Thursday, January 20, 2011
Reactions to Polanski?
We went quickly from watching the clip of Polanski's Macbeth to the Black Box, and I wished we'd had some time to react together to the way portions of Act 2 that we've read and discussed lately were dramatized. What stuck out for you? There was laughter at the dagger, so maybe that reaction (although non-verbal) is already registered. But maybe you have something to say? More complex may be your feelings about the murder(s) and Macbeth's verbal responses to it. What did you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the idea of a hallucinated dagger was fine, it was the presentation, especially the shimmering noise, of it that was a bit strange. What mostly stuck out for me though was the actions and facial expressions that came with the lines of Shakespeare. It can be hard imagining what these characters sound and look like, and I was especially surprised by Lady Macbeth. She seemed a bit more innocent looking than I had anticipated and the contrast between Macbeth's uncertainty and Lady Macbeth's forcefulness was not as present in the movie as it was in the book. Regarding Macbeth's reaction to the murders, I thought that him killing the chamberlains in front of Lennox should have been incredibly suspicious to the others. If this story had been solely a movie, I would've expected Macbeth to grab them and pin them against a wall as opposed to slaughter them recklessly. Other than this scene, I thought Macbeth's initial response to Duncan's death (talking with Lady Macbeth) was very spot-on and it really shed some light on how to put emotion into these lines.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I watch a Shakespeare film set in the time it is meant to be set in I am always surprised by the costumes, set, etc. For example, in this film I was very surprised to see how the knocking on the door was set up. I thought that the knocking would be something that Macbeth and LM here from far away. I was surprised that Macbeth taunted the knocker by shouting to wake Duncan and that M and LM were right in front of it. When I read it, I expected it to be a faint knocking that was unclear if it was reality or their conscience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew that the sound effects for the dagger seemed odd - even rather artificial. Whether we, as the audience, are meant to be inside of Macbeth's mind or outside of it, there should not be a sound effect for the appearance and disappearance of the dagger. Intimidating music? Certainly - after all, we are working in the medium of film. But cheesy sound effects? No. Just no.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that Polanski chose to depict the murder on screen. A stabbing itself is shocking - yet it is even more so in Macbeth, when the murder purposefully takes place offstage. I am as yet ambivalent as to whether this depiction enhanced or detracted from the overall execution of the text. I do know that it achieved the proper jilting effect - from the initial wounds to Duncan waking and fighting back to the gruesome final wound: Macbeth shoving his dagger between Duncan's trachea and his jugular. (I have a very vivid, very visual memory.)
I was surprised also by the depiction of Lady Macbeth. Though I do think that she can be played as a character with a lot of sexual power over her husband, I do not think that she should be played so innocently - indeed, the actress who depicted her seemed to doe-eyed to ever consider murder. At the same time, I believe that both she and Macbeth played their post-murder flightiness/panic very well.
Macbeth's speech/rhetoric (about Duncan) seemed much more sincere on screen than in the text. This was perhaps intensified by being able to view the reactions of the others in the scene, as opposed to merely reading and interpreting them. Despite this, his logic/reasoning for killing the chamberlains still seems whimsical and ill-founded.
I agree with Andrew and Liz that the depiction of the dagger was definitely over the top. The sparkling dagger acting as a guide toward Duncan's room and the sound effects made it hard to concentrate on the anguish and doubt that Macebeth was experiencing. I also think that Macbeth's murder of the chamberlains was a little awkwardly and suspiciously portrayed as well. It seems as though the man that was with Macbeth would have stopped him, or that others would have tried to restrain and capture the two chamberlains and keep them for questioning. I also find it a little strange that although Macbeth is acting really strange and suspicious, he is still named king directly after the murders.
ReplyDeleteI too laughed at the shimmering noise and the sparkling of the dagger. While the dagger is supposed to be tempting Macbeth to commit the murder, the artificial noise was certainly over the top. I'm sure Polanski didn't intend it to be comical, which for me unfortunately lightened the mood of probably the darkest scene in the film.
ReplyDeleteI thought Macbeth's explanation was played quite well though. He seemed very quick, uptight, and nervous in his speech, as you might expect one to be who is trying to cover up a murder. Also, I agree that being able to see the reactions of all the others in the room helped create the necessary suspicious mood. I remember a couple of the people in the room looked at each other as if trying to express that they didn't quite follow Macbeth's logic fully.
I found it interesting how the appearance and disappearance of the dagger seems to mark the beats/beads of Macbeth’s monologue. His thoughts go quickly back and forth between amazement (dagger present) and doubt (dagger not present).
ReplyDeleteIs 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? [BEAT/BEAD, dagger disappears] Or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation
Proceeding from the heat-oppressèd brain? [BEAT/BEAD, dagger reappears]
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going,
And such an instrument I was to use. [BEAT/BEAD, dagger disappears]
Mine eyes are made the fools o' th' other senses,
Or else worth all the rest. [BEAT/BEAD, dagger reappears] I see thee still,
And on thy blade and dudgeon, gouts of blood,
Which was not so before. [BEAT/BEAD, dagger disappears] There's no such thing.
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes.
My memory is really that good! (No, not really, I found the clip on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu9ShY_nWys)
I also thought it was interesting how Polanski chose to portray the actual murder. Instead of just having Macbeth stab the king as he sleeps, the king first wakes up and sees Macbeth with the dagger in hand and intent in his eyes. This moment has sort of an “Et tu, Brute?” feel to it. The betrayal seems more complete given that Duncan is aware of it.
I agree with Jamie that the special effects and sounds used in the dagger scene made it difficult to appreciate the intended tone of the scene. The limited special effects available at the time are understandable, but the sounds were just silly and took away from Macbeth’s lines. While I realize our critiques may be harsh as we are used to a much higher level of special effects in movies, it still may have better served Polanski to go about this scene in another way for the sake of seriousness.
ReplyDeleteI did really like how the film went about Macbeth’s explanation for killing the chamberlains. When the other characters seemed to have stopped listening and begin to walk away, he chases after them, almost pleading his justification. This emphasized that he was over-explaining his motivation and made him seem more suspicious.
I really liked the idea of the dagger appearing and re-appearing in time with Macbeth's changing trains of thought, but the sound effects were so artificial as to be ridiculous; they didn't even sound otherworldly. This is Shakespeare -- tragic Shakespeare -- not a brainless action flick. The dagger should be insidious and silent, not continually announcing its presence with a comic ringing. After all, Macbeth makes much of the silence in that moment. That silence was utterly ruined for the audience. Even the creepy Hollywood music was distracting; there's such a thing as subtle, mood-setting music, and then there's patronizing, cliche movie music. Unfortunately, Polanski's music fell in the latter category.
ReplyDeleteThere's a dynamism to the scene when portrayed on the screen or stage that's sometimes hard to grasp while reading; we learn very quickly exactly where in the complex Duncan is sleeping, and we see the characters move closer to and farther away from the scene of the crime. That all adds immediacy to the experience. And hearing the lines spoken and interpreted and then quickly moved past prevents us from dwelling so long in analysis that we lose the thread of the play.
Lady Macbeth was certainly not at all like I imagined her to be, but I appreciated seeing such a different interpretation of the character. In a way, Lady Macbeth is even more sinister when she acts so innocently; and the doubts we speculated might exist in the text are certainly portrayed here.
I also found slight difference in Macbeth's interaction with Banquo: there was a complex tension between the two friends now that Macbeth was clearly the superior in rank and they weren't really honest with each other about their thoughts on the prophecy of the Weird Sisters.
While I do agree that the special effects Polanski used in the dagger scene took away some of its seriousness, I must say that I really enjoyed the overall composition of the film. The actors/actresses and their attitudes fit the characters they were playing well (except for the actress playing Lady Macbeth-I think it would have been better if a less sensitive, less pretty, and generally hardier actress played that part); the area in which the play was filmed was authentic-and I loved the fact that things weren't set on an immovable stage; and finally the way the dialogue flowed was very satisfying for me, especially after experiencing those scenes solely through reading the text.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, the special effects made the scene preceding the murder more comedic and silly than tense and conflicted, but I believe Polanski did a good job in making Macbeth's remorse for his actions much more quiet than many stage adaptions would interpret. Macbeth's quiet manner and distant delivery of the text paint a far more effective picture of someone who has just committed a gruesome murder. While on stage it is necessary for a character's personal mourning to be loud and charismatic, having Macbeth retreat from conversation and his surroundings is a far greater dramatic tool in my opinion, and a good decision on the part of Polanski. All around, having Macbeth be a more mild mannered character makes him more sympathetic to me; he's a polite and kind man whose been misled by temptation and his own loss of sanity, rather than a strong personality who one day just gives into greed and lust for power.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about the way the dagger appeared, it still makes me laugh. The high pitched “ding” and the cliché music make it seem as if this scene is from a parody of the real thing. It would have been far better without any sound effects.
ReplyDeleteIn the text, it was ambiguous about the exact time when the chamberlains were slain by Macbeth. I reasoned that it couldn't have been during the middle of the night; Macbeth refused to go back to Duncan's room to plant the daggers on the chamberlains because he was too overwhelmed by guilt. Yet, in the text alone, it seemed as if there was no indication that he committed this act in the morning. Apparently this action was implied by the fact that Macbeth goes offstage from 2.3.47 to 2.3.67 and then returns discussing the reasons he killed the chamberlains. In this sense, the fact Polanski added a scene helped to clarify what actually happened.
Thanks to all of you (so far) who have commented. I have to agree with the popular opinion that the sound effects accompanying the appearance of the dagger are distracting. Some special effects age well, others don't. This is an example of the latter, I think.
ReplyDeleteAs for the murder being "staged" on screen rather than more subtly off camera and the portrayal of Lady Macbeth as innocent (in particular) and wicked at the same time, let me remind you all that Roman Polanski was directing this film just over a year after his eight-and-a-half months pregnant wife Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by the Manson Family. He had been in London working on a film which he subsequently quit, blaming himself for his wife's death. It is impossible to be certain the places and the degree to which the trauma of his loss affected his vision of Shakespeare's play, but it is surely arguable that this ramping up of violence is one way.
I look forward to reading comments from the rest of you about these aspects of the film in relation to the play. Thanks again.
As many have previously stated the dagger scene was a bit too overly dramatic for me to be able to take seriously. The sound effects were just too fake. As for the acting of when Macbeth is sharing his reasoning for why he killed the chamberlains I think this was done very well. When Macbeth was giving his speech about how much he loved Duncan and how he was imperfect the rest of the nobles basically disregarded everything that Macbeth was saying. In fact when he was going on and on about his love for Duncan people just pushed him out of the way on their way to Duncan's chambers. This shows how even if the nobles dont know that Macbeth is guilty of treason they know something fishy is up with his melodrama.
ReplyDeleteLike most I too think that the dagger was presented in a "fluffy" and a bit too dramatized with the sparkles and sounds. I also like Andrew's point that Lady Macbeth looked a lot more innocent and pure than I had imagined (based on the dialogue in the book). It was interesting to see her as a sensitive woman rather than the emasculating woman she seems like in the book. I think Macbeth seemed much more guilty on-screen, and I also think that everyone seemed to be much more suspicious of him in the movie. It was obvious that he was trying to hide something and that he was a bit frantic about giving them his explanation. I agree with Dylan here that the nobles definitely know that something fishy is going on, even if they don't know exactly what that is yet.
ReplyDeleteSince I am the last to write I agree that the hologram of the dagger definitely did take away some of the seriousness of Macbeth's speech. I watched the scene again(from Sarah's post) and I, like her, found it interesting that the bead/beats of Macbeth's speech was marked by the appearance and disappearance of the dagger.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the way Polanski portrayed the feelings that Macbeth had before, during and after he killed Duncan. It stuck out for me because the range of emotions that took over his face. The hesitation, then ruthlessness with his adrenalin rush, and then his big sugar crash when he looks at his bloody hand holding the daggers and the knock that jolts him back to reality.
I also agree with Nancy and Andrew that Polanski's interpretation of Lady Macbeth took me by surprise because we had envisioned her personality more apparent. Maybe that persona was Polanski's interpretation of his wife or how he saw thinks of women, I don't know? I liked the movie, the different personalities of all the characters come out and I get to see them acted instead of just being read.