Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Macbeth Reading Thread
Oh--I didn't mean to make a religious comment, but he Western world was dominated politically and socially by the Church, and the witches were probably a great way to slip in the supernatural while also respecting the party line..I don't know.
Mod
The Wicca belief that what you do, good or bad, comes back at you threefold is also very Eastern religion concept. There's a saying in Sanskrit "point one finger and three point back at you."
Interesting note on the wretched Henry Garnet, William. The case is also discussed in the preface to Muir's Arden edition.
Interesting Candy that you're alerted to the number 3 just when I was thinking that 3 is not so significant after all. I keep finding 2, but then 2 is too common to be significant of anything perhaps. And yet Macbeth and his wife seem to double, and II.4 seems to have II.6 (coming later) as a parallel scene. And,
"Double, double, toil and trouble..."
But we can all find what we look for in the ocean of Shakespeare. Candy sees the Wiccan beliefs and I see the New Testament. On which note I would point out that Macduff's wake up call is the angels raising the dead on Domesday,
"sleep, death's counterfeit ... the great doom's image ... as from your graves rise up ..."
and the Old Man's
"darkness does the face of earth entomb,
when living light should kiss it"
echoes Matthew 27:45, so perhaps Macbeth "memorizing another Golgotha" (from Act 1 scene 2) is not so inappropriate after all.
Note the death/black images again!
I have watched the first half of the BBC version of Macbeth with Nicol Williamson and Jane Lapotaire as the Macbeths. It is great!
Martin wrote: But we can all find what we look for in the ocean of Shakespeare.That, Martin, appears to be the sum of it. No strength without weakness, eh?!
And also: Macduff's wake up call is the angels raising the dead on Domesday.
Rex Gibson, in his notes to the Cambridge School Shakespeare edition of Macbeth, states that a medieval miracle play, The Harrowing of Hell, has been said to be (by whom?) the inspiration of the Porter scene in Macbeth. "Hell is a castle whose gate is guarded by a Porter named Rybald.... Christ descends to Hell and hammers on the gate, demanding that Satan release the good souls imprisoned there. In this interpretation of Macbeth, Macduff is the Christ-like figure who knocks at Macbeth's castle door. In Act 5...." Well, we mustn't get into that just yet.
But I was not suggesting these things are not actually in Shakespeare, William.The connection of the Porter scene with the miracle plays is quite well-known and goes back to the 19th century (Muir traces it to Hales' Notes ans Essays on Shakespeare of 1884.) What Muir stresses in his Introduction is that these contemporary and historical links are much less important than the ones established in the play itself. So it is Macbeth who is the equivocator, qite apart from the Henry Garnet story, and the function of the representation of hell's gate through the Porter is to expand the play away from the particular setting in Macbeth's castle.
Mod
Oh...you're watching some of the BBC play...I never thought of doing that watching the scenes I've just read... heh heh. I was waiting till I finished reading this ha!
Hmmmm....
I watched the first half, up to the "banquet scene" -- I thought I deserved a treat. I also watched a bit of the Polanski film on youtube and do not like it, although as a film I admit it is well made. But it does terrible damage to the text. I mean, it open with,
fair is foul and foul is fair,
I suppose they thought this makes for an arresting first line. But then they need it to rhyme with something, so they add,
hover through the fog and filthy air,
which is misplaced because the line describes their departure at the end of the scene.
-- and so on. Shakespeare's text is just a collection of words to be treated like some William Burroughs cut-up.
But perhaps I'm being a purist. Tell me what you think.
my favorite film is the Royal Shakespeare with MacKellan and Dench-my students hate it though. They are not quite ready for minimalism just yet. They enjoy the 1987 version with Jason Connery and Helen Baxendale--she really steals the show, and they rewrite the murder scene to give her a bigger role, I think. It does lead to some good discussion about how it changes the meaning, though. The setting is good for historical context.
Well, Martin, I myself was suggesting that "these things" are not actually in Shakespeare. Nor need they be in order for us to usefully discuss them here. One of Candy's favourites, Harold Bloom, advises the general reader "to immerse yourself in the text and its speakers, and allow your understanding to move outward from what you read, hear, and see to whatever contexts suggest themselves as relevant." As I see it, there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, doing what Bloom suggests and, on the other hand, believing that wherever your understanding takes you is a place where Shakespeare has already been. But perhaps not all of you agree with me--or with Bloom.As to whether or not it really is "about winning some argument," Candy, I suggest that the answer depends on whether or not one is living by one's wits as a Shakespeare scholar. Blessedly, I am not and therefore can do freely and easily what Bloom suggests above. But Bloom himself is not so blessed. Nor is one of Martin's favourites, L. C. Knights, of "How many children had Lady Macbeth?" fame. He and Bloom and Greenblatt and many, many others are, as you must know from your shelf full of books, sworn enemies in "the Shakespeare Wars." Perhaps you are like me, Candy: I (try to) content myself with watching the fight from a neutral corner. Others of us, I feel, are keen to jump into the ring and join the battle--but how do theyt choose a side?
Finally, yes, Martin, you are a purist, but not incorrigibly so! And even if you were, what of it? We love you all the more for being fully and clearly and distinctly what you are.
Okay William, so why don't you do that? Why don't you "immerse yourself in the text and its speakers, and allow your understanding to move outward from what you read, hear, and see to whatever contexts suggest themselves as relevant," and then give the rest of us some idea of where that journey has taken you? Would that not be more interesting to all of us than telling me and Candy that the things we see in Shakespeare are simply not there?
When I taught Macbeth year before last I showed my students the Polanski version, or parts of it, it had an X rating when it came out, now it's R, I think. (Polanksi' wife was Sharon Tate who was killed by the Manson family, some months before filming got started.) The Ian McKellan version, (which my kids liked because he's a young Gandalf/ Magneto and she's M) *and* I had them do it themselves, for their classmates in other programs and administrators, on a stage after they also saw a pared down live version by Shakespeare and Co in nearby Massachusetts(to me)-- to the kids it was as if it was on a distant planet as well as in another state.Oh and I showed them some scenes from "Slings and Arrows" a Canadian tv show set in a Shakespeare Co when they're doing/ talking about Macbeth.
(Last year I taught Romeo & Juliet with much less success. No field trip, no performance, surly kids, the admin told me early they were letting me go, so I was less into enthused, as well.)
Mod
Leslie, my goodness, I had never heard of that version! I've got both the BBC version and Polanski's here nearby to watch. I kind of like the idea of watching the BBC version and may watch up to act 3 in a couple of days. Fascinating to hear what kids get into and what they don't.
Same with your experience Julia. I am impressed that it's approved to show the Polanski version to students. Interesting!
Have either of you thought about teaching adult classes of the plays? I wonder if that might be more rewarding...although how could you teach adult ed on TOP of regular school?
Cool stuff.
Many teachers teach at night as well! I taught night college for 10 years before venturing to high school. Content-wise, I learned more from my college students. But high school has its own benefits (another topic altogether). The difference between the two venues usually is most obvious by the choice of play. I would not teach a comprehensive Hamlet to 16 year olds, though many do. That's an adult play. Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Romeo & Juliet work, as do many of the comedies. (I have personal issues with teaching a play about two teen suicides to teens, but that is a minority opinion). It can be a good experience either way. I learned this the hard way (no matter the author) the first year that Tennesee Williams was on high school syllabus. These days, explaining desire to sexually active but emotionally immature teens while teaching A Streetcar Named Desire is not worthwhile. Glass Menagerie works much better. But, I digress. Back to school tomorrow. I will try to keep up this week!
Mod
I hope you do find time to be here this week. I'm enjoying your perspectives. I think we're getting into some real juicy parts of the play now.
--- and William, whose "shelf full of books"? If you mean me, I don't have that many books on Shakespeare, if you exclude the basic texts. I have not read Bloom or Greenblatt, and don't know anything about "Shakespeare wars". Yes I have read Knights "How many children..." I would point out though that it is a 40 page article, of which a mere 20 are devoted to the play Macbeth. It was published in 1933 when Harold Bloom was age three, so I doubt if it put these men at loggerheads. Candy, I suspect, has no room for a shelf full of books.
But your assertion that what we find in Shakespeare is simply not there is a serious one, and I think we can demand some further explanation.
Leslie,I worked as a teaching assistant in an English class where the teacher introduced "Hamlet" by showing "The Lion King." It's pretty much all there, except the ending. Most of them had forgotten the movie they saw when they were very young. He (and I) taught "Hamlet" to 10th graders 15-16 year olds with learning disabilities. He also used the Branaugh film version, scenes from it anyway. No, he didn't teach Hamlet "comprehensively," but those kids in his class got it.
New York State recommends teaching "Romeo & Juliet" to 9th graders. "Julius Caesar" to 10th, "Macbeth" to 11th, and "Hamlet" to 12th. Students only get a history play or comedy if you take a Shakespeare elective, or have a teacher who likes Shakespeare a lot. There is also a lot of leeway in that word recommends, as well. Many students get *no* Shakespeare. I taught emotionally disabled kids and my peers and administration were disbelieving that I could teach Shakespeare to them.
I directed two Shakepeare- related one-acts, oh and a 10 minute Lear last summer for the community theater group I work with. Shaw's "Dark Lady of the Sonnets" and a premiere of a play based on Henry V called "A Little Touch of Harry in the Night." Lear's daughters were middle school kids, but everybody else were adults.
Oh and Candy, Polanski *wasn't* approved. I didn't ask permission...
Mod
Perhaps you are like me, Candy: I (try to) content myself with watching the fight from a neutral corner. Others of us, I feel, are keen to jump into the ring and join the battle--but how do theyt choose a side?
I don't see a particular "side" at this moment. I see an offering and sharing of insights from several participants. Some of whom are digging into the text, not into a "battle".
But competition and disagreements are natural when it comes to reading the classics. A little edge is a good thing...but William I would recommend not taking anything personally. If you don't agree with what someone else sees in the text, thats part of the joy, no? Different peoples experience lends to different insights in Shakespeare. I think your quote from Bloom supports someone like Martin's comments quite a lot and thanks for sharing.
:)
Mod
I'm looking forward to seeing thePolanski version as muchas the BBc one if only to see how adaptations can veer so differently from each other.
I can see The Lion Kingfor sure. I read The Story of Edgar Sawtelle last year and it uses an Hamlet matrix.
Mod
there are several essayists/folklorists who feel we only have seven stories existing and we revisit and re-work them:
Here by Matt Haig:
1. 'Tragedy'. Hero with a fatal flaw meets tragic end. Macbeth or
Madame Bovary.
2. 'Comedy'. Not necessary laugh-out-loud, but always with a happy ending, typically of romantic fulfilment, as in Jane Austen.
3. 'Overcoming the Monster'. As in Frankenstein or 'Jaws'. Its psychological appeal is obvious and eternal.
4. 'Voyage and Return'. Booker argues that stories as diverse as Alice
in Wonderland and H G Wells' The Time Machine and Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner follow the same archetypal structure of personal development through leaving, then returning home.
5. 'Quest'. Whether the quest is for a holy grail, a whale, or a kidnapped child it is the plot that links a lot of the most popular fiction. The quest plot links Lords of the Rings with Moby Dick and a thousand others in between.
6. 'Rags to Riches'. The riches in question can be literal or metaphoric. See Cinderella, David Copperfield, Pygmalion.
7. 'Rebirth'. The 'rebirth' plot - where a central character suddenly finds a new reason for living - can be seen in A Christmas Carol, It's a Wonderful Life, Crime and Punishment and Peer Gynt.
http://us.penguingroup.com/static/htm...
or
1 - [wo:]man vs. nature
2 - [wo:]man vs. man
3 - [wo:]man vs. the environment
4 - [wo:]man vs. machines/technology
5 - [wo:]man vs. the supernatural
6 - [wo:]man vs. self
7 - [wo:]man vs. god/religion
or:
1. Overcoming the monster -- defeating some force which threatens...
e.g. most Hollywood movies; Star Wars, James Bond.
2. The Quest -- typically a group setoff in search of something and
(usually) find it. e.g. Watership Down, Pilgrim's Progress.
3. Journey and Return -- the hero journeys away from home to somewhere
different and finally comes back having experienced something and
maybe changed for the better. e.g. Wizard of Oz, Gullivers Travels.
4. Comedy - not neccesarily a funny plot. Some kind of
misunderstanding or ignorance is created that keeps parties apart
which is resolved towards the end bringing them back together. e.g.
Bridget Jones Diary, War and Peace.
5. Tragedy - Someone is tempted in some way, vanity, greed etc and
becomes increasingly desperate or trapped by their actions until at a
climax they usually die. Unless it's a Hollywood movie, when they
escape to a happy ending. e.g. Devils' Advocate, Hamlet.
6. Rebirth - hero is captured or oppressed and seems to be in a state
of living death until it seems all is lost when miraculously they are
freed. e.g. Snow White.
7. Rags to Riches - self explanatory really. e.g. Cinderella &
derivatives (all 27,000 of them)!!!
Oh, now I feel terrible because of Candy's post (#118 not #119) and realise that William is probably upset because of things I've said, like being angrily dismissive of Mary McCarthy and so on. If so, I do apologise. Please understand William and everybody, I've spent most of my working life looking into a VDU screen, and my human relation skills are consequently poorer than they should be.
To lighten things up, let me direct you to a snippet from a very popular TV series, The book group, on about 7 years ago. It shows everything that can happen when a sensitive and lonely American girl forms a book group in Glasgow. We don't do so badly. I was looking at the clip linked to below, and trying to work out who the appalling Barney reminded me of. This man for whom the standard is never high enough, so he ends up shouting at everyone else. And then it hit me. It's me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPXbSO...
There are subtitles for those not familiar with the Glaswegian accent.
Each episode discussed one book, but the title was never named and you had to work out what it was. (The one in this clip is easy).
More on Macbeth later.
Dear me! I've been away for a few days. Please realize, folks, that I'm really not the type to get upset in a discussion of this type. Perhaps you don't remember my remark, made many posts ago, that the great advantage attached to discussing books on the internet with strangers is that one can say quite frankly what one thinks without putting a lifelong friendship at risk.I am happy, Candy, that you have (re)discovered the enthusiasm you expressed for Bloom in a previous post. I, too, am enthusiastic about him, though I'm careful not to admit that to everyone. (You won't give away my secret, will you?) It was also you, Candy, who confessed to having a shelf full of critical texts. I included a reference to Rosenbaum's recent book, The Shakespeare Wars, to learn whether you have read it. I myself have only skimmed some topics using the index. Rosenbaum makes some unflattering remarks about our boy Harold, including one comment that seems a complete non sequitur, but then, as someone in a neutral corner, what really do I care, eh?!
I'm sorry, Martin, that my posts are not interesting to you. As I also remarked many posts ago, we are not all here for the same reason. In a thread about Hamlet, you offered this comment: The chances of our saying something new and original are small indeed. This is something on which we both agree. I didn't realize that my offering Mary McCarthy's comments had provoked you to anger. Please accept that my intention was only to do what we both feel is quite unlikely, namely, to provide something new and original to the discussion. McCarthy's comments, though written many years ago, were new to me. I thought they might interest others.
Most of my posts here are of the same type: offerings of opinions that I have newly discovered and found interesting. I hope that this type of contribution is acceptable--perhaps our moderator will make a ruling? Please forgive me if I leave the rhapsodic improvisations to those who have a talent for it.
Leslie wrote: I have personal issues with teaching a play about two teen suicides to teens.Your comment, Leslie, reminded me of the tragic effect that Goethe's The Passions of Young Werther aparently had on some young men and women of the late 1700s--not that I witnessed them myself. Obviously none of us have been (as yet) similarly affected by a work of literature: life, or in this case death, imitating art. I can't even imagine being so affected by a work of fiction. As a young person, it was non-fiction that moved me to action.
I'm wondering whether anyone here has read Shakespeare in a "graphic novel" version. In the Goodreads group On Reading Graphic Novels is a thread titled "Are you a teacher?" discussing the use of graphic novels in high school literature courses. There has been some mention of Shakespeare:1) Ultimate Spider Man #'s 7-12 is trash not because it is a superhero comic you haute culture snob, it is trash because it is a tired retelling of a story from last century. It would be like if Shakespeare just kept writing plays about Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet and then he wrote a crossover where Puck fights King Lear.
2) Also, students can read "high-culture" like Shakespeare and produce shallow thinking by skimming over words, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia....I have seen this as a teacher, as have most teachers I would imagine. Conversely, a student can also read "low-culture" and analyze like an academic. Consider, for example, if a student observed how gender roles are cast in Spider Man? Or if you pushed that student discuss what the comic says about American society?
3) As far as Spiderman being a retelling and therefore not a good story, Shakespeare (since this example was brought up) is actually not known for his ability to generate 'original' stories. He was valued for his turn of phrase, his quick wit, his poetry, his vocabulary. When Shakespeare was writing, the value of writing was not in originality of idea but in expression. Many of his stories came from other sources. Nothing new under the sun and all that.
4) Jet said above (post 12): "It would be like if Shakespeare just kept writing plays about Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet and then he wrote a crossover where Puck fights King Lear." I chuckle at the idea. I'd pay goode olde money (a shilling or two) for a Marlowe/Shakespeare crossover done with woodcuts: Faust vs Prospero. Elizabethan Jack Kirby stylee.
All very interesting--to me! perhaps to someone else?
So we had not upset you, William? Your unpleasant remarks are merely the result of a natural unpleasantness? I remember your earlier statement about the advantages of internet reading very well, and thinking that it boded ill for the future.
Well, I'm pulling out. There is no joy in being in a reading thread consisting of two readers plus William.
Mod
I will never forget William's feeling about online discussions as opportunities for calling a book rubbish without consequences.
I've been on web boards for over 15 years...and my experience has been that in fact, one can't say whatever they want about a book and keep lifelong friendships.
I believe the reality is that one can say whatever they want about a book as long as they are friendly people building friendship along the way. Or say whatever they want and not build rapport with new potential friends. Or say whatever they want about a book and court opposition.
Most people try not to take a book reading and discussion personally but it sure helps if there is an exchange of stimulating ideas if not good cheer or agreement. Especially if the format is only an online exchange rather than the reassurances and smiles people exchange in "real life" bookclubs. When people discuss books in person they tend to be less confrontational and more tempered in their likes and dislikes...by using body language, facial expressions and gestures. Online, people do not generally have a history of in-person friendships with each other...it takes different social skills for online discussions to build rapport and enthusiasm.
People tend to take their reading and beloved books and stories very much to heart. I have never met anyone who was willing to put their treasured experience of reading in less priority to negative attitudes or styles of communication.
###########################
Martin, I think one of the saddest things is not feeling joy in a book discussion and I think you are a wise person to step away. If it's not fun and stimulating it is wise to take a break. I really appreciate your rigorous style of reading but I also understand sometimes chemistry is part of the interest in a discussion, and if it ain't joyful...it's time to take a break.
By the way the links you offered are fascinating. I'll message you about the series.
"the great thing about discussing books with relative strangers is that one can say that a particular book or play or poem is absolute rubish without putting a lifelong friendship at risk. So, here I am." I think this is an aggressive attitude towards books and people.
Surely lifelong friends would never stay friends if you were always calling their book choices rubbish. Are any of gods books rubbish? Is callingthe activity of human endeavors "rubbish" a humanistic or thoughtful way to discuss books?
Of course we couldn't tell our lifelong friends books were rubbish because then we wouldn't have "lifelong" friends.
And I'd like to ask, why should the internet and total strangers be subjected to someone who wants to enter a book discussion with such a negative attitude towards books and other people? Just because we are strangers doesn't mean we are here at Good Reads in order to be used while someone vents their hate on books.
I can think of a group of people who thought some books were rubbish. They became infamous for burning such books they deemed rubbish.
William asks in #124:"I'm wondering whether anyone here has read Shakespeare in a 'graphic novel' version."
I bought a terrific version of "12th Night," I think, remaindered/ & or from a remaindered bookstore, forget which. Graphic novels tend to be outside my typical book-buying budget, unless they are remaindered. But I do get them from the library. When I was teaching Macbeth a few years ago, see above, I got a graphic novel based on the play from the library. It was *horrible*. And it wasn't horrible because the illustrator set in a science fiction future where the warriors flew dragons. I *like* science fiction, fantasy and speculative fiction plenty. But there was no justification for this setting, that I saw. I shared this version as well as the films I've previously discussed with my students and told them why I didn't like it. (And made clear that my opinion was just that, an opinion.)
And BTW, William, Sarah Hoyt wrote a series of fantasy novels, about Shakespeare that I quite liked. In the first, it's Shakespeare as an 18 year old, still in Stratford and his dealings with the world of Faerie. In the second, he's just moved to London, he's unsuccessful, and his wife & daughter are taken to Faerie, and Shakespeare & Marlowe-- who's had his own run-ins with Faerie, rescue them. In the third Hamnet disappears. These books are All Night Awake, Ill Met By Moonlight, and Any Man So Daring.
IMNSHO, divisons between high and low culture are only for the Pulitzer committee and bookshops that ghettoize the books I like. There are books I like and books I don't like and that's got nothing to do with their genres.
The challenging thing about ambiguity: it makes possible, at one and the same time, both the confusion of misunderstanding and and the richness of figurative language, which is to say, poetry.My (much misunderstood) remark referred to the simple fact that I don't have any lifelong friends in this reading group or, indeed, on the entire Goodreads website and, hence, risk nothing by expressing my frank opinion about about a book. It seemed an obvious and thoroughly uncontroversial remark to me.
My own interests with this reading group can be served very well by "lurking" rather than posting. I feel that Martin cannot do the same. Hence, I will fold my tent and steal away. Please, Candy, ask Martin to return.
Julia wrote: "William asks in #124:"I'm wondering whether anyone here has read Shakespeare in a 'graphic novel' version."
I bought a terrific version of "12th Night," I think, remaindered/ & or from a remai..."
Candy wrote: "Hmm..I think maybe that is what I might be feeling too. I see that I have expressed some enthusiasm for Bloom, for certain. Not that he is a favourite per se. But I feel I am picking up on somethin..."
William: I have a graphic Macbeth, which is set in outer space. Almost unreadable! I would love to see see someone like Alan Moore do it--Watchmen blew me away!
Mod
I did a little meditation this evening to see if we might be able to figure out some happy ground.
William, I had an idea. I've gone through a lot of your posts in the past three or four discussions. And I have an idea.Why don't you start a whole thread topic devoted to literary criticism and Shakespeare? Maybe we could make a section with a topic for your interests. or something? I am seeing that in almost all posts you really enjoy discussing secondary literature and literary critics...so why don't you lead some discussions? I think what happens for the folks wanting to do a group primary reading, it is a little distracting when you are changing the topic quoting critics...it becomes like a "traffic jam". With a section for criticism you can pursue your interests.
That way...those who are interested in this rather more scheduled and scene by scene reading of the primary texts will have a chance to focus their interests on that job at hand, as they say.
I'll see if I can inverstigate creating some sections...like "Movies of Shakespeare" Maybe we need some "housework" around here and that will help us have more focused discussions if we like them...or an area for other pursuits?
Mod
I believe we will all be able to navigate to discussions or start discussions in topics we feel like more specific and more focused. I posted a note about some of these "refreshments" up in the "general" thread.
Cheers, lets see if we can work this out and find kindred spirits!
For those who are seeking literary critical discussions, historical texts etc. or the world of secondary literature...ther is a folder set up!
And.....for those of us who want to continue the reading of MacBeth...via a reading of each scene here is a reminder. April 22 we are at Act 3, Scene 3.
So here we are in the middle of the play. Certainly, the plot thickens with this scene. I expect to see climactic events in the middle of the middle, and Shakespeare never disappoints. Some say the stage direction "Exit Fleance" provides a turning point...I am not sure that this is it. I can't wait to hear how Macbeth reacts to the partial success of his murderers.
Mod
Candy
Mod
I wanted to say I liked this line:
Old Man
'Tis unnatural,
Even like the deed that's done. On Tuesday last,
A falcon, towering in her pride of place,
Was by a mousing owl hawk'd at and kill'd.
a predator killing a predator...great metaphor! Humans don't usually eat toehr predators, or rather other meat eaters. We tend to eat animals that are herbavores.
The idea of "against nature" is a recurring motif and statement.
I found this nteresting as well. It's as if this is a kind of "artists statement" or "intent". It seems self referencial in some wya that I'm not sure I'm grasping at this moment. Like the very root of what interested the author or narrator to tell this actual story.
3/I
Given to the common enemy of man,
To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!
Rather than so, come fate into the list.
And champion me to the utterance! Who's there!
I don't know, but it's as if this section is like "meta-fiction". It seems to reference Hamlet, Antony and Cleopatra, Richard III
3/II
MACBETH
We have scotch'd the snake, not kill'd it:
She'll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice
Remains in danger of her former tooth.
This made me think of Ouoroboros.
And maybe...the idea that Lady MacBeth says MacBeth has always not been well...and an earlier feeling of the battle not be left behind. That MacBeth has a "shell shock" or post tramatic stress disorder. Something is repeating in the violence.
Just thinking out loud.
Mod
LADY MACBETH
Sit, worthy friends: my lord is often thus,
And hath been from his youth: pray you, keep seat;
The fit is momentary; upon a thought
He will again be well: if much you note him,
You shall offend him and extend his passion:
Feed, and regard him not. Are you a man?
Hm...Interesting that Lady MacBeth says MacBeth has been unwell often, and from his youth. Is she saying he has a mental illness, hallucinations?
I was quite surprised that an actual ghost of Banquo is at the table and in the play!
If charnel-houses and our graves must send
Those that we bury back, our monuments
Shall be the maws of kites.
I thought that was just an incredible image. Maws of kites!
MacBeth
Do not muse at me, my most worthy friends,
I have a strange infirmity, which is nothing
To those that know me.
Again the idea of mental illness....
And now the following sounds like a "spell".
MACBETH
It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood:
Stones have been known to move and trees to speak;
Augurs and understood relations have
By magot-pies and choughs and rooks brought forth
The secret'st man of blood. What is the night?
Leslie wrote "my favorite film is the Royal Shakespeare with MacKellan and Dench-my students hate it though"It's one of my favs too -- interesting your students hate it! I remember we call watched it in undergrad and loved it. We compared with with Polanski's version...
I LOVE that Banquo comes back to haunt Macbeth. Is Macbeth crazy? I don't know. Is he guilty--very. Could this inspire hallucinations? Every time I read the play, I am struck by Shakespeare's instincts about human morality and motivations. Whether he is crazy (he sees a ghost who isn't there) or guilty (he imagines a ghost who shames him as he struggles with his guilt), Macbeth's good nature is defiled by his baser nature. Conventional research says that the supernatural was trendy in contemporary drama, which might explain the witches' presence and lack of connection (?) to Banquo's ghost. Is there a connection? I can find nothing in the text. Help, anyone?
Mod
My first feeling was that he was overwhelmed with guilt. I also, and I wonder if this is a common reaction...I also ind of found it funny when Lady MacBeth says "oh he's been crazy his whole life"...I am wondering if the scene has ever been played comedicallly. Like all of a sudden now MacBeth is flaky and a bimbo?
(I am really starting to look forward to the movie versions)
Mod
I asked him some of his knowledge regarding Baquo and the witches, the potential for comedy and he gave the following...Matthew said i could quote him here..and he has been in the play...
As for your question, yes. The ghost scene can be quite funny. The great comedic line is "the time has been that, when the brains were out, the man would die and there an end." The Macbeth when I was Malcolm always got a great laugh on that. Lady Mac clearly WANTS to make light of his behavior but is ultimately unable to do so: "You have displaced the mirth."
I think the ghost is linked to the witches in terms of the supernatural but there is no other link I can remember to ghostliness in the play. However, he does fit nicely in the Shakespearean tradition of ghosts throughout the canon, beautifully represented in "Julius Caesar", "Richard III" and, of course, "Hamlet".
How does this convo go? I joined too late, and don't think I'll find enough time to research each chapter/scene now anyway, I join from here on end I guess and but find this thread enlightening.My review May4, act4,scene3, Mac duff is finding himself in a mortal coil, Shakespeare has writen the play setting Mac duff up for his great disappointment. Ross brings the news.
Mod
Mod
Candy wrote: "(Hi Arthur, no Sir Ian...I'll try to write a note in the movie section later..)"Watched that one. Got me started on this whole shakespeare kick. Loved that play. I must be in a violent mood because my favorite play is probably his least well written, Titus Andronicus, especially as played by Anthony Hopkins. So I won't read sad endings but I'll read violent ones. I need to think about this.
Lear is a reminder for me. Why? I got a higher grade one afternoon in class because my Eng. teacher liked my in-class performance of King Lear. I swear I merely became nervous in forgetting my lines in front of my class, and nearly blacked out but managed to recite them. Afterward my Eng. told me he was surprised, and that I was good. I'll never do that again. I am waiting to get Macbeth on dvd I rental-ordered, today, should see it within the next couple of days. Should be good. I like anything about history, so I like anything about Macbeth too. I'm going to finish Enter Three Witches tonight.(I hope this isn't getting to be another traffic jam)
Act 5, Scene 1:This scene is excellent. It’s seems like an example of how the play may end. It had been properly set upon the stage to explain the action of tragedy having come true. The doctor examined Lady Macbeth. The gentlewoman attends on her saying lady Macbeth walks in her sleep. What else could go wrong? Only is it actually happening because of the cruelty and other actions of King Macbeth? Do these events approach more and more as we know as we watched from the other scenes that they the witches have cast spells?
Our modern tongue compared to what grabbed me about Shakespeare in use of wardrobe psychology, is the doctor describing the lady in suffering and the Queen’s babble. Shakespeare may explain a bending personality and rhyme it at the same. We suppose sympathy is needed for the wrongly accused Queen, Lady Macbeth with our heart, but already knowing we may be blaming Macbeth for his actions and ultimately for conspiring with the witchery events. Now his fate a tragic one to the viewers. Of course the real Macbeth and Queen had different events leading to their demises than witchery in real life. Anyone know its history?
Review: act V,sceneIII can see for myself a reflection from words from the first scene of an everlasting turmoil
When shell we three meet again
Conclusively a clause without confusion for the vision that enticed viewers into believing of seeing the future. The witches said
That wiill be ere the set of sun.
(and)
Upon the heath.
There to meet with Macbeth.
They know by reign what fate may choose for happening by calling it the head of the nail instead of a future.
Action and purpose of Macbeth is his own. He sees his immanent future safe on the throne and we know his belief of the witches having a power and either predicted through prophesy or their running interference for Macbeth’s oncoming toils of his ruler ship of Scotland.
As I viewed (act V) this I think plainly that the man on the throne will have an advantage in his winning the battle. I believe his defending Scotland his honor. Of course Malcolm’s honor is to his father and gaining the throne from Macbeth.
Perhaps a few exclamation marks are deeply in words of speech as not for Menteith to give us an idea in ‘Double, double toil and trouble;’ SAID BY THE WITCHES, and what should brew in change of the powers in Malcolm having his throne over Scotland.
May 18: Act 5, Scene 7The play moves on. The goers need will to witness to its ending. Macbeth has slain a young stuart who merely tried in his might in killing Macbeth.
Macduff continues in his debate in his seeking vengeance for his family's death.
Act 5, Scene 8;
This is it's last scenes. This was an exceptional story. It's dating back to those days which were able to shepard men into theaters to seek performances. I too am entreated still today. Yet as I see the concluding lines I feel the words, all mostly in my English understanding with my giving them some kind of influence of imaginary Scottish accents were very becoming, a play very becoming for the days of the ages to come.
Perhaps many have not enjoyed a play with men brutality that in real life what is left to the imaginbation for us is a brief source to history to have been obscured and more of less known than this last, these last scenes of the play.
Although Shakespeare seems to be inaccurate. The history inaccuracy is worth many references and leads to different versions of the same play. Each no-doubt worth reading today, but Shakespearean are plays world wide and have varied purposes. In Macbeth the three witches are a force revealing unto the end of the play. Right up to the end and those who follow the play for the charm Macbeth claimed he has have waited for him to be the ruler of all of Scotland. Malcolm will succeed after Macbeth's death according to this story.
Brand new to the discussion group so I hope this works. Leslie and Jenna, I used to live 30 minutes drive from Stratford. We had to drive down Edgehill (famous for its English Civil War battle, everyone went looking for ghosts on the anniversary of the battle) to get to Stratford always hoping there wouldn't be any stray bullocks on the road. I would always want my husband to get out and shoo them away but as they weigh about 700 pounds, he refused. I think ghosts are just part of a way of life in England and if they are in Shakespeare's plays, its better than in an upstairs bedroom. Our friend's 400 year old cottage in Bloxham, Oxfordshire - haunted, our friend's old rectory in Little Tew, Oxfordshire - haunted, my house in Banbury, built on the site of the old Nag's Head, took six months for the house to be quiet. I have seen the witches done as old hags, beautiful women and men playing women. I have also seen the witches played in various states of undress. I first saw the McKellan, Dench Macbeth in a tiny theatre called The Other Place. It was done with a budget of 500 pounds and cast off costumes taken from the wardrobe department. I saw it later when it had moved to the big house in Stratford and I know it went to London and New York. It works much better on the stage than the film version records. I think Shakespeare wrote for himself and other actors. I think we miss out by not performing the plays when we read them. 
I was actually wondering how the ancient female goddess practice might play into the play you know?
AndI hope my interest in comparative religions isn't offensive to fellow participants in any way.
:)
As well as the Christian (and other religions have three as significant, and in math too) idea of Trinity...3 is a factor in Platonic philosophy I believe...?