I caught an interesting and depressing Charlie Rose interview with Liev Schreiber discussing Macbeth. Mr. Schreiber was taken aback by Rose's referring to Macbeth as evil. Schreiber them proceeded to explain the typical age-old argument of Macbeth as a good (And to many, a great) man gone wrong who kills Duncan to please his wife and who, ultimately, greatly regrets having done the deed because he is a man of deep conscience. This is after all a tragedy and therefor requires the fall of an individual of great stature and/or position.
Wrong!
Let's set the record straight. First off, Macbeth is neither a tragedy of character (Aristotle's definition of tragedy is too limiting) nor a domestic tragedy. Rather, it is a tragedy of country. The tragedy is what happens to the Scottish people, not what happens to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.
The people around Macbeth are most responsible for his achieving the throne. If Banquo, Ross, and the other thanes had taken the same position as Macduff and challenged Macbeth immediately, and if Malcolm and Donalbain has not fled the country Macbeth would not have become king.
Shakespeare is telling us something: tyranny must be thwarted in its infancy.
Macbeth is in no way a great man but rather an outstanding warrior and killing machine. His intellect is pedestrian at best. Humanity, empathy, compassion (qualities of a great man) are non-existent in him.
https://www.alexanderbarnett.com/mb.html
https://www.alexanderbarnett.com/macbethnotes.html
 |
| From my European tour of Macbeth |
No comments:
Post a Comment