Macbeth: Act V

It is fun to see where the title of "Sound and the Fury" came from. I think the passage where it says, "Life's but a walking shadow.....Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury" reminds me of how Benjy, the retarded idiot narrated the first part of Faulkner's book.

I also think that this quote is meaningful because it seems to sum up the general message of the entire story. No matter how hard Macbeth tries to change his fate, it is impossible to change the circumstances. He plays his part in life as a puppet does on stage, then he dies and becomes no more. It reminds me that we humans are mere ashes and dust in the big picture of life.

Lady Macbeth would probably have blabbed out the truth anyway if she continued to talk about the blood of Lady Macduff and Banquo. She would have been eliminated after war if Macbeth made it out alive. If Macbeth didn't die in battle, he would have become lonely indeed. I think Malcolm was pretty noble to offer Macbeth life if he surrendered to him by kissing the ground before his feet. But by this time, I assume Macbeth had this "king" role too stuck in his head. Pride comes before the fall as the bible says.

Crazy Macbeth and the lame ending

So Macbeth is crazy and so is his wife.

She has a serious sleepwalking wound where she is over taken by her own actions.
Can her actions be connected to the curese of the witches and Hecate?

And she dies.

But Macbeth shows no sorrow.
Maybe this was his revenge to her for pushing him over the line. I have read many heores and the main reason of their fall have always been women. WOMEN. they should be avoided at all costs if you are in a position of greatness.

And comes the "dramatic" fight. Macduff has his reason for revenge and Macbeth has his confidence on the witches' words. But he must have known their faultiness because he is not shaken with fear when he hears his destruction.
He keeps clinging on to something. The witches, his wife, his power, and prophecy of fate.

I agree with Yurie in that Macbeth sould have had a more dramatic ending. But maybe Shakesphere did not want to limit his play by giving specific accounts. I think he wanted the play to lay open for the audience's imagination. Whether Macbeth said sorry, surrendered, cried, begged for forgiveness, or cursed like a mad man, fought feircely is only a part of all the possibilites SHaesphere could have used. But he did not want to make it fixed.

That's a Wrap, People

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

So Macbeth ends with Malcolm blabbering on about things that will happen in the future. We really don't know much about Malcolm... so why would Shakespeare end the play with Malcolm talking? And how come Macbeth didn't get a more dramatic death scene?

I suppose Macbeth had some noble last words: "Let him be damned who first cries, 'Hold, enough!'" ... but all that it said in the stage directions was "Macbeth slain." I think Shakespeare wanted us to see that in the end, Macbeth WAS only human. And he got what he deserved for putting his trust in evil things; he put his hopes in people who told him what he wanted to hear, regardless of whether or not it would actually come true. So his death should not have been "special" in any way - he was killed at another's sword, just like he killed so many others with his own.

And to come back to Malcolm... Shakespeare always has to have some kind of clean conclusion, I think. He never ends with just a death or just a marriage; he needs to have someone stand there and give a short speech that wraps things up for good and shows the reader that all the loose ends have been tied up neatly. In this case, he puts that job in the hands of Malcolm, in whose speech we can see that Scotland is on the right track to becoming the land it was before this whole murdering spree fiasco. His speech thus not only provides a typical Shakespearean conclusion to a story full of conflict, but it presents a contrast in its predictions of what will come, which show a once-again pure Scotland - but I wonder how long that will last?

A final something of note - the father-son relationships of the play stood out as quite significant, and especially the lead character's LACK of one. Banquo was evidently close to his son, Fleance, who presumably set out to avenge his father after he escaped Tweedledum and Tweedledee (and Tweedlethree). Young Siward nobly dies while fighting for/with his father. And Malcolm sets out to get the crown back into his father's line, although admittedly neither he nor his brother show any signs of having had any affection for their father after his death. But still, all these father-son relationships juxtaposed against Macbeth's nonexistent children and fatherhood tell me that maybe things would have been different if Macbeth had had a son too, for whom he could have been an example and because of whom he could have been a better person... oh well.

Macbeth: Act VI

I think Shakespeare makes Macbeth seem more evil than he actually is. Whatever happened to "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" Everyone who hates Macbeth practically wants revenge, not some kind of talk. I think people should try to be more open minded and willing to talk things out. I think that Macbeth and his enemies are only hating each other more when they refuse to talk to each other. But murdering a former king is something one can't openly talk about so I fear that this Macbeth dude was doomed to die from the start. And I can't understand why Macbeth's wife is acting strangely. Did she finally chicken out too? Maybe she finally crossed the line and became insane.

I also think that the weird sisters should try to help out Macbeth because he is evil just like them! He is one of them. Why should they fight each other? Why can't they cooperate and work together for the greater evil? Why does Hectate hate Macbeth when he is the source of evil? I feel this inconsistency is quite odd in the story. I think Hectate should give Macbeth supernatural powers and a wand. I secretly think Macbeth would make a pretty cool necromancer if Hectate trained him. Like Darth Vader, all he needs is a little guidance.

I think people like Shakespeare in those days had no sense of imagination.

toooo much

As i continue to read this evil book, I see that everyone in the end fight against themselves, their close people, and their enemies. There is just so much plotting and mistrust in this whole book that it is almost confusing to me to see what perspective the narrator holds. Each character could be seen as a perspective to concentrate on, and each hold slightly different values, making things complicated.
And again, i see the witches under Hecate meddling with people's lives and tricking them for "more evil." They trick Macbeth so that he is blinded. They want his destruction. But my question is why? In the witches' point of view, having Macbeth alive and strong in a corrupted state is much more beneficial to the witches who seek evil. That is a question i hold.
I really liked the SON and the things he said. It is certainly an important part of irony that can be used for my paper due Friday. Hmm. The SON could be viewed as a perspective that the righteous author holds???? adjlkfj;sdlf
Anyway, this book is getting more complicated.

Treachery!

When I read this play before, I was so irritated by all the murder and evil plots in it that I didn't notice one of the greater themes: treachery and how it leads to mistrust.

Treachery comes up in almost every scene. When Lady Macduff talks to Ross and to her son, she feels sorrowful and worried about her husband having left them suddenly. She does not say outright that he is treacherous but it is implied that she does feel that Macduff was betraying his family, in a way.

It comes up even more significantly in the conversation between Macduff and Malcolm, the latter who is wary of placing his trust in Macduff based purely on the fact that he has not been targeted by Macbeth yet. Because of the murder of one king, the nation is plunged into chaos and former allies and friends can no longer trust one another. Shakespeare shows us this in the now ever-present idea of every man for himself ... no one can afford to be naively trusting on the basis of previous friendships. Perhaps Shakespeare lived in quite a cutthroat and harsh time; perhaps he is showing his more cynical side in Macbeth.

Treachery is the swine flu of Macbeth - everyone is afraid that everyone around them has it, and no one wants to get toooo close to anyone else...

Macbeth: Act III

It is interesting how the Greek Goddess of Witchcraft Hectate is the boss over the three witches that meddle with the affairs of Macbeth. I suspect that Macbeth is also vaguely aware that his fate is intertwined with the witches because he makes up his mind to go visit them to seek counsel and advice.

I think Banquo's death had a profound psychological influence on Macbeth because he finally starts to see ghosts. I am surprised how Macbeth did not foresee the pitfalls of becoming king by murdering the previous king. I believe that this book is a bit unrealistic in that Macbeth in real life could have guessed how he'd end up if he started to continuously kill people to gain an upper hand in life. I believe Macbeth should try to confess his sins like Dimmesdale. But the problem is, his punishment would probably be execution. People used to live in a harsh world back then I guess.

Honest man gone bad

At this point of the story, we see Macbeth as a total tyrant and dictator who is suspicious of everybody. He is a king who depends murderers (assassins) to brutally kill his best friend. As I see the amazing change Macbeth went through as a result of his greed and sin, I was afraid at how evil and far fetched people could become to "save" themselves. Sin nature? hmm

My favorite part in this reading was when the ghost of Banquo came in at sat at Macbeth's seat when they all (ironically) drank for him. With his fresh wounds and unclear eyes, the ghost nodded at Macbeth and made him fall further into his own prison of sin and guilt. As Macbeth commits more crimes as a poor attempt to secure his position, he is actually pushing himself both mentally and physically to the opposite direction, and I find Shakesphere doing a good job in portraying this.

Macbeth reminds me of a young child who continues to lie to hide his first lie. But things never get sorted that way. Even when nobody notices the lies, the internal self is suffering as a result of those actions. Anyone who is mentally sane would feel this voice and respond to it by stopping those lies and false implications. The final end of Macbeth reveals a light of truth to what happens to people like that.

On Act III

Banquo is sharp, immediately suspecting his friend. Unfortunately not sharp enough to escape his killers. But the fact that he knew (sort of) that the murderer was Macbeth and was unafraid to suspect his own friend seems to tell us either that he was intelligent, or realistic, or cynical. Also, neither he nor Macbeth seem to have ever really valued each other's friendship, as Banquo quite coolly ponders the idea that Macbeth is a murderer and Macbeth quite coolly ponders the idea of killing Banquo (obviously this coolness is banished later at the feast). I mean, I just find it a little strange that neither of them are too troubled with their thoughts about the other...


An interesting point in this act for me centers around what Macbeth said in Scene 4 to his wife: "I am in blood stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er." Macbeth is beginning to rationalize/excuse his sins - you know, I've already done this much, there's no point going back now. For Macbeth, apparently, it's all or nothing. I think Shakespeare is showing us the internal change in him and the level it has reached at this point in the play. Macbeth is now openly and freely talking of murdering others with his wife and seems to have done away with all his earlier fears and doubts.

And a question about the scene with Hecate - the footnote said it was probably written by another author... so it wasn't part of Shakespeare's original manuscript but was added later on by someone else?

A Dark Story

Overall as i read Macbeth, I can not help but think that this is a very evil story especially when i think about when Macbeth was written. Although the Catholic Church was quite currupt and Christian beliefs were being abused, still, Christianity is even today one of the key characteristics Europe represent in the world. To the common people who lived their daily lives without dirty politics, I find that this book (play) would have been quite shocking.
Death, Betrayal, and Punishment.
In a way, this also reminds me of Crime and Punishment because I know that Macbeth is punished for his actions. Even at the present stage, Macbeth suffers internal conflicts of guilt and fear. Because he has trusted the witches and decided his actions based on them, now he suffers becuase of his decision.
Shakesphere might have been trying to say this important theme in life to the public.
Whatever choice you make, you are responsible for it and if it was made for selfish gains over the sufferings of others, you suffer.
I dont know, I havent spoken with Shakesphere.
But i have this feeling that he was trying to send that message too.

Macbeth Act II

I found it odd that shakespeare did not actually reveil what happened when Macbeth stabbed king Duncan. There must have been a lot of thoughts running around in his head, and it seems strange that the author did not describe what happened. We get to the part where the wife worries about whether her husband found the dagger, but we never get to read about how her husband killed the king.
I also found it interesting how the scene uses ill omens and signs from nature to describe or foreshadow certain events. Isn't it strange how horses would eat each other at the death of a king? The fact that everyone felt something bad about yesterday night also is an indication of Shakespeare forshadowing Duncan's death.
I thought Macbeth did a pretty good job at covering up his tracks. It seems like lies are hardest to see through when they deviate from the truth as little as possible. Killing the servants as a scrapegoat was also a clever move on his part, although I get a feeling that his wife did the planning.

Duncan

I recall reading an article a while ago about the opening scene in Macbeth. Back in the 20th century or so when the play was first being performed, actors and actresses kept on being involved in freak accidents which even killed quite a few of them off. Apparently there was some correlation with the deaths and the mantra that the three witches chant in the opening scene of the play. Someone had included, in the script, a real "spell" that "witches" in antiquity had oft cast upon their enemies. Needless to say people panicked and labeled the incidents as the "Macbeth Curse."

I just thought that was really creepy and interesting to add.

On a somewhat lighter note, King Duncan was actually a really chill and trusting guy with not so trust worthy people around him. It seems that authors like to kill the "good guy" for extra dramatic effect. I would have written a play about King Duncan having a good time with his friends, maybe even go for a drive but noone would want to watch something like that. They need blood, gore and more of it.

It would make a great reality t.v. show though. Something like "Entourage." With alot of drama, profanity and drinking. People would like that...

Poor King Duncan.

Reactions

Does anyone else agree that some of the characters' reactions to the news of King Duncan's death were amusing/inappropriate/lame?

"The King has been murdered!"

Lady Macbeth: "Woe, alas! What, in our house?"
I guess people back then were as concerned with their reputations as people today.
*On second thought: I realized it's not so much about their reputation. She knew what she was getting into when she and her husband plotted the king's murder. I actually think that "What, in our house" was her feigning shock and horror that such a thing could happen under her roof...*

Malcolm: "O, by whom?"
Er...really? I love Shakespeare, but I think maybe he was high when he wrote this line or something. It doesn't seem like the appropriate reaction of the son of a murdered man to want to know who killed his father instead of trying to deny the truth or weeping or expressing disbelief and fury or whatnot.

Then again, Malcolm and Donalbain don't seem to care that much at all about their father's death; no, they are more concerned for their own safety and flee immediately without so much as paying respect (i.e. grieving) for their dead father. Malcolm actually refers to it as an "unfelt sorrow." COLD!

Another thing that struck me in particular from this act was Lady Macbeth declaring (I think I have a weird attraction this character...) that she would have killed the king herself had he not looked like her father in his sleep. And yet she chastises her husband for being weak. I think this reveals her own hypocrisy - she tells her husband he is weak for not being able to carry out his intent (at least, initially) to gain something which she desires as much as he, but she is not willing to stain her hands for it, it seems. (Although she does seem to be fine with smearing her hands in his blood once it is already flowing.)

And as for Macbeth's weird soliloquy - did he really see a dagger stained with blood in the air before him? Was he really hallucinating or was he just being... dramatic?

The Three Witches

Witches were always considered evil, bad, something ungodly and worth killing in old European times. We can understand that because this can be clearly seen through the numerous witch hunts and trials that took place in old European times. Given that, I find it extremely interesting that Shakesphere started his introduction with a conversation between witches discussing future events and conversing with their familiars.
These witches play a critical role in the play of Macbeth. They are all knowing, all seeing, and obviously all powerful. They have the ability to alter the life of different characters and make things work the way they want to because Shakesphere set up the characters that kind of way. I think that the is very smart by doing this because this gives the witches reason, power, and explanations why things happen the way they do.

Macbeth and all the other characters are just seen as simple characters who are swung left and right by the witches. In a sense, Shakesphere might have been trying to say that there are supernatural powers out there that alter the lives of others. I am sure that Macbeth was regarded as a super liberal piece of work because of the supernatural aspect he made it sound as rather friendly and close than super evil.

Macbeth Act 1

I found Act 1 Scene 2 interesting because Ross says that they would let the enemy sign a treaty with them if they paid ten thousand dollars. These days, ten thousand dollars would buy you a Toyota Prius. Back then it must have been very expensive. It just goes to show how inflated the dollar has become. The witches also seem to possess some magical power that allow them to slightly alter the fates of people. This belief or reference to witchcraft might give hint to what people of the Shakespeare era believed in.
Lady Macbeth seems to be the puppet master and Macbeth seems to be the puppet asking witches and his wife for advice on how to be a king. It totally castrates him as the male protagonist.

First Musings

Lady Macbeth reminds me of Madame Defarge, and Macbeth of Monsieur Defarge.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I see the connection. Was Dickens inspired by Shakespeare? (Then again, who hasn't been?)

Lady Macbeth chastises her husband for being too weak to make his desire a reality by killing King Duncan (if that isn't a totally Scottish name, I don't know what is), just like Madame Defarge accuses her husband of backing down and being weak when he expresses doubts over denouncing the Darnay family, etc. The women are the forces to be reckoned with in both these books...

But, forgetting Dickens for a second... I'm most fascinated by the scene in which Lady Macbeth asks the evil spirits (or whatever) to "unsex [her]" and to "take [her] milk for gall" - it's interesting that she believes she has to do away with her femininity to be capable of murder. According to the cursory research I have just performed, men have always committed more crimes than women. I don't know how reliable my source is, however (don't worry Mr. H, it's not Wiki), but it sounds pretty accurate to me. And I'm wondering what were Shakespeare's thoughts on this? He obviously was aware that women can be capable of murder too - Lady M is much more for killing King D than Macbeth is, though Macbeth apparently had no qualms about running his sword through Sweno (sp?). But he couldn't just have her kill Duncan... he had to have her be "unsexed" whatever that actually means.

It's also pretty frightening when she tells her henpecked husband that if she had sworn to rip her baby from her breast and dash his brains out, she would have done it. Hands up if you think she really would have! *raises hand, then puts it back down hesitantly*

Another thing: Macbeth is quick to accept what the three witches/weird sisters (Ben: Now we know where JK Rowling came up with The Weird Sisters band from, haha) tell him about his future. He is so eager to hear what they have to say to him that the fact that they are quite obviously evil doesn't even bother him too much. Now this makes me wonder whether Macbeth is originally a "bad" person, or if the witches' prophecy brings out the worse side of him. The same for Lady Macbeth - is she originally such an evil-minded person or does the picture of fame and glory go to her head? Both seem unlikely. Someone as noble as Macbeth in their fighting cannot be so full of "original sin." But then, can greed and the hope of glory really bring out so much badness in one person?

The big idea I've always pondered on when I read this book was morality. Or lack thereof. I think it's because there is so little of it in this book - the only ray of hope lies with Banquo - that I dislike this play so much in comparison with Shakespeares' other tragedies. Othello, King Lear, and Hamlet's protagonists are not so devoid of morals. Speaking of which - can Macbeth be classified as protagonist? An anti-hero? I mean I'm definitely not sympathisizing with him but he's the main character, so what does that make him? An anomaly?

This is way too long. But I like the layout of this blog; it's very pretty.

Reading Schedule

Due Thursday, February 18: Act I
Due Friday, February 19: Act II
Due Monday, February 22: Act III
Due Wednesday, February 24: Act IV
Due Thursday, February 25: Act V
Due Friday, February 26: Irony Paper