|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jun 27, 2010 4:12:32 GMT
We are studying Macbet for school and I was wondering what your opnions on it where.
Do you think Lady Macbeth was evil or just strangly motivated?
Do you think that Shakespears interpriatetion of the witches was correct to that time?
And do you think that the witches powers were real or just coincidences?
And, finally. What are your oppinions on the overall story/plot?
|
|
|
Post by Madi The Unicorn on Jun 27, 2010 12:58:01 GMT
I havent done Macbeth since year 7, and even then it was just briefly. From what I remember, I'll try to answer the first and last questions, as the others Im not sure about. ^^
I think she was just "strangly motivated". Tempation is hard to overcome and it does.. weird things to people.
The overall story is interesting, and I can only think Shakespeare was sometimes.. Not in his right mind. Only then, I believe, would he come up with such unique stories which are so unusual and confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jun 28, 2010 6:32:54 GMT
Yeah, I don't think Lady Macbeth realised how big this was until she did it. Then all the sleepwalking started ans she just slowly went crazy until she killed herself . Yeah, he was a tad strange, but had great ideas and plots. Though I'm not sure that everyody in his time fully understanded where he was coming from (most of us don't today either ) Though he wasn't on drugs like when Alice in Wonderland was written
|
|
|
Post by Eni on Jun 28, 2010 11:24:35 GMT
I agree with you Perdy, I remember writing an essay on whether Lady Macbeth was evil or not and I argued she wasn't because she never fully considered her actions. As the play start she says 'Kill him' but she never considers the actualities of it, whereas Macbeth fully considers the evil, gory deed they're about to commit and still does it. As soon as Lady Macbeth actually starts to realise what they have done, the blood they have spilt she goes insane and throws herself off the tower.
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jun 29, 2010 8:11:20 GMT
Have you seen any movie interpritations?
We have read the play and seen one of the older versions but not the new one yet. I'm looking foward to seeing the new one becuase I really enjoyed the newer movie version of Romeo and Juliet so it will be interesting to compair the Macbeth interpritation.
|
|
|
Post by Eni on Jun 29, 2010 11:48:44 GMT
I think I saw a movie interpretation of Macbeth, a pretty old one, but I saw a couple of performances, all of which were pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jun 30, 2010 6:41:17 GMT
Hmmm. It's probably the one we watched in school; the one where they follow the play almost word for word?
But back on the play; do you think Macbeth was power crazy or just trying to fix what he had already done.
I think when he first killed Duncan he wa just caught up in the idea of power and of Lady Macbeth convincing him to do it. Then after that realised he had to keep killing people to retain his power.
|
|
|
Post by Eni on Jun 30, 2010 8:09:45 GMT
I think I wouldn't say power crazy, I would say greedy.
And with his continuing killing yeah, it was to hide the first murder, but the reason he kept killing, rather than any other method was he'd shattered his moral standing with his first murder. He'd made it a doable and acceptable thing, so he could keep doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jul 1, 2010 1:46:09 GMT
There was a twist put onto one the movie versions. That Duncan's other son came back after his brother was announced king. What do you make of that? It could have made an interesting sequal for what it's worth
|
|
|
Post by Eni on Jul 1, 2010 19:02:49 GMT
I just realised I was confusing Duncan with Banquo and I was really confused. I was like 'DUNCAN HAD A SECOND SON!!!', yeah sorry XP
I donno, what was it implying? That the Macbeth story would just happen all over again? That someone close to the king would vie with him for power?
On another note I think it would have been really interesting if Banquo's son had returned. We never saw him again after Banquo's death did we?
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jul 2, 2010 0:25:22 GMT
No, he left and never came back. Probs hiding somewhere... I hated how Macduff's family dies, killing the little kid was just sad It was implying that Duncan's other son was wee weeed that his brother became king and he didn't. He just sorta came back at the end and had that *evil glare* look.
|
|
|
Post by Eni on Jul 2, 2010 7:09:20 GMT
Yeah, I think if that did happen it would just imply the story is circular, that is that it's all just gonna happen again with the second son taking the place of Macbeth.
And yeah, Macduff's family was there to show that Macbeth had gone really really evil now. I mean Macduff didn't really offer a threat to Macbeth, and there was definitely no need to kill all the little kids.
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jul 2, 2010 9:35:58 GMT
That was the bit that confused me; the witches said that Banquo's sons were going to become kings, yet Macbeth killed Macduff's.
He should have killed Banquo's not Macduffs :S
Did you get confused ther too, or am I misinterpritating the text?
|
|
|
Post by Eni on Jul 2, 2010 11:27:22 GMT
I think somewhere in the text it said (like a line at the very end) that eventually Fleance (or not him but his children, or his children's children) would marry the heir.
And I thought Macbeth thought he had killed him and Banquo, didn't the murderers he hire lie to him?
And then I thought Macduff was killed for other paranoid reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Perdy the Birdy on Jul 2, 2010 11:34:06 GMT
Ahh, that makes sence. Thanks.
It's a very strange story line to be honest.
Wonder what SHakespears motives where *ponders*
|
|