Discussion Five - Macbeth - Act V and the play as a whole

[Jim]

This discussion covers Act V, and the play as a whole

[Zadignose]

Having finished my reread, I have to say the play is madder and more bizarre than I'd remembered. In narrative, it's short and simple.

One thing that surprised me was the use of humor. The banter between MacDuff's wife and child was particularly surprising. We've just heard the order for them to be killed, they now manage to exchange some humorous and witty remarks (though I'm sure they are acid wit) on the very grim subject of MacDuff's possible death and their own bleak fortunes, and then their inevitable murder follows. But there were other comedy moments, including the earlier scene where a servant delays opening a door while playing at the role of hell's gatekeeper.

I had to wonder to what extend Shakespeare aimed for grisly laughs even in his extreme moments. The overblown grief, fear, and guilt of MacBeth and his Lady are played so strongly. And the scene where Banquo's ghost disturbs the Banquet this time made me think of American sitcoms... it was almost a Weekend at Bernie's moment!

Jokes are thrown in at most unexpected times, as when the apparition of a bloody child confronts Macbeth, "Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!" and he replies "Had I three ears, I'd hear thee."

But all of this is amidst such horror and gloom.

As I've been lately realizing, Shakespeare collapses narratives to their bare bones, such that the pacing can seem even absurd.

There's a lot of irony and double-speaking... and deception. Lennox, in Act III, sc. 6, seems to speak as though supporting MacBeth's version of events, but it appears he is being ironic, and he immediately rushes to support Malcolm and the rebels. And Malcolm, in England, speaking to MacDuff, condemns himself in terms we cannot believe, but is only doing so to test MacDuff's character. The audience could well find themselves in sympathy with MacDuff's pronouncement: "Such welcome and unwelcome things at once 'Tis hard to reconcile."

Another thought that I pondered: We see such grim events as the murder of an innocent child on stage, and the bizarre special-effects extravaganza of the visions rising from the witches' cauldron, but Shakespeare elected to keep the central event, the murder of Duncan and the vision of his bloodied corpse off-stage. He elected to keep the death of MacBeth off-stage, even though we see the moments immediately leading up to it, as well as the immediate consequence (his severed head), but the dying moment does not play out for our eyes. Shakespeare has surely staged the murder of kings, the deaths of villains and heroes for our eyes to see, but here he took the two most essential deaths off-stage... in fact, the three, because Lady MacBeth's final moments occur so much off-stage that we only get report an rumor. These are notable choices.

Finally, I don't know why I had forgotten, but the play does not in the end address how Banquo's "children" may someday take the throne. The witches, perhaps, fooled me as much as they fooled MacBeth. Is it that Fleance is not to be king, but rather one of his offspring in a later generation who will found a dynasty? Or is the question merely left outside the scope of the play, as for instance an epic like the Iliad leaves off without resolving the expected, fated consequences... the middle of a story with both beginning and end to remain off-stage, alluded to but not portrayed?

[Lily]

Thanks for your comments, Zadignose. I still have the play open on my coffee table and have been noodling through it sort of scene by scene. Each one seems to contain a lot to cross-check. I appreciate your insights.