Hamlet Didn’t Have A Tragic Flaw, He Just Had Bad Luck

At any point during a Shakespeare tragedy should we just kind of look at it and think, “Dang, you know, that was just really unlucky”?  How about Polonius being behind the arras in the first place? Sure, it was pretty impulsive of Hamlet to just go all stabby all of a sudden, if he’d done that literally any other time when somebody wasn’t back there, the play would go totally differently.
The article linked above asks why we feel obliged to pretend luck doesn’t play a factor.  Luck suggests that even if you don’t do the right things, you can still come out ahead (people like to cite Bill Gates, college drop out, as a great example here). Or, that you can do everything right and still one day tragedy strikes and you lose everything. It’s hard to accept that sort of randomness, because it acknowledges a complete lack of control.  If I choose a certain path, I want to expect that certain things will happen. If an unexpected thing happens, my brain wants to go back and create a new path that I must have taken to get myself to that spot.
Personally I believe in the theory that says, “At any given time, you are the sum total of your experiences and decisions up to that point.”  I always take issue when people say something like, “I’m happy with my life, I just wish that X had been different.”  You can’t have it that way, because if X had been different, then everything that came after X would also be different.
Luck, therefore, is part of the definition — a thing happened at a certain time because of conditions that all your previous decisions got you into. Luck is basically the uncontrollable bit.  Sure, Hamlet decided to go to his mother’s room, get all upset, and murder the tapestry.  But nothing he did was responsible for putting Polonius back there. Sure, sure, you could argue that the whole play-within-a-play, which deliberately pissed off Claudius, set Polonius into action, but ultimately Polonius has free will as well that Hamlet does not control.
I guess the whole point is, does the tragic flaw exist? Or is it just a construct we put in place after the fact, to rationalize what is ultimately just a series of uncontrollable events, making your choices like waltzing through a mine field and hoping your next one doesn’t blow up in your face. 

Macbeth V : Fleance Strikes Back

It’s time once again for your Shakespeare Geek to head into his children’s classroom and volunteer to expose them to the wonderful world of Shakespeare. I’ve been doing it for years, and it’s always quite the experience.

This year my daughter is turning 11, which puts her in 5th grade according to typical USA grading levels (I know sometimes saying grade 5 is really confusing to my international readers). In third grade we’d done Midsummer and in fourth grade we’d done selections from Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. So this year it was Macbeth by request.

In the past I’ve taken a firm stance on not using “modern interpretation” because I think that you’re not giving the kids a chance to appreciate the original that way, you’re just somebody retelling the story.  From experience I’ve taken a step back from that stance, however. This is not a stage production where I’ve got a multiple visits and rehearsals with these kids. I need to get them introduced to the topic and doing something with it in a single visit, typically 30-60 minutes. I could easily spend that much time doing a single scene of a single play, in original text.  While most of the class sits watching, bored.

So instead I did something different. I banged out my own “kid’s Macbeth”.  Half streamlined summary, half modern language, with some key classic bits left in because I wanted them to be able at the end of it to say that they’re performed Shakespeare and not just some random dad’s retelling of Shakespeare.

I get there and am quite pleased that they are expecting me, and looking forward to it. I check to see how many of the kids were with me for fourth grade or third grade, and it looks like more than half the kids have done Shakespeare with me in the past.  So I dive right in and tell them about what we’ll be working on today – Shakespeare’s scariest story complete with murderers and ghosts and witches and beheadings, and I’m pleased to see a number of fist pumps at the prospect. I go on to tell them a little bit about King James and why Shakespeare wrote Macbeth. And of course I tell them about the curse.  “Shakespeare wrote a play about witches that was so good, that he may have overshot his mark just a bit. This play is so realistic, and so scary, that people believe he actually conjured real demons who put a real life curse on the play.”  Well, the kids just eat that up.

I also have a treat in store.  I explain to them that they all already know at least some Macbeth.  I nod to the teacher to cue up the video that I’ve brought. I ask who has ever heard of a book called Harry Potter.  Hands shoot up.  I ask who has seen the movie.  I ask who has seen the third movie, Prisoner of Azkaban.  They begin discussing among themselves which one that was.  I say, “Watch this.”

*BOOM* I drop my massive copy of the First Folio on one kid’s desk (I love doing that), opened to the appropriate page, and read, “Fillet of a fenny snake, in the cauldron boil and bake. Double double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble.”  What you just heard?  Shakespeare wrote that four hundred years ago.

One girl says to no one in particular, “I think I’ve heard that before.”

“I guarantee you’ve heard that before,” I tell them.  “At one point in your lives, whether it was a tv show or a movie or a cartoon, if you’ve ever seen the image of witches around a cauldron making a magic potion, you’ve seen those lines.  And you know what?  Now you get to perform them.”

So we dive right in and I explain my version of what somebody once told me was the “whoosh” game. To avoid fighting over parts, what we’ll do is have a steady stream of kids come up at every Entrance.  Enter as Macbeth? Fine. But once you exit, you get back in line, and next time you might be entering as a messenger or Banquo or a witch.  Just go with it. I encourage them that if you’re a ghost, give me some serious ghost moves, make it scary Walking Dead zombie stuff. And if you’re a witch, even if you’re a boy, you make sure to bring your cackly witch voice. If you get to kill somebody make it a good one, and if you get to die, die a glorious death.

We also did something different with the script. I asked the teacher to project it on the wall, teleprompter style. I knew that this would be an issue with looking at the screen instead of each other, but I thought this would be better than having them constantly lose their place flipping through a paper script.  (We actually compromised, since I got there and she had printed all the scripts — so the kids in their seats followed along on paper while the kids ‘on stage’ read from the screen.)

I won’t go over the entire thing but the opening scene offers a good example:

SCENE

Sounds of a battle are heard.



I cue the seated students to provide the sounds of a battle, which they respond to so enthusiastically that the teacher has to tell them that there is standardized testing going on in the next room, keep it down.

Enter King DUNCAN.


DUNCAN
Where is everybody? Can somebody tell me how the battle is going?  Hello, people! King giving orders, here! Somebody tell me whether we’re winning!


A wounded soldier staggers on stage.


DUNCAN
You there! Soldier! How goes the battle?


SOLDIER
…need….doctor…


DUNCAN
Right, yes, doctor, but first give me a report of the fighting.


SOLDIER
We were losing, badly, to the rebel Macdonwald,


(Enter Macdonwald, silently, swinging his sword as if fighting an invisible enemy)


I wanted to start off fun so I added this bit, a mini dumb-show with Macdonwald and Macbeth demonstrating exactly what “unseam’d from nave to chops” means. Most importantly I went into my bag of tricks and pulled out two foam swords. The gasps and “coools” and “awesomes!” from the crowd were the best part. Suddenly the game became “Will I get a sword when it’s my turn to go up?”
until the thane of Glamis, brave Macbeth, swinging his sword thusly, carved his way through the enemy troops and stood face to face with the traitor.


(Enter Macbeth, sword in hand, carving his way through invisible enemy troops to face Macdonwald)


DUNCAN
And then what happened?!


SOLDIER
Macbeth did unseam him from the nave to the chops!


(Silently Macbeth mimes stabbing Macdonwald in the stomach and pulling the blade up to his chin, then cutting off Macdonwald’s head. Macdonwald dies a gruesome death.)
I take a moment to explain what this means, just in case they missed it. It’s important to highlight the gross bits, and I made sure that this scene is referenced multiple times later in the play.


DUNCAN
O valiant cousin! worthy gentleman!  Excellent news.  Also, kind of gross.


SOLDIER
…doctor?


DUNCAN
Oh, yes, right, of course. Go, get yourself a doctor.

Exit SOLDIER
As you can see, that’s a sort of half original text / half rewrite that I was going for. There wasn’t really much of a pattern to it, it was more like “Take a look at original text … do I think that it’s simple enough that the kids can figure out what it’s about without lots of explanation? Prune it for time and content and keep it. Otherwise, rewrite.”
So on went the show. The wounded soldier who staggers off would later come back on as Macbeth, King Duncan would come back as a witch, and so on. Any student who came up got to play multiple parts. A few students chose not to play, and that’s fine as well. I think they were afraid of their reading abilities (from what my daughter tells me about which kids skipped the chance).
I deliberately left in the Porter scene, because I wanted to explain the knock knock joke. And they actually got it! Well, not the joke. But I had his speech up on teleprompter and said, “Anybody see anything familiar about this?” When nobody responded I said, “What’s his first line? Knock knock, who’s there. Sound familiar now?” The class said it sounded like a knock knock joke. Thought that “Shakespeare invented the knock knock joke” was another one for their “Guess what I learned today” files.
I deliberately wrote Fleance as a joke, because he had no good lines to keep and he doesn’t really advance the plot, other than the fact that he escapes the murder of his father. So every time he’s on stage I have people acknowledge that he’s there, and then he just waves. Until he and his father are set upon by the murderers. Now, I’ve made it perfectly clear in my rewrite that killing the boy is essential:
MACBETH
You see that man and his son who just left?

SECOND MURDERER
Yes, lord.

MACBETH
I’m going to need you to kill them.

FIRST MURDERER
Not a problem.

MACBETH
Very important that you kill the boy. Don’t forget the boy.

SECOND MURDERER
Check. Kill the boy.
Exit everyone
So when their big scene comes I tell Fleance that it’s very important for him to escape, while his father fights off the bad guys. I yell, “Action!’ because sometimes I like to do that :), and Fleance – in slow motion, no less – round kicks Murderer #2, steals his sword and attempts to go in for the kill. Teachers laughed, class laughed, I laughed, and explained that while it was indeed a cool improvisation, he’d pretty much be rewriting the course of Scottish history.
Final best part comes at the end. During this entire thing I’ve done my bit to play director, telling my ghosts to be ghostier and the witches to be witchier, how Macbeth should be scary to everybody except Lady Macbeth, because even Macbeth is scared of her. And it just so happens that the tiniest, quietest girl in class has ended up as Macbeth in the final battle scene. She is wielding this massive sword that I stole from my son’s toybox. I tell her, “Ok, this is your big moment. You are standing in the middle of this battle, and you think you’re immortal because of what the witches have told you. That guy there in the last scene? You killed him in about two seconds, because he is not of woman borne. As far as you’re concerned you are a god walking the face of the earth, and the very mention of your name should strike terror in the hearts of those who hear it. Are you ready to do this?” The rest of the class is cheering her on. The scene begins, and god love her she does her best to speak up. But if I told you that on a scale of 1-10 her normal speaking voice is a 1? She got it up to about a 3. Which, for her, was an accomplishment. So you can just imagine the squeaky little “Lay on, Macduff!” that we got. It was awesome.
As I’d gone well over my time I was packing up my props while entertaining questions from the kids. They all wanted to know about the curse and whether they were all bound by it now. I informed them that they absolutely were, and that if they ever found themselves in a theatre, never to utter the M word. It was forever to be known as the Scottish Play. “If you’re in a theatre and you mention the M word in front of somebody that believes in the curse? They’ll drag you right out of there. I’ve seen it!”
I heard someone comment, “So Macbeth was really a bad guy.” So I said, “Actually, that’s a very deep topic you’re scratching at there. In a few years, when you get to high school, your teacher is going to make you write essays on topics like that. Because Macbeth wasn’t necessarily a bad guy. He was a soldier in the army, and a good one. A loyal follower of the king, with a loving wife at home. And then along come these witches who tell him, “You can be more.” A big theme of Shakespeare’s work is about what happens when people try to step beyond the position that they’ve been given in life.”
After the school day was over my daughter brought me 20+ handwritten thank you notes about how much the class had enjoyed my visit. Every one of them commented on the curse. Some only said Scottish Play, some said M word, and a few actually wrote out, “Thank you for coming to teach us about Macbeth…oops! I said it!” One girl wrote that when she gets to high school she promises not to roll her eyes when the Shakespeare comes out. Another wrote, “Today I learned that if you are not satisfied with your position in life your friend will kill you.”
I would do this again and again. I already wrote to the teacher offering my services in case she has free time to kill, so we shall see!

Gambling on The Gambler (and losing :))

Normally I wouldn’t give a second thought to a Mark Wahlberg movie like The Gambler. It’s just not the kind of thing that interests me. But then I learned that he plays a Shakespeare professor with a gambling problem. Ok, that’s more interesting. Still, though, if that’s just character development then we’ve all seen it before – cut to a scene of him dismissing a classroom full of students and telling them there’s a quiz on Romeo and Juliet tomorrow. Bam, you’ve just established him as a Shakespeare professor.

Only…not this time.  The clip I found actually opens with him talking about
Greene’s Groats-Worth of Wit, if you can believe it!  There’s a reference that the typical “took Shakespeare in high school” audience is not going to get.

Even better! A student makes a joke that Greene’s “beautified with our feathers” line is actually because he knew that Shakespeare was really Edward de Vere.

First of all, what?  I’m not even sure where the connection lies between those two thoughts.

But it gets better, because Wahlberg doesn’t have any patience with the anti-Stratfordian argument. “The Earl of Oxford wrote poetry,” he responds. “Badly.”

I have not finished the movie yet, so perhaps someone can tell me — is that it? Does Shakespeare, either his words or his themes, play a larger role in the movie? Having just completed The Humbling I’m left a bit disappointed. If somebody tells me that’s it for interesting Shakespeare content, I probably won’t finish this one.

Pacino as King Lear? Why else would I watch The Humbling?


I would never have heard of “The Humbling” if Google news alerts didn’t pop it up for a Shakespeare reference. It stars Al Pacino and is based on the Philip Roth novel, which I have not read.

The play opens with Pacino, dressed in a trenchcoat and looking like something out of Death of a Salesman, practicing the ages of man speech from As You Like It. It looks at first like he’s trying to remember his lines, but we soon see that he is trying to decide how he’s supposed to deliver them. The line between his acting and his reality is becoming a blur, and he’s having trouble differentiating between what he feels and what he’s only pretending to feel. After an event at the performance sends him to the hospital there’s a funny scene where he’s moaning in pain and asks the nurse, “Do you believe that? That I’m in pain?”  When she says she does he says, “I could do that better. Let me try it again,” and tries a different delivery. It’s not that he’s faking. He just can’t escape analyzing his own performance, even when it is reality.

Now we get to what I like to call the “not Shakespeare” part of the movie. He goes to rehab and meets a crazy stalker lady who wants him to kill her husband because as an actor he’s got experience. Then he comes home and starts a relationship with the daughter of some old friends of his, who happens to be a lesbian. He’s then quickly introduced to the past loves of her life, including the department head who she slept with to get her job, and a post-op transgender man who still wants her.

Or maybe not. Scenes often play out, only to reset as if they’d never happened. It becomes obvious that Pacino’s character is losing his mind, and some if not all of the above may not have ever happened. Throughout the film he engages in regular videoconference updates with his therapist, who also has trouble distinguishing what’s actually happening from what Pacino thinks is happening.

Now, back to the Shakespeare. After vowing never to get on stage again, Pacino is ultimately pulled back for a performance of King Lear. I mean sure, why not, a guy has a nervous breakdown during As You Like It, goes to rehab, swears off acting, of course you want to just throw him right into Shakespeare’s Mount Everest.  I’m ok with that, though, because it means we get to watch Al Pacino perform some of King Lear.

It’s an interesting movie, but it’s not a Shakespeare movie. It’s mostly Pacino, but in a way that I would have liked even more Pacino, if that makes sense? He’s surrounded by this crazy cast of characters that are all trying to take the focus away from his character and I found them more of an annoyance than anything else. It might be interesting if you’ve read the book, I suppose. Or if you’re a “see everything” Al Pacino fan. But other than that it didn’t do much for me.

The War is Coming. Oh, and I am Psychic.

Back in November 2011 I reviewed a graphic novel called Romeo and Juliet: The War. I remember that I quite liked it.  It’s overly violent, and there’s a weirdly gratuitous nude scene that may have been inserted to appease the teenage boy demographic but completely ruled out the chance of me showing it to my kids, but overall I was happy with the effort. It looked very nice and stayed consistent with the world they’d built.

I even said:

You know what? I said that it looks like a movie. I think that if somebody tried to tell this version of the story as a movie, it could be pretty awesome.

Well, look what I found.  Romeo and Juliet: The War is coming in 2017. It’s one of those “only accessible with IMDB Pro” deals so I can’t get all the scoop. Maybe one of the readers out there can see it?  We definitely know it’s the same source material, though, because in the “People who liked this also liked…” section, I can see a Stan Lee movie :).

I’ll keep watching for more news about this one!