. I will come to that …

 

This post will be rather chaotic, I feel, because I am still brainstorming. And it will need an awful lot of patience because I always discover that I should deal with another issue FIRST before I can deal with the one at hand and so on … So, I’ll just tackle them in the order they come to mind and go back to the issue of the weird sisters in my personal production of “Macbeth”. As to establish the identity of the sisters would require to make up my mind about EVIL first, it will have to be provisional. I brought up the question if they could be English spies with Claudia, and she said that they couldn’t because the English are not evil – in the context of the play - which certainly is a valid argument. My first idea was that they might be Norse spies, and I discarded it on the spot. Asking myself why I don’t like it at all instantly lead me deep into my quest for the nature of EVIL. At first glance, the Norse are a much better candidate for harbouring “instruments of darkness” because, in the context of the play, they are the arch-enemy. These Norse invasions where a great threat and ultimate catastrophy at the time (in 1034!), and people living in the early seventeenth century in England were still much closer to this than we are. Nowadays “Vikings” are cool, at the time they were so not! Nonetheless, I don’t think that they really were an important contemporary issue. As to the play: the Norse threat is already over when it begins and the tragedy is set up. More importantly still: the Norse represent danger from the OUTSIDE. The true nature of evil as an element of tragedy is INTRINSIC. This is why I always feel that explanations like war or social inequality – though they might be part of the dynamics! – are falling short.

 

Of course – and this is the great thing about them – the weird sisters can be whatever we want them to be on the stage (apart from witches!): binmen, transvestites, refugees, mythical beings, homeless people, or children – as long as they are part of an explanation I can take seriously. It seems that the REQUIREMENT, in my case, is that they – in their main function as “instruments of darkness” – have to be seen to set into motion the workings of evil in the play. Apart from being highly entertaining, they have to be GENUINELY THREATENING, and this is a high bar – almost impossible in fact! – to set on a stage. Apparently, I have decided to take EVIL in “Macbeth” extremely seriously – as serious as buckets of blood, but this would only be an indicator. (Blood is red because it's a colour that gets our attention – or is it the other way round?) As an “explanation” it falls way too short. The “weird sisters” instead have great potential as a metaphor. So: really serious AND entertaining, how do we do that? Fashionably, I seem to have opted for the action movie version.

 

I am now quite sure that my idea that the “weird sisters” might be spies – or SECRET AGENTS, which is what they actually are concealing their identity to manipulate people! – comes from my involvement with “Spooks” (the BBC series) which I watched countless times. I always feel that, if we want to REALLY understand a phenomenon we think we know everything about, like EVIL, there is nothing like a change of perspective. In fact, people like me know nothing at all about evil because we are fortunate not to have had first-hand experience of it. That’s what all these “violent” films and tv programs are for: to enlighten us about it, but most of the time this is just pretence because they are usually designed to keep evil ON THE OUSIDE. A threat to “normality” and family life the good side has to fight off. This seems to be a requirement for them to be deemed entertaining, but it is not. For me, the fascination of “Spooks” springs from these people having to get involved with evil – not just fight it! - for the sake of the “greater good”. Nobody would think of Tom Quinn (played by Matthew Macfadyen) as an evil or even shady character. He is a genuinely good guy who loves his girlfriend and her daughter and has their best interest at heart. If anything, he is MORE moral than average people. On the other hand, lying and killing dangerous people is part of his job description. It is not an uncommon predicament for “action heroes”, but the perspective is somehow completely different because evil cannot be kept on the outside. It invariably infects their life and who they are as people. One of the most extreme moments, in my opinion, is when Danny Hunter (played by David Oyelowo) – who is actually a sweet guy and a genuinely good person! - finds himself in a situation nobody can prepare for. He has to murder a man, who might be disgusting and dangerous but no threat to him personally, in his sleep. This was one of these rare occasions where I got a bit sick watching - morally, not literally like the character. And my favourite character is Ros Myers anyway, probably because it doesn’t even make sense to ask, in her case, if she is good or evil. She seems to be in a completely different category of “human”. Nonetheless there is no doubt that she is on the “good” side. There is one type of spy to which all these characters ultimately belong: they are “clerk” spies who are loyal to their country and would always put the good of the nation above even their own lives. This is what “redeems” them, whatever they do. My “sisters” would of course belong to the other kind: people who are doing this basically out of self-interest and – not to forget! – for the thrill of it. The kind that usually are double agents. For whom? God knows … except that – metaphorically speaking! – in this case it would be the devil.

 

So – I know now WHY my weird sisters turned out to be spies. The next question is if they could be English spies. Under the preliminaries I have just established, I feel that they can, though I wouldn’t make it a main issue because on the stage things easily become convoluted, and it might send the wrong message. My next project – if I was a producer, that is – might be a “Macbeth” film or mini series which would start with an ingenious idea from Claudia: the weird sisters, respectively (double) agents, on the payroll of the English king, “turning” the Thane of Cawdor. My point is: If it was a film production, I would want to be much more specific about the historic background as it would be set in 1034 and would have a lot of tall, bearded Norse warriors in it. (Love them!) And an English king laying plans for a future invasion of Scotland probably quite early on. Of course, Shakespeare didn’t want to dwell on this but he is faithful to Holinshed in this point and doesn’t seriously want us to believe that King Edmund is taking Malcolm in and furnishing him with the means to invade Scotland solely from the goodness of his heart. At least I would be sorely disappointed in him, if he did! - But that’s just POLITICS – not a question of good and evil in the first place. “Shakespeare” I always regard as this genuinely political battlefield where no opposing side or different truth is concealed or left out. The more the merrier – or the more entertaining! Good and evil doesn’t come into this, it’s a different sphere. But “Macbeth” – which I always envisaged as this straightforward play, compared with “Hamlet” or “Lear”, where I always think I understand everything – has developed into this rather uncomfortable and dark space where these two spheres clash with deadly precision. This is the reason why it is the PERFECT tragedy, in my opinion. All this political complexity AND the workings of the human stuff - ambitions, strength and weaknesses - lead to this singular ESCALATION of events that HAS to occur in this way and which nobody has the power to stop. With our “sisters” at the heart of it, wielding their “crucible”, making everything worse. It is this FATALITY that is so endlessly fascinating, not least because we see it constantly at work in our own world.

 

Not surprisingly, my brainstorming landed me in the middle of the text-vortex too soon. There are more tedious points to be cleared up first. They will be about where and why Shakespeare deviated from Holinshed – or where he pointedly used stuff from Holinshed that doesn’t seem to make sense in the first place. Basically, it’s about the contemporary issues on which the comparison with Holinshed sheds some light. I don’t really know why I tend to label these issues as tedious. Maybe because – from a 21st century point of view! - they seem to get in the way of the play reaching its full potential. But I know that this is unfair. In the case of “Macbeth” the culmination of contemporary issues has a name: KING JAMES I. And I don’t really like him … (Who does?) Nonetheless, without him, my favourite play might never have been written at all or might have turned out completely different. Here is why:

 

THE WEIRD SISTERS AS WITCHES

 

In fact, I had this rather complicated semantic bundle of the weird sisters as “Fates” and witches disentangled at length already. As “Shakespeare” isn’t really big on supernatural beings, it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the weird sisters would have become witches – and thus have figured so prominently as “instruments of DARKNESS” - were it not for King James’s interest in witchcraft and the book he had written about it. (I haven’t read the book, it might contain more direct proof.) As goddesses and witches are a fairly long stretch apart, there is a semantic breach that leads to all kinds of consequences I am constantly struggling with. It just doesn’t “add up”. Nonetheless, I see it as a major achievement to have thus brought the issues of FATE and EVIL together, even though I don’t think it was deliberate and still haven’t quite worked out why.

 

WHY BANQUO AND MACBETH COULDN’T HAVE BEEN BEST PALS

 

Another issue closely related to King James doesn’t seem equally important, but I recently discovered that Claudia felt the same about it. Therefore it is likely that people will be asking this question: Why couldn’t Macbeth and Banquo be best pals? In fact, Claudia always took it that they were, and I did too, in a way. In my case the idea probably came from the “Shakespeare Retold” with James McAvoy as Joe Macbeth, a chef whose co-worker and best buddy is also the one he has later killed by a hired hand while he is out biking with his little son. I loved the idea, of course, because it is SO DARK. As I know Shakespeare, he usually would have built on this, more so as Holinshed clearly states that Banquo was the chief supporter of Macbeth in his rebellion against King Duncan, and I have ample proof how closely Shakespeare read Holinshed. It would have been such an obvious choice: the both of them having been fighting side by side against the invader … But it couldn’t be. I had noticed already, reading the text closely, that Shakespeare subtly rejects this idea by putting a bit of distance between Macbeth and Banquo from the start. He seems more intimate with the King as well than Macbeth, even though Duncan seems to see Macbeth as the main achiever. But the first encounter with the King conveys more personal warmth in his exchange with Banquo whereas the relationship with Macbeth is more formal. I also always wondered why this idea hasn’t been realized in any of the productions I have seen, apart from the “Shakespeare Retold”. Basically, they were right. Banquo and Macbeth couldn’t be too chummy in “Shakespeare” because Banquo was regarded as the ancestor of King James. According to Wikipedia, Banquo, the Thane of Lochaber, is a fictitious person, but at the time there was a family tree linking King James and the Stewarts to Banquo and his son Fleance. This was, of course, of chief interest to Shakespeare who even tried to cram in the chapter in Holinshed about Fleance and James’s ancestry via the rather awkward lining up of Banquo and his innumerable descendants in the “cauldron scene”. It is also the point where the play might have been part of political “propaganda”. The Stewarts actually needed a bit of patching up of their genealogy, as their ancestry – unlike the one of the victor Malcolm in “Macbeth” who belongs to that ancient line of Scottish kings we read about in Holinshed! – was obscure. They actually were the House of the Stewards of these kings until the ancient line died out and the stewards took over. Banquo and Fleance had to be invented to fill the gap. Shakespeare didn’t make them up, but he made a point of it. - As my personal production of “Macbeth” would be entirely contemporary, James I wouldn’t come into it, not even indirectly, and Banquo and Macbeth might be as chummy as the actors might want them to get. I even think that, in this way, one could make more of the moments where Banquo subtly distances himself from Macbeth … But there is, in my opinion, a much more fundamental impact King James had on the play. He is actually where we can nail a semantical shift throughout history.

 

KING JAMES AND THE NEW BRITAIN

 

Reading Holinshed really made me aware of these long periods in history that are just repetitive. The wheel of fortune grinding round and round and, after a terrible amount of bloodshed and suffering, we are exactly where we were before – at best! If there is change, it is gradual and subtle and might reveal its potential many years or even centuries later – like the instalment of a “Prince of Cumberland”. From this perspective, the big changes that lead to a new state of affairs entirely are few and centuries apart. One of these certainly was the ascension of the Scottish King James I to the English throne, putting an end to the age-old bloody rivalry between England and Scotland that was such a persistent cause of indissoluble predicaments, bloodshed and suffering. I think that this was genuinely felt at the time as a respite and a step forward into a better and brighter future, leaving the latest traumatic episode of the execution of James’s own mother, Mary Queen of Scots, behind. PEACE, finally … I even imagine there might have been a sense of the new BRITAIN that effectively started when the two biggest nations on the British Isles finally joined together. Before that, Britain had just been some kind of tale from the past where native Britons and Romans fought one another and King Arthur’s knights fought dragons and mythical beings. Suddenly it had become a REALITY. I really had to “conjure up” this spirit to be able to imagine that “Macbeth” might have been something else, to begin with, than the darkest, most fatalistic tragedy. At the time, some of the worst political issues regarding England and Scotland finally appeared to be solved. So, basically, “Macbeth” must have been intended as a “celebratory issue”. Of course, there is something very important about the Elizabethans I will never really understand, but to celebrate the expectations of a bright future with a gruesome, bloody tragedy seems to have been just what they liked. Still, all this darkness must have been felt as the background against which the present and future could be made to shine more brightly. The wheel of fortune never stops – nobody knew this better than Shakespeare! – but it creaks to a halt from time to time like the Ferris wheel, and to be then on the top is the best view on life you will ever get. So – celebrate away!!!

 

Knowing the future, naturally, we wouldn’t want to celebrate. My best memory about the DocX “Macbeth” – apart from Indira Varma as Lady Macbeth – was this big, brewing darkness like the gathering of a really vicious storm. No wonder I am scared of the future, of Britain or Europe or the world, the way things are looking right now, though there is this inextinguishable hope that, some day, we will be back on top ... At the moment, “we” are definitely on the way down, probably already further than we realize.

 

“When shall you three meet again?”

 

“Oh, we already have, a while ago! You just haven’t noticed.”

 

Freitag, 14. Juni 2024

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 …

Montag, 27. Mai 2024

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)

Sonntag, 5. Mai 2024

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”.

 

Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2024

“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 …