I find it highly ironic that Macbeth dies as a result of a prophesy. The play started with a prophesy and ended with one... Macduff took down Macbeth in style. He was all like, "I got this guys."
One word: Badass
The moving forest was also ingenius. Had two different roles.
1.) Acted as part of the prophesy
2.) Served to hide troops from Macbeth's eyes.
Anyway just goes to show how greed destroys you in the end.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)