My Photo

Fair Verona, where we lay our scene...

  • MASTER OF VERONA cover
    These are images of Verona and the surrounding areas, all having to do with the novel The Master of Verona.

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by TypePad

Macbeth

Two Dominant Searches

Of all the various seach terms that bring people to this site, there are two that are dominant. 1) Capulet-Montague feud; and 2) Tomorrow and tomorrow.

The first is rather obvious - I've written a novel about the cause of the Capulet-Montague feud in Romeo & Juliet. But the second is due to a single piece I wrote last summer, where my wife and I put forward our notion of the first half of the famous speech as Lady Macbeth's suicide note.

Well, someone else has just found it, and commented upon it. The link is here. And for those interested, the original link is here.

Now I have to figure out how to attract more people searching for the Muppets.

Best Synopsis Ever

Okay, I should be focused on the book today, but I just read a preview of the MichShakesFest shows in the Toledo Blade, and I cracked up. This is, by far, my favorite synopsis of Macbeth ever. Ev-er. Can you tell why?

Basically, Macbeth is about a heroic man who murders his way to the throne of Scotland. Neville-Andrews says he is giving more prominence to "demonic agents," integrating them into the fabric of the production, and allowing them, "through suggestion and prophecy," to fan the flames of Macbeth's malevolence and the overwhelming ambition of Macbeth's wife, Gertrude.

Heh heh. Heh. Heh heh. It's gonna have me smiling all day long.

Okay, back to the book...

DB

Macbeth - Random Notes

A few more thoughts on one of the shows I know best - Macbeth.

  • Mac is a Ghost story. So, for that matter, is Hamlet. Less so Richard III, though it has ghosts too.
  • While tempting to cut, the speech by one of the witches in I.iii is actually quite important. She relates how a sailor's wife was insulting to her, and in return she's going to take her revenges on the sailor himself:

I will drain him dry as hay:
Sleep shall neither night nor day
Hang upon his pent-house lid;
He shall live a man forbid:
Weary se'nnights nine times nine
Shall he dwindle, peak and pine.

Since this is precisely what happens to Macbeth, this speech might be kinda important...

  • The Prince of Cumberland moment.

Okay, this is vital. Scotland in 1050 was still a warrior society. That means that whoever of noble blood was the best warrior got to be king. By naming his son Malcolm as his heir, Duncan is shattering that tradition. By rights, it should be Macbeth. He's a kinsman to the king, and a great warrior. Duncan tries to fob Mac off with Cawdor, which should go to Macduff. Nobody is getting what they deserve.

In this, Mac is almost - almost - justified in considering regicide. Duncan is breaking faith with his thanes. And, seeing what Malcolm does later in making the thanes into earls, we understand the process is going to continue. Scotland is no longer Scotish. It's becoming English.

But back to the moment. Remember, at this point, Malcolm has almost been captured on the field. He fled, leaving Mac and Banquo to deal with the traitor MacDonwald. So, I ask, are the thanes that juiced to hear Malcolm is going to be their king someday? Or is this declaration greeted by a long, painful, uncomfortable silence? In the last four productions I've been in, the cast has opted for the silence, which I think is far more valuable - it gives everyone on stage a lot to play.

  • There's a bad pun that often gets over-looked. In I.v, Duncan says:

True, worthy Banquo; he is full so valiant,
And in his commendations I am fed;
It is a banquet to me.

Banquo. Banquet. The king is making a joke. But it's so bad, he almost deserves what he gets that night.

  • In II.i (the dagger scene), Banquo has this line:

What, sir, not yet at rest? The king's a-bed:
He hath been in unusual pleasure, and
Sent forth great largess to your offices.
This diamond he greets your wife withal,
By the name of most kind hostess; and shut up
In measureless content.

The diamond he is referring to is not a literal jewel. It is the title, "Most kind hostess."

  • The Porter and his eternal knock-knock joke. Comic relief, yes. But in one production I was in, and only one, as he was going drunkenly through his list of professions roasting in Hell, he reached a different conclusion. Here's the text:

Knock,
knock; never at quiet! What are you? But
this place is too cold for hell. I'll devil-porter
it no further: I had thought to have let in
some of all professions that go the primrose
way to the everlasting bonfire.

Now, insert a figure walking past him, through the castle at night. His drunken eyes behold it, and he asks, "What are you?" The light touches his face - it is King Duncan. Covered in blood, his spirit is leaving Inverness. This is not a textual choice, but a performance one. Because, while he's providing some much-needed relief, this is still a ghost story.

  • A very minor point, but worth noting - at the banquet, Banquo's ghost only appears when Mac summons him. And leaves again when implored to. Mac doesn't know it, but he has the power in that scene.
  • The Ross-Lennox scene (III.vi) is best if played that they are in danger of being overheard.
  • Whoever it is that comes in to IV.i at the end to bring the news that Duff is fled to England (listed in the script as Lennox), this should be the same person who brings Lady Duff the news that she should get out of Dodge. Why? Because that messenger is privy to Mac's speech, the one where he swears the firstlings of his thoughts will be the firstlings of his hands. If we are to take him at his word (and, again, it is rarely valuable to assume that characters lie in soliloquies or asides), he's going to pounce this instant upon Duff's family. But Lennox - or Angus, or in the case of the current production, the Porter - whoever it is, that person is there to hear Mac's plans, and might be in a position to send a warning.

This brings up a thread I think is very important in staging - merging characters where one can. It is much, much, much more powerful for an actor to play a through-line than to have a dozen minor parts. The best example I can give is when I played Exton in Richard II. Being a history play, named characters pop up when they need to, and are never really established as people. That's Exton, who appears only in time to murder Richard. So I was triple-cast in that show, playing a soldier-herald at the top, the Welsh Captain in the middle, returning as the soldier after intermission, then becoming Exton at the end. It is my eternal shame that I didn't think to ask the director to merge these three characters - there would have been great value in seeing Exton start the show as a loyal soldier-herald, then the wavering captain of men, then at last as betrayer and murderer. It tells a better story. So now, as a director, I'm always on the lookout for those minor roles that can be strung together and played as one. It's better for the actors, and better for the audience.

  • The procession of kings sucks. No matter what. Best we ever did was only to have Mac hallucinate the whole thing. Otherwise you're dealing with puppets, or a parade, or shafts of light, or something that never has the import of the moment. Because the moment is fantastic. It's just the execution that blows.
  • Killing the Duff family. This is pure fun, and actually goes against the text, but I always hate it when a character is killed and then has lines. So, when I'm in charge, little Duff-boy gets killed, then one of the murderers holds him up and uses his mouth as a puppet, saying, "They have killed me, mother. Run away, I pray you!" Creepy. Add to that the breaking of a baby's neck and the audience is always recoiling in horror. Which, really, they should be.
  • Mac's speech to the doctor in V.iii is much more colorful (and, I think, effective) if he's talking about himself:

Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?

Doctor 

Therein the patient
Must minister to himself.

I mean, the doctor even gives it away - "minister to himself." It's obvious to everyone what Mac is talking about! Especially knowing what the doctor now knows. The poor doctor must tred very lightly here, lest the king discover the knowledge the physician gained in listening to the ravings of the sleepwalking queen.

That's enough, for now. Please bear in mind, these are the observations of an actor from within the show. If anyone has any moments you wish to discuss, please don't hesitate. Right now all I'm thinking about is this show. Which is bad, as I've got a novel coming out in two weeks.

Cheers,

DB

Mac-beth

This may seem an incredibly minor and nit-picky point, but honestly, after six years of productions and between one and two hundred performances of the show, this is something that sets my teeth on edge.

His name is not Mcbeth. He is not Irish. His name is Macbeth. He is Scottish.

It's not hard, but most actors and almost every patron I talk to mispronounce his name, saying "Mickbeth." I have literally shuddered at the sound. I know, I know. It's almost too asinine to mention, but there it is. It pains my delicate little ears.

By the way, that means, too, that it's MACduff and MACdonwald. Oh, and when saying the name Banquo, there's no 'g' sound. It's not Bang-quo.I go back and forth on the Seaton thing, but usually I come down on SEE-ton, rather than Satan. Then there's Fleance. Is it FLEE-ance? Or FLAY-ance? I heard it both ways, but again I tend to side with the latter.

Okay. There. Sorry. It's like Pringles - once I start, I can't stop.

But, however you pronounce the other names, please - give the man his heritage. We call him Mackers, not Mickers. His name is important, and his nationality. Macbeth, King of Scotland.

Macbeth - Two Battles, Two Betrayals, Two Heroes

There are two battles at the top of Macbeth. Whenever I am in charge of the staging, I try and open the show with both of these, just to make things clear. But whether or not they're staged, they are laid out in Act I scene ii. Appropriately, they come from two sources - the Bloody Sergeant, and the Thane of Rosse.

The first battle is the nearest, fought right on king Duncan's doorstep. We know this because his son Malcolm was in it, and almost captured. The Bloody Sergeant got wounded keeping Malcolm safe, and Malcolm has returned with the king, his father - or else, the Sergeant is being carried from the field. Either way, this is the first battle we hear about, from the Sergeant's own lips.

He tells us that the battle was looking bleak, and he names the reason why - "the merciless MacDonwald, worthy to be a rebel..." Note, MacDonwald is a Scottish lord, joined with the enemy (supplied with soldiers from the small islands nearby). Historically, this was common in Scotland. Norway had a strong foothold in Scotland, and many thanes swore oaths of loyalty to one or both kings, Norway and Scottish.

But history isn't necessary to the story. The facts as laid out tell us enough: MacDonwald has betrayed Scotland, and was winning the battle until Macbeth arrives. With Banquo fighting alongside him, Mac fights his way through the press of Norwayans until he faces MacDonwald. They fight, and Mac "unseems" the traitor "from the nave to the chops" (what a great turn of phrase). Then Mac fixes the traitor's head on the battlements.

But that battle isn't done. Seeing that Mac's forces are distracted, the Norwayan lord takes advantage and, reinforced with supplies and fresh men, attacks. But Macbeth and Banquo "doubly redoubled strokes upon the foe" and win the day.

That takes care of the first battle, close at hand. The second is taking place at the same time, in Fife. One supposes that King Sweno (Sven) of Norway planned a two-pronged invasion - one north, one south. And, arguably, the northern attack was the most dangerous, because "Norway himself" is there, leading his troops on. Here, too, there is a Scottish traitor - the Thane of Cawdor. And here, too, they are beaten back by a Scottish lord.

This is where productions go awry. 99% of the time, people play it as if it is Macbeth who has won the battle in Fife. Some productions go so far as to add his name to Rosse's speech relating the events. But it seems ludicrous to me. Given the immediacy of the current battle (the Sergeant is still bloody and his wounds have yet to be tended), and the distance to Fife, Macbeth would have to be in two places at the same time. Now, I grant that this is a story with elements of magic, but really, no, it isn't right. Besides, in Rosse's speech, the true hero of the battle in Fife is unnamed, referred to only as "Bellona's bridegroom."

But, wait - Fife. Fife is an important place in the play. Why? Because Macduff is the Thane of Fife.

Which means that it is Macduff who has captured Cawdor, turned back the Norwayan king, and won not only the battle but a huge sum of ransom from the enemy forces. This makes even more sense when you realize that Rosse and Macduff are cousins, just as Macbeth and Duncan are kinsmen. Rosse comes from Fife to bring Duncan the news of his cousin's great feat.

Which brings up an interesting point. Duncan gives Cawdor to Macbeth, his kinsman, not to Macduff, who earned it. Already there is strife between these thanes. Just as Macbeth feels he should be Prince of Cumberland, not that coward Malcolm who had to be protected and who fled the field to find his father, so too does Macduff feel he should be Cawdor, a title he earned with his sweat, toil, and blood.

This is why I get frustrated when I see productions where Macduff is hanging around with the king at the start. His arrival at Invernes is his real entrance, and he's arriving with hopes to be honored for his great travail. Awkwardly, he's coming to the castle of the man who has been given the title he himself feels he's earned. It allows for a whole world of play.

But all of that is beside the point I want to make here, which is simply that there are two battles, two traitors, and two heroes at the start of Macbeth.

Taken together, these two battles are immensely important. They symbolize the final expulsion of Norway from Scotland, thus creating, for the first time ever, a single unified Scottish nation - Alba, or Scotland.

Also note that it is Malcolm, at the end of the play, who brings the English forces into Scotland. It is also Malcolm who turns the thanes into earls, an English title. So, even setting aside the historical Macbeth (a great king who ruled for almost twenty years) - who is the true villain, in the eyes of Scotland? Macbeth, a bloody Scottish tyrant, or Malcolm, who set in motion the perpetual English claims on Scottish lands?

Food for thought.

- DB

Macbeth - Tomorrow and tomorrow...

There are perhaps three uber-famous speeches in Macbeth, but the one that is most often quoted is the "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" speech. It's often taken as an existential lament, recited by actors and professors with a deep sorrowful intonation.

That's not wrong, but it's not right either. It loses any context. And, like my rather unusual take on the Capulet-Montague feud, I have an unorthodox idea about this speech. I saw the first hint at it in the summer of 2001, while playing the Thane of Ross at First Folio Shakespeare. That fall I played Mackers for them on tour, but didn't follow through with my idea until I played the part for A Crew Of Patches in our first season, in the fall of 2003. Page Hearn, our director, allowed me to chase the notion, and I've made use of it ever since. For me, the actor, it works on many levels. And I hope that it makes sense for new viewers of the play, while at the same time challenging those familiar with the text.

Side note - I always like to flout audience expectations, even more when I can do so by returning to the text. So many of us are taught Shakespeare in such a poor way, that we have truly misformed notions of what we should be seeing and hearing. People expect R&J to be a dirge from the word go, Othello to be without humor, and Viola to look like a man (which loses the joke entirely!).

Anyway, a little context:

1) The first communication between Mac and his Lady is a letter - the letter, in fact, in which he tells her about the witches and their prophecy;

2) After the murder of Duncan, the Macs begin to drift apart. He kills the grooms without consulting her, and cuts her out of the murder of Banquo entirely. The process is solidified by the end of the banquet scene, after which they never speak together again. He can't sleep and she is stuck in a dreamstate, sleepwalking and reliving the horror of the night of Duncan's murder.

3) During the sleepwalking scene ("Out, out, damn spot!"), before Lady M enters, the Doctor and the Gentlewoman have this exchange:

Doctor 

I have two nights watched with you, but can perceive
no truth in your report. When was it she last walked?

Gentlewoman 

Since his majesty went into the field, I have seen
her rise from her bed, throw her night-gown upon
her, unlock her closet, take forth paper, fold it,
write upon't, read it, afterwards seal it, and again
return to bed; yet all this while in a most fast sleep.

4) When Seaton enters to tell Mac that his wife is dead, Mac's response is "She should have died hereafter; There would have been time for such a word." (emphasis mine).

5) Within the speech itself, there seem to be two distinct parts, the first having multi-syllable words and soft consonants and vowel sounds, the second having mainly one syllable words full of plosive sounds-- as though originating from two minds.  The speech seems to be divided thus:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Bearing all that in mind, imagine this - Seaton enters after the blood-curdling cry offstage. The king says, "Wherefore was that cry?" In reply, Seaton holds out a blood-stained bit of paper with mad scribblings of writing all over it. The seal on it tells us that it is the same letter that Mac sent in the first scene, but it has been written over and over, in corners and on edges, until it is covered with words. Seaton says, "The queen, my lord, is dead."

Macbeth takes the letter from Seaton and waves him off. Looking at the paper, he says, "She should have died hereafter; there would have been time for such a word." Then, squinting, he begins to read, trying to make sense out of the squiggles and shapes written by a sleepwalker in despair.

It was my wife, Jan, who recognized the conversation between the gentlewoman and the doctor and brought to my attention that we had already heard that Lady Mac was frantically writing in her sleep.  She also pointed out the change in style in the famous "Tomorrow" speech.  Her analysis, found when she was playing Lady for the Patches, combined with my initial conception of the mirrored communication, made a strong case for the playing of one of Shakespeare's most famous speeches as one part letter, one part realization.

Our thesis, then, in brief: The first half of "Tomorrow, and tomorrow" is Lady Macbeth's suicide note. 

We like this idea for two reasons. It mirrors their first communication in the play and it gives them a final moment of connection, allowing Mac to realize how far they've fallen, and how little is left to him.  I originally liked the simple mirroring of first communication and last communication being a letter-- and it helped me play the powerful soliloquay thrown into the center of such frenzied action at the end of the play. It was Jan who showed me how much textual sense it made, when combined with the "mad" scene, which isn't a mad-scene at all - it's a sleepwalking scene, where the Lady's conscience forces her to re-enact nightly the events that haunt her (Jan points out that in the other famous "mad" scene - Ophelia in Hamlet - the madwoman spouts actual nonsense, gibberish. That is not the case here).

Since I have no intention of writing a Macbeth historical novel (it's been done, several times, though Dorothy Dunnett's is the best, the most detailed, and the hardest), Jan and I thought we would lay this out here, sending it into the aether for other actors and directors to use or not, as they choose.

Have at.

Note: Since there are hundreds of students showing up here each week, I've provided an example of how this concept should be attributed in your papers: "According to David Blixt, Shakespearean actor and author of THE MASTER OF VERONA,..."