Macbeth

Rating:
Summary: Handy Edition with Puzzling Introduction
Review: A handy little paperback pocket edition of the great play you've read and seen many times. The 1994 Penguin Popular Classic edition is interesting because it includes twenty-two pages of introductory material about Shakespeare, his times, and the play itself, all written by an unnamed editor who uses the first-person and discusses editorial choices made in this version. The editor emphasizes the fact that there are weaknesses and holes in the text, caused by Shakespeare's writing on a short deadline in 1606 and by the fact that later editors and actors and compilers probably cut-and-pasted large sections. The result, counsels the editor, is that some scenes (including Hecat's speech in III-v, and the witches' appearance in IV-i) is "probably not by Shakespeare".

This is rather a large leap. It may be true, but we have no way to know for sure. Other credible scholars (Levi, Bloom) note that these sections are unique, but do not aver that they are not by Shakespeare. In any event, it is rather interesting that this editor devotes so much space to this notion, and misses the opportunity to discuss other --more important-- elements of the play, such as the subtle poetry of Macbeth's speeches, the "post-Christian" religious significance, the blood-darkness-water themes, the parallels to Lear, or the political connections between Scottish Thanes and British Earls.

Another quibble is with the notes: all the text notes and vocabulary are at the end of the book, so an interested reader is constantly riffling back and forth. Penguin should have followed Folger's admirable lead and put the text notes on the same pages as the text itself.

Rating:
Summary: Handy Edition with Puzzling Introduction
Review: A handy little paperback pocket edition of the great play you've read and seen many times. The 1994 Penguin Popular Classic edition is interesting because it includes twenty-two pages of introductory material about Shakespeare, his times, and the play itself, all written by an unnamed editor who uses the first-person and discusses editorial choices made in this version. The editor emphasizes the fact that there are weaknesses and holes in the text, caused by Shakespeare's writing on a short deadline in 1606 and by the fact that later editors and actors and compilers probably cut-and-pasted large sections. The result, counsels the editor, is that some scenes (including Hecat's speech in III-v, and the witches' appearance in IV-i) is "probably not by Shakespeare".

This is rather a large leap. It may be true, but we have no way to know for sure. Other credible scholars (Levi, Bloom) note that these sections are unique, but do not aver that they are not by Shakespeare. In any event, it is rather interesting that this editor devotes so much space to this notion, and misses the opportunity to discuss other --more important-- elements of the play, such as the subtle poetry of Macbeth's speeches, the "post-Christian" religious significance, the blood-darkness-water themes, the parallels to Lear, or the political connections between Scottish Thanes and British Earls.

Another quibble is with the notes: all the text notes and vocabulary are at the end of the book, so an interested reader is constantly riffling back and forth. Penguin should have followed Folger's admirable lead and put the text notes on the same pages as the text itself.

Rating:
Summary: Not my favorite Shakespeare...
Review: I am a fan of Shakespeare, and I have a lot more reading to do until I've completed all his works. However, I have to say out of the plays I have read, Macbeth is one of my least favorite. I feel like you know almost everything that is going to happen after the three witches appear. I understand the themes, but sometimes I feel like they are so blatant, and hardly masked by the characters and the rest of the story. I think people should read Macbeth, but I don't think it's his best work.

Rating:
Summary: My favourite of the tragedies.
Review: I have always loved the story of Macbeth. Yes, it is bleak, but there is still hope expressed throughout. The comic breaks within the play are memorable. Who can forget the drunken porter? What about the three witches stirring their cauldron? Shakespeare's little gems throughout his tragedies are the soliloquies, and Macbeth has a number of memorable ones. The play explores the nature of ambition and the complexities of moral responsibility. It is a story of a nobleman driven to murder at the bequest of his power-hungry wife. Then we follow these two as each of them slips deeper and deeper into madness. Shakespeare sets the scenes so well in this play - the cold, draughty castle, the lonely moors. Because this play is so short, the action moves along quite quickly. And this also has the effect of showing Macbeth's descent into madness very quickly too, which makes it seem so much more horrible. Wonderful!

Rating:
Summary: Original Gangster
Review: Macbeth is the original Scarface. A man murders his way to the top and loses his mind and his loved ones in the process. Shakespeare at his best!

Rating:
Summary: Nothing Much
Review: Rather bleak play with a pessimistic storyline. Mediocre plot, mediocre characterization. I don't recommed it.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing Much
Review: Rather bleak play with a pessimistic storyline. Mediocre plot, mediocre characterization. I don't recommed it.

Rating:
Summary: Macbeth
Review: What to say about Macbeth? Words cannot describe the ultimate spine-tingling, soul-shaking nature of it until you've read it. Then you know that there is only one way to describe this terrifying yet amazing play: by reading it. Shakespeare captures a whole new age and style with this harsh tragedy about the powers of evil.

Riding home from battle, Macbeth is told by three mysterious witches that his future holds great things-he will be king. When Lady Macbeth hears the news, she prays for the spirits of evil to infect her heart so she will have the courage to kill King Duncan and assure the prophecy's carrying out. After the awful deed's been done, Macbeth goes mad, although he is also granted the title `King.' Evil and madness soon holds sway over both Macbeth and his lady's will, and the kingdom falls apart. Will there be a way to triumph over this man who cannot be slain by a man born of woman? Who will not be slain until a forest moves up a hill? This seeming immortal demon?

So... "When shall we three met again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain? When the hurly-burly's done, when the battle's lost and won. That will be ere the set of sun. Where the place? Upon the heath. There to meet with Macbeth..."

Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare on the danger of messing with prophecy
Review: William Shakespeare's tragedy "Macbeth" was performed at the Globe Theater in 1605-06. The "Scottish" play was a calculated to be pleasing to James I, who took the throne of England after the death of Elizabeth Tudor in 1603. It was not simply that the play was set in the homeland of the Stuarts, but also that when Banquo's royal descendants are envisioned the last of them is the new King. (Note: Shakespeare does a similar sort of tribute to Queen Elizabeth when in the final act of "Henry VIII" the the Archbishop prophesizes great things for the infant Elizabeth. However, not only is there doubt that Shakespeare was the sole author of that particular history, it was not produced until 1612-13, ten years after Elizabeth's death.)

The play chronicles Macbeth's seizing the Scottish throne and his subsequent downfall, both aspects the result of blind ambition. However, one of the interesting aspects of "Macbeth" for me has always been its take on prophecy, which is decidedly different from the classical tradition. In the Greek myths there is no escaping your fate; in fact, one of the points of the story of Oedipus as told by Sophocles is that trying to resist your fate only makes things worse (the original prophecy was that Oedipus would slay his father; it was only after Jocasta sought to have her son killed to save her husband that the prophecy given Oedipus was that he would slay his father and marry his mother). In the Norse tradition prophecy is simply fate and manhood demands you simply resign yourself to what must happen.

But in "Macbeth" there is a different notion of prophecy that is compatible with what is found in the Bible: specifically, the idea that human beings simply cannot understand God's predictions. This is the case both with those who failed to understand the prophecies that foretold the birth of the Christ but also the book of Revelations, where the fate of the world is detailed in complex and essentially uncomprehensible symbolism. When Macbeth is presented with the first set of prophecies by the three witches, he is understandably dubious: he will become thane of Cawdor and then King, while Banquo will beget kings. However, when the first prophecy comes true, Macbeth begins to believe that the rest of the prophecy may come true. His fatal error, at least in the Greek tradition, is that he does not allow fate to bring him the crown, he takes active steps by slaying King Duncan. He compounds this error by projecting his ambitions onto Banquo; although Macbeth has Banquo killed, his son escapes to keep the prophecy intact.

Now the witches's prophecies are deceptively clear: no man born of woman may harm him and he is secure until trees start walking. Macbeth, who now believes in the inevitability of prophecy, fails to understand the fatal concept of loopholes. Thus, the nature of prophecy becomes an integral part of the play's dynamic.