Discussion One - Macbeth - Act I

[Jim]

This discussion covers Act I

[Elizabeth]

Has anyone ever seen an incredible modern movie of the play? I caught it by accident, surfing channels. Oh, I thought, a war movie. A Brit soldier (complete with red beret) is standing in front of a smoking, shelled tank, with a posh older gentleman. OK, I thought; I'll watch this. And then I realize the posh gentleman is making the soldier Thane of Cawdor. All the castles used (except one) were abandoned factories. It was great, but I've never been able to find it again.

[mkfs]

Elizabeth wrote: "Has anyone ever seen an incredible modern movie of the play"

Sounds good -- I saw a version of Hamlet that was sort of like that, with Kevin Kline.

The most unusual version of the Scottish play that I have seen was Alan Cumming's one-man performance. Surprisingly good. I won the group bet on how soon into the performance he'd drop trou (first act, as I recall).

[Zadignose]

I'm sorry that I haven't seen the above-mentioned movie, so I can't help there.

I'm generally not a big fan of Shakespeare reinterpreted to suit a different time or context (please don't even name Julie Taymor or Baz Luhrmann... damnit, I went and did it myself!) Anyway, it's a cliche in itself. But that doesn't mean it always has to be wrong... I reckon great artists can get away with anything.

Which brings me to Throne of Blood, a worthwhile viewing experience.

Now, however, I've got to get down to rereading the real Shakespeare thingy. Maybe the passing of years will have given me a new perspective on the thing. Will it be haunting, or will it be overblown and maudlin... or all three!?

[Zadignose]

Okay, to the play:

In my memory, Lady MacBeth was the evil manipulator who goaded MacBeth to do evil.

Now I find that she only did a great job of fulfilling the role MacBeth wanted her to fulfill. He immediately lusted to be king, and when he says (in Act I Scene vi), "I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent," he surely knows that his wife will be that spur.

He wrote to her immediately to proclaim the prophecy of the witches, surely knowing what it would lead to, basically sounding her out to make her his goad and his accomplice, and when she says (same scene) "What beast was't, then, / That made you break this enterprise to me?" she's right. Why speak of it at all, if not to bring about the act, and to recruit her to help recruit his courage?

------------------------
Another thought: We can't resolve this question with certainty, but how do you feel about the witches' prophecy? Does it suggest an unalterable fate, such that they can see the future before it happens? (Well, yeah, but...) Or does it more strongly suggest that they incite the fulfillment of their own prophecy... they cause it by stimulating MacBeth's latent ambition and violent urges, just as they've been sowing evil all around the world as they have recently been boasting of.

-------------------------
Question: How do you read this? Is there a veiled second meaning? Who is the "martlet", and why is he "temple-haunting," if the commentary on birds roosting in the sweet atmosphere is to be taken as a parable?

This guest of summer,
The temple-haunting martlet, does approve
By his lov'd mansionry, that the heaven's breath
Smells wooingly here: no jutty, frieze, buttress,
Nor coigne of vantage, but this bird hath made
His pendant bed and procreant cradle:
Where they most breed and haunt, I have observ'd
The air is delicate.

Or do you take this message merely to be a comment on the deceptively pleasant air here? Kind of like ironically declaring "Thank God for the smooth terrain" a moment before tumbling and breaking one's leg.

[Elizabeth]

Zadignose: Thank you for reminding me of "Throne of Blood." I watched it years ago, and it's great.
Witches' prophecy: remember the Oracle in "The Matrix" who says, "Don't worry about the vase"; and then Neo knocks it over? Maybe their prophecy is akin to that. As in many of his plays, Shakespeare was seemingly concerned with the question: is it fate? Is it free will Is it what Mama said? Or what Lewtenant Dan says?

[mkfs]

I re-read Macbeth too recently to join in with you guys this time around, but it's fairly fresh in my memory.


I had the impression that Macbeth is too conflicted to take immediate action: he wants to be king, but his loyalty and his sense of place make him waiver. Lady Macbeth has no such division: she feels only the compelling ambition, and goads her husband into making it happen.

Insecurity, guilt, and paranoia set in later and seem to cause the reversal of roles. The murders change both of them, with Macbeth becoming cold and ruthless, his wife a Raskolnikovian wreck.


It's pretty clear the witches are evil. They gloat about their wicked doings, they gather only around horrific events (battle, shipwreck) as if feeding on the pain and misery of mortals. As an amusing review says, "Let's f*ck with some mortals!".

Are they making actual prophecies, cloaked in riddle out of mischief and malice? Or do they see an opportunity to create chaos, and spur on those in whom they find weakness (ambition, greed) for their own amusement?

In a way, it doesn't matter. But from a narrative standpoint, these have to be actual prophesies -- it is ludicrous to think of Macbeth and Banquo sinking pints and rembering "that time those three crones tried to prank you into being king".

Some of the later prophesies ("no man of woman born", "the woods will walk", etc) do seem more like plot than prophecy: Macbeth must believe he cannot be killed in order to foolishly expose himself to danger. But that could also be a requirement of the gift of prophesy: you cannot see the future except in vague, dreamlike ("walking trees!") visions, or perhaps you are not permitted (by who?) to communicate sufficient information to cause the future to be changed. Hmm, methinks an information-theoretic analysis of prophecy in Shakespeare needs to be written.


Sorry to get a bit ahead of Act I, but I think we can assume there are no spoliers in this one.

And agreed: Throne of Blood was awesome.

[Elizabeth]

Z: I googled "martlet bird" and am more confused than ever. Why wld Shakespeare pick a heraldic bird & not a real one? Was it a rhythm thing? But both Martin and Swallow fit the blank verse...or maybe as you say, it's just a scene-setting bit of irony.

Note on Lady M. My first year teaching, 25 12th graders and I are all struggling through the play...they're in groups...Michael is teasing Tonya and she gets furious. Across the room Kevin cries out, "Watch out, y'all, she's gawn unsex herself and kill 'im!"

[Jim]

Elizabeth wrote: "Z: I googled "martlet bird" and am more confused than ever. Why wld Shakespeare pick a heraldic bird & not a real one? Was it a rhythm thing? But both Martin and Swallow fit the blank verse...or..."

Okay, let's talk about anecdotes and films over in the general banter thread, and stay focused on Act I in this discussion. Thanks...

[Lily]

Not certain whether this illumines the "martlet" in Macbeth discussion or not, but this is what I have found so far:

"The heraldic martlet, is perceived as being swift and elegant, and is a device for someone prompt and ready in the dispatch of his business. The martlet signifies nobility acquired through bravery, prowess or intelligence. The martlet is consistently drawn without feet, a perpetuation of the Mediaeval myth that the swallow had no feet. As such, the bird also represents one who has to subsist on the wings of his virtue and merit alone. On English Arms, it was a mark of cadency signifying the fourth son, who – having no land of his own, would have to rely on his own hard work, virtue, merit and endeavour to succeed."

http://www.pembrokehouse.sc.ke/the-ma...

[Lily]

Not sure I have read Macbeth since using a selection for declamation in high school so many years ago now! Nor do I think I have ever seen it produced. But what a set-up that first scene is, with its opening:

"When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"

and closing upset of normal order with:

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air."

Delightfully sinister or amusing is the thought of the witches' animal seconds, Graymalkin and Paddock, mewing and croaking in the background or at their feet.

[Christopher]

Elizabeth wrote: "Has anyone ever seen an incredible modern movie of the play? I caught it by accident, surfing channels. Oh, I thought, a war movie. A Brit soldier (complete with red beret) is standing in front..."

I think I know which one you're talking about. Did it star Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: TNG, X-Men) as Macbeth? If so, I know you can get that movie on Apple, Amazon, etc.

[Christopher]

I haven't read Macbeth in a while, even though it is my favorite Shakespeare plays. Reading Act I again, I was struck by Lady Macbeth's soliloquy in scene v, lines 39-54 ("Come you spirits/ That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here..."). It seems to me that she is not only calling on the darker powers to aid her, but she may also be trying to pep herself up for this one act of violence. If she was only in it for one death, then that would explain why she starts to get squeamish in later acts. Thoughts?

[Lily]

Christopher wrote: "I haven't read Macbeth in a while, even though it is my favorite Shakespeare plays. Reading Act I again, I was struck by Lady Macbeth's soliloquy in scene v, lines 39-54 ("Come you spirits/ That t..."

Always seemed to me that there was an element of not thinking/forecasting consequences through to a logical end point.

[Zadignose]

There are several parties to conflict, but I'm not sure whether you can regard them as a single or multiple wars, and there must be at least two or more battles. I gathered that there is rebellion by one or more Scottish lords (whether or not being supplied by Western isles means that this is particularly an Irish war, I don't know, but there must be alliances), and that the Nordic/Norwegian King Sweno's attack was opportunistic. With Scotland plunged in civil-war, a foreign power made a play (and lost).