My favourite Shakespeare play. I still am reluctant to laud Shakespeare with the fervour that others do, I think Midsummer night's dream was awful. Macbeth however I think is a brilliant insight into the human condition, specifically Greed, power, and man's insatiable lust for power. However it's Shakespeares treatment of the occult, and matters metaphysical that interests me the most. Shakespeare clearly shows how Macbeth used the occult, and predictions in his decision making, and indeed one definately can see that the three witches played an integral part in Macbeth's political life. Did shakespeare himself dabble in the occult? Did the Bard have his own Guru from whom he seeked advice? My interest in such metaphysical matters has lead me to delve into Islam too, and the Quran on many occasions mentions the exsistance of sourcery/occult/black magic etc, and hence warns man to stay away from such areas. Going back to Macbeth, aswell as the clear metaphysical theme that underpins the story, I am also fascinated by the way inwhich Shakespeare so clearly and concisely captures the traits in human character that lead many of the powerful to their downfall, narcisissm, paranoia, treachory, betrayal are all dealt with very well in this play, and mirror real life very well. I am going to refresh my memory regarding Julius Caesar, as that too deals with many of the same themes as Macbeth, and then I reckon I'll read Henry V, and then Othello....if I can be bothered. If anyone has read Henry V, Othello, and the Merchant of Venice, please let me have your thoughts.
wow, cool someone else who likes Macbeth BETTER than Hamlet. I like Macbeth the best too. I first saw the film by Roman Polanski then read the play and I loved it all around. When I ask someone which play they liked best, it's always Hamlet then I stop talking about shakespeare. lol. These plays usually deal with a persons outside and inside nature. The spiritual and the material world and I think Shakespeare got a lot of his inspiration from the bible. Occult studies of magic are shown also in the treatment in Richard III and The Tempest. It's been awhile since I've read Henry V and Othello being the most popular involves the deceptions and manipulations of Iago's influence. And most would say Othello was a big strong guy who was overly jealous and Iago using that weakness to bring his downfall.
The Roman Polanski film of Macbeth was definitely the main reason behind my enjoyment, and fuller understanding of Macbeth. Thank God my English teacher had the forsight to show us the film. I haven't read Hamlet yet.
Now one must credit Lady Macbeth for being such a excellent wife...even so much as to scorn her womanhood just to help her husband achieve his prophecy fortold by the three witches.
oh, since you havent read Hamlet, you might actually love it. There are two recent films, one with Gibson (1990) and the other one with Branagh (1996). Thats if you want to see the film before reading it. I wish they would make a recent one of Macbeth though. Isn't it interesting how there is always someone who is the driving force? Just like Iago was in Othello. Still, in Macbeth, it's actually more complex that there are many forces driving him to the brink of insanity. He was so magnificient and to see him fall like that in the end was so tragic.
Marigny: Yes, in most cases it's someone who is the driving force, but with Macbeth it was a cumulation of several factors: Lust for Greed, Narcissism, some degree of inferiority complex, fragile male ego, coupled with getting involved with the Occult and not having the faith or strength to face the ramifications. You know I wonder at Hollywodd sometimes. They spend so much time and effort on either banal sequels, or pointless copies of old classics (The remake of Psycho was awful) I'm surprised thay haven't made Macbeth, the story has all the ingredients for a blockbuster film, and there are so many options with regards to the arena in which it could be set. They could go for a straight period piece (which I think would be better) or they could set it in the future perhaps, a La Minority report. The cast? Well Colin Farrell would have to figure somewhere, not as the lead, but maybe as Banquo. The lead? Depp maybe...nah too young and pretty looking. Clooney? but is he good enough an actor? Deniro? Del Torro? And as for the misses, Jodie Foster I reckon.
First of all, Lady Macbeth would have never killed herself over guilt. She was far too cold for that. Thatwas just bad writing. Or the times influencing the writing. Secondly, the Polanski version sucked, and there is a more recent version of Macbeth, you just don't know where to find it. Its an inependent film mad by the people at Red Deer College and its fucking fantastic! Also Akira Kurowsawa's Throne of Blood is a great version of the play. Clearly illustrates the unbelievability of Lady M's descent into madness. And there are also two newer versions of Hamlet one of which stars Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles.
My favorite Shakespeare plays in order: 1. Cymbeline 2. Julius Caesar 3. MacBeth 4. Othello 5. Anthony and Cleopatra
Nightpoet, that may be so but in the beginning, she was probably a warm person, and greed changes an individual. Look at Othello. Maybe it was in him in the beginning. That's the point of Shakespeares plays. People change through their weaknesses, or they survive, which usually they don't in tragedies. Plus, if she had no use to live when they'd come after her in the end. Polanski film was great to me. It made impact enough. And where is this Independent film by Red Deer College? Can it be rented? And the version with Hawke and Stiles, is it like the movie "O" which is the modern version of Othello, or like Romeo and Juliets modern version with Di Caprio's and Claire Danes? eh. Wraith: I absolutely agree. for example, I watched the "ghost ship" the other day, I think that's the name, and one of their reviewers said that they should have spent all those millions/billions to give to the poor countries instead of wasting it on this movie. lol. The producers created "house of haunted hill" and "13 ghosts", something like that. ^_^
Nightpoet, you're somehow equating "coldness" with immunity to guilt. Guilt is totaly different. You see immunity to guilt can be equated or stated as being inversley proportional to conscience: (from MW online) Lady Macbeth was essentially a normal person, with a normal moral/ethical standard. She was weak , however in the face of power. This can be seen after she reads the letter from Macbeth outlining the prophecies coming true, and that is the turning point for her. Her inherent weakness to power is further accentuated when she realises that power may actually be attainable, hence her lust for greed and power ephasisies that weakness, and any moral/ethical code she may have had is totally overridden, and she almost became intoxicated with the notion that her husband could be king, and that she could be Queen. Now we have a situation where an inherently weak but essentially "good" person has become intoxicated by the allure of Power, and her lust for greed combined with that lust for power has as I've mentioned bypassed any sense of morality she may have had hence placing her on the path of evil to attain her goal, since when such a person is under such circumstances, they choose the easiest and quickest path to attainment, which is more often than not evil/un ethical/immoral. To be immune to guilt, you have to have very little or no conscience, ie you have to be essentially evil. Lady Macbeth wasn't. The blood on her hands brought her back to reality with a bang. Her Intoxication was over, and she was faced with the cold reality and ramifications of what she had done, and now this weak person was faced with the stark reality of guilt. She couldn't handle it , she went insane, and killed herself.
"I have given suck and know how tender tis to love the babe that milks me: I would, while it was smiling in my face, have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums, and dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you have done to this" "My hands are of your colour but I shame to wear a heart so white" She was cold callous and calculating, she had no room for guilt. She was upset because her husband had stopped paying attention to her. You can see the characters change in about Act IV, Lady M and Macbeth essentially switch places becaues you cannot have a strong woman. There is clear evidence throughout the play, if she were to kill herself it would be because she knew it was hopeless and she would die either way; not because she was feeling a little bit of guilt.
Again you're equating callousness with emotional strength. She went insane, and was overcome with remorse and guilt hence ending up killing herself.
I enjoyed Macbeth, I had to study it in grade 11, this year we are doing Hamlet, which I heard is really good. I like the way Shakespeare portrays evil.
I don't see anything wrong with equating callousness with emotional strength. I also have a problem with the fact that she went insane. My perception of Lady M is that she is too emotionally strong to "go insane"
I don't see anything wrong with equating callousness with emotional strength. It's an illogical coonclusion drawn from two premises, to be specific it's a deductive fallacy. I also have a problem with the fact that she went insane. My perception of Lady M is that she is too emotionally strong to "go insane" It's your perception, which is fine, but this leads you to build up an image of you believe lady Mac to be based on your perceptions, which is also fine. However in the context of the play, we clearly see that she goes insane due to the immense sense of guilt and remorse, thus leading to her suicide. Since these sequence of events do not concur with the image you've built up regarding lady Mac, you have a hard time believing that that could be possible. Callousness does not equate to strength, they are completely separate emotional traits. Does generosity or piousness = weakness therefore? no off course not.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Macbeth's my favorite shakespeare play too. The symbolism in the play especially is majestic. Prime example, the dagger. IMO, much better than Romeo and Juliet, and better than Hamlet and Othello.
