The Scottish Play: Macbeth by William Shakespeare
All hail, Macbeth! that shalt be king hereafter!
Macbeth, ACT I, SCENE III
Looking back on my second time around here at Black Gate, I saw that each for the first two summers I’d undertaken the enjoyable, if somewhat pointless task, of writing about a Shakespeare play (for what can I possibly bring to such an effort). First, there was A Midsummer Night’s Dream, then The Tempest. I skipped last summer because a sense of inadequacy for the task had me struggling to finish my piece about T.H. White’s The Once and Future King (pt. 1, pt. 2).
Having already missed last month’s installment of my column due to an ongoing run-in with a 5 mm kidney stone, I decided getting back to Shakespeare might be just the thing to get me moving. But what to read? I’ve only read fourteen of his thirty-nine plays, so I don’t know which of them have fantastical elements. And, then, it smacked me on the head, Macbeth. Not only is it my favorite of the plays I’ve read, but it’s suffused with magic, all black and malign. Then, there are all the movie versions, including a recent one starring Denzel Washington and France McDormand. So, let me begin.
For those who’ve somehow missed reading Macbeth in 8th or 9th grade, it’s the story of a Scottish thane whose ambitious nature is spurred on by the prophecies of a trio of witches and his wife. To make himself king of Scotland he murders King Duncan. Once upon the throne becomes increasingly paranoid and begins to move against any her perceives as rivals; first his friend Banquo and later another thane, Macduff. When his enemies marshal ten thousand soldiers to march against his castle atop Dunsinane Hill, he believes himself impervious due to further prophecies delivered by the witches. In an instant of clarity, Macbeth realizes that witches being witches, their prophecies provide no real protection. Suffice it to say, as the play’s original title was The Tragedie of Macbeth, it does not end well for him.
Accursed be that tongue that tells me so,
For it hath cow’d my better part of man!
And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d,
That palter with us in a double sense;
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope!
What made me fall in love with Macbeth was the language. There’s a reason so many of its words have become woven into our language. I’m not so sure I agree with Harold Bloom’s assertion that Shakespeare created “humanity,” that is how we perceive our inner selves, but there’s no denying the psychological depth brought to his characterizations, all expressed in iambic pentameter. Not having all that much to add to any analysis of the play, let me provide some examples of what I’m describing.
First, in a single scene, as the witches are conjuring up chaos, they speak these immortal words:
Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire, burn; and cauldron, bubble.
followed shortly by
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.
Additionally, they use all manner of disgusting items for their magic, including “Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,” and “Finger of birth-strangled babe.” I’m not sure if anything has done more to create the verbal imagery surrounding witches than this play.
Among his many memorable lines, Macbeth gets to deliver two brilliant soliloquies. The first concerns his seeming inability to resist murdering Duncan, drawn forward by a hallucinatory dagger. Here’s the first part of it.
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee:—
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall’st me the way that I was going;
The second, delivered upon learning of the death of his wife is much shorter.
MACBETH.
She should have died hereafter.
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
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.
I’ve seen it delivered wistfully, with complete exhaustion, and with great fury, but any way it’s done, it remains one of the most despair-filled things I’ve ever read. For all his “vaulting ambition” and the murders he committed and commissioned, his wife is dead and nothing matters. This is the stuff of purest existential nightmares.
And of course, Lady Macbeth, as strong an impeller for Macbeth’s actions as the witches’ words is blessed with remarkable lines of her own. Deciding her husband is “too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness,” she steels herself to gain the strength she’ll need to drive him forward.
The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood,
Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
Th’ effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, your murd’ring ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark
To cry, “Hold, hold!”
Lady Macbeth is often held up as the paragon of the evil, manipulative wife, but she’s more than that. While Macbeth leans into his evil as he commits darker act after darker act, she pulls back from their first crime almost at once. By the play’s end, she’s psychically broken as displayed in one of her other famous scenes.
DOCTOR.
Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.LADY MACBETH.
Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two. Why, then ’tis time to do’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?DOCTOR.
Do you mark that?LADY MACBETH.
The Thane of Fife had a wife. Where is she now?—What, will these hands ne’er be clean? No more o’ that, my lord, no more o’ that: you mar all with this starting.
There’s so much more, including a weirdly incongruous comic scene with a drunken porter, the witches misleading Macbeth with more prophecies and Macbeth’s defiant last stand. The thing is, reading Shakespeare is great, but seeing it performed is better. Fortunately, if you can’t go see a production of Macbeth, there are several movie versions, four of which I’ve watched this past weekend. All these movies play games with the play’s text. Characters are condensed, scenes are moved around or eliminated entirely. That’s nothing new, but it’s something to keep in mind.
The first is Orson Welles’ 1948 Macbeth starring himself and Jeanette Nolan. It was made on the cheap for Republic Pictures. It’s best thought of as an interesting but failed experiment. Shot in
twenty-three days, Welles hoped to inspire other directors and studios to take gambles on making low-budget art films. The expressionistic sets and lighting are good, but aside from Welles, the rest of the cast is not memorable. Welles’ insistence on having everyone use a bad Scottish burr is especially distracting when everyone’s dressed like an outcast from a Mongol horde. His addition of a Christian versus pagan conflict feels as tacked on as it sounds.
Next is Roman Polanski’s 1971 Macbeth. The first film he made after the murder of his wife and unborn baby, it’s a much grimmer and bloodier version than Welles’. Starring Jon Finch and Francesca Annis as the Macbeths, it’s my favorite. I find their portrayal of his descent to greater evil and hers to madness more affecting than in any of the other films. Polanski also has a better hand at portraying the explicit violence of the play and expanding it almost exponentially on the screen. His witches are also the most in keeping with the assorted medieval portrayals of them and the most naturalistic, making them the most revolting. Polanski also plays with one of the longstanding questions about the play — who is the Third Murderer — intriguingly. So intriguing that Joel Coen stole it almost entirely.
I only just discovered Justin Kurzel’s 2015 Macbeth with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cottilard. Significant efforts were made to make it look like 11th century Scotland and the results are impressive. I wasn’t able to give it as much attention as it needed, by Fassbender is a captivating actor and I found his Macbeth intriguing.
Finally, there’s Joel Coen’s 2021 The Tragedy of Macbeth with Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand. It’s filmed in strikingly stark black and white and takes the expressionistic approach of Welles and runs for it off beyond the horizon. Much older than the roles are usually played, Washington and McDormand, bring a different feel to the characters. They’re not filled with youthful ambition, but with that of people late in their situations grasping at one last chance for everything. It’s a terrific movie and a very good take on the play.
I won’t discuss Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood here. It’s his take on the story, but not a version of the play. Still, definitely check it out, because it’s a brilliant movie.
After rereading it and watching four different movies back to back, Macbeth remains my favorite of Shakespeare’s plays. It’s a short, sharp blast of violence and madness. Macbeth himself lacks the charisma and swagger of Richard III but he holds my attention from first to last. He’s evil, but he never makes excuses or back down. At one point, knowing how far he’s come from victorious hero he started out as, he knows there’s no turning back.
I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.
If you’re wary of Shakespeare, I can’t think of a better place to begin. Filled with witches, murder and swordplay, you will not be disappointed.
Fletcher Vredenburgh writes a column each first Sunday of the month at Black Gate, mostly about older books he hasn’t read before. He also posts at his own site, Stuff I Like when his muse hits him.
I found it weird that for a long time fantasy fiction was looked down on even though Shakespeare’s plays are full fantasy elements,
I have on my shelves an old copy of a fascinating book written in the early 1960s, Coming of Age in America. At one point it quotes a passage from a teachers’ version of a high school literature anthology, which asks how to teach Macbeth and specifically the witches. Of course Shakespeare believed in witches, it says (which strikes me as not entirely certain), but we don’t want our students to. But rather than just say that this is an imaginative element included to make the story more vivid, it instructs the teacher to talk about psychological manipulation and present the witches as clever provocatrices. That is, it takes Shakespeare’s fantastic elements as discreditable even in Shakespeare and tries to find a way to minimize them.
Absolutely! When some of the best ghost stories are by Henry James and Edith Wharton, you’d think people would lighten up
Macbeth was the first Shakespeare I ever read, in the old Pelican paperback edition with the great notes. I read it late at night and it scared the hell out of me, and I still think of it as (among other things) one of the greatest horror stories ever.
I love the Welles film (primarily for its wonderful look) and I think the Polanski is underrated, despite both having weak performances in the lead parts. I couldn’t continue with the Fassbinder past about the twenty minute mark, it seemed so listless. likewise the Cohen (which I was really looking forward to).
For my money the best performances are to be found in the 1979 television production with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench. It’s more of a filmed play than an actual movie, but McKellen is by far the best Macbeth I’ve ever seen. He knows the key to the character and makes it crystal clear – fear. His Macbeth is a man almost crazed by fear from the opening scene; fear is the water that he swims in, so much so that he doesn’t even recognize it anymore, and everything he does, he does because of fear.
No wonder the play scares me so much!
I like Jon Finch. Francesca Annis is a little wispy, but she does the madness well enough. I’ll look for the McKellen/Dench production, but I really want to see the whole Nicol Williamson one. I remember seeing it on PBS back in the eighties and I’d love to see how it strikes me all these years later.
Olivier tried for years to film Macbeth – everyone who saw it on the stage agreed that it was his greatest Shakespearian performance, but he just couldn’t find the financing. Damn!
One touch I liked from the Nicol Williamson/BBC Television Shakespeare production was the final scene, where the avengers congratulating themselves are interrupted by the re-entrance of Banquo’s son, Fleance, which reminds us of the rest of the witches’ prophecy to Banquo: “Thou shall get kings, though thou be none.”
Excellent post about one of my favorite plays, Shakespeare or Otherwise. Many people tell me that it is a waste of time to get younger people to read Shakespeare, that the Bard just turns them off. I don’t think that MacBeth does, especially if they can see and hear it. Now we just have to get more of them to give it a look.
Has anyone else heard of MacBeth referred to as the “Cursed Play”?
Thank you, Mr. Vredenburgh.
I can testify from my days as an actor that theater tradition regards it as an unlucky play to produce or act in, which obviously doesn’t prevent people from producing or acting in it.
The theatrical tradition is that you don’t say the name of the play unless you are rehearsing or performing it. It is, as the title of this article attests, “The Scottish Play,” and that is how theatre people refer to it.
J.R.R. Tolkien, incidentally, was not impressed by the fantasy elements of the play. He did not like the presentation of the witches, and thought they were (paraphrasing from memory) “poor specimens” of their kind.
I’d like to read that as I find them perfectly wonderful, that is, awful, witches
One of my favorite versions of the Scottish Play is Dorothy Dunnett’s novel King Hereafter, where she conflates Macbeth with possibly historical figure Thorfinn the Mighty. (“Macbeth” is Thorfinn’s christening name when he takes the White Christ.)
I’ve always meant to read that. My dad was a big Dunnett fan and had it. I should see if it’s tucked in a box somewhere
Having read and seen performances of about a dozen Shakespeare plays, and taught them for 35 years, “Macbeth” is my favourite too of the plays I’m familiar with. It’s always struck me that with so many of his tragedies and histories, the play’s world descends into chaos and darkness before it’s renewed in the final Act, but “Macbeth” begins with its world already immersed: the play opens with the Three Witches already present and powerful while Duncan has just put down a rebellion, thus the political world of this iteration of Scotland is in chaos.
One of my favourite film adaptations is Australian so it won’t resonate as much with non-Aussies; it stars Sam Worthington as Macbeth and is set during the notorious Melbourne underworld wars of the early 2000s.
“Macbeth” is Shakespeare at the top of his play-writing game.
That’s a great insight and I wish it had occurred to me while writing this.
I’ve seen about half a dozen productions, but I’ve never seen Macbeth. Everyone wants to do Lear, Hamlet, or Taming of the Shrew.
I definitely want to check out the Australian gangster Macbeth. Who wouldn’t want to see that?
The Macbeth I would most like to see is lost forever, and exists only in a few photographs and the accounts of those who saw it (and a mere four minutes of film) – the legendary “voodoo” Macbeth staged and directed by Orson Welles in Harlem in 1936, with an all-black cast and the location shifted to a Caribbean island. Oh for a time machine!