Is
it only me, or are the language and wordings in Act 2 much easier than Act 1? Or
could be that I have improved in reading Shakespeare’s language? I would like
to believe the latter explanation, but however it is, the important fact is
that it was a lot easier and much more enjoyable to read. As I had some
serenity of mind, I was able to try many different ways to understand the work
as well.
Firstly,
what I did was to read it aloud, trying my best to sound like a British accent,
referring to many British dramas I watched. I’ve always admired the accent. The
more I tried to sound like a native person, the more I got theatrical and
dramatic. It was fun trying to read that way- and I realized one thing: this
play does have an indwelling rhythm in it! Exactly what kind of effect it had,
I can’t really explain it in words, but I did feel it. Sometimes I spotted
rhyming words, sometimes I spotted some metres I learned in poetry class. I
could understand why they don’t change the original context to modern text: it
just isn’t the same. It can’t possibly be.
For
further understanding of the rhythms, what I did was type ‘Macbeth Act 2’ on
YouTube and finding some videos played by amateur actors. I was surprised at
the quality and quantity of the videos; I could literally watch the one that
matched my taste. As I already read the play one time, I did not have to look
at the book to understand the plays, and that brought a great pleasure to me.
Anyways, watching the play in the play form felt a lot different from reading
it- it has both good and bad sides, so I think it’s best to do both.
Another
thing that inspired me was Shakespeare’s figurative language. The thing is, he
uses it so often and is so accustomed to it that he does even not realize when
he is using one! In other words, the usage of figurative language is very
natural. It is a bit hard to understand at first, along with all those archaic
words and expressions, but I admire his ability- I felt like I should study
Shakespeare’s work thoroughly if I ever want to write a fine literature. I
marveled whenever such beautiful expressions popped up, such as the ‘obscure
bird’, ‘serious in mortality’, ‘unmannerly breeched with gore’, ‘naked
frailties hid’ , ‘auger-hole’, and ‘the near in blood, the nearer bloody,’ I
especially liked the last one I mentioned… I was happy to figure what it meant.
The meaning itself is cruel, but it is put in such a concise and melodic way it
has rhythms too.
As
for the content, I was a little bit bewildered at first; I was so overwhelmed
with Macbeth’s long singing of his fear that I missed the part ‘it is done.’ I
didn’t expect the scene to be described in such a manner, I expected more
detail. Then, I guess, the crime scene is not the important part; Macbeth and
Lady Macbeth’s psychological states are. Macbeth seems to have a mental
breakdown after the crime, saying things like “I heard a voice cry ‘Sleep no
more!’” He says that he couldn’t reply ‘Amen’ to God’s blessings, and there was
the mention of hell by the drunken porter. All of these signs warn the future
tragedy of Macbeth- but then, is it really a tragedy, getting punished for his
sins?
There
are more of these signs, more severe ones that indicate the collapse of natural
order. To start with, Lennox mentions the ill-omened incidents of chimneys
blowing down, lamentings heard in the air, strange screams of death, clamoring
of the obscure bird, earth shaking, etc. There are even more mentioned by the
old man at scene 4, such a falcon being killed by a mousing owl and Duncan’s
fine horses lashing out, even eating themselves. All of these indicate the
unruly action of Macbeth his loyal king; and now that he has broken Heaven’s
rule, he will face its wrath.
Overall,
I liked Act 2, it was much more interesting than Act 1, which was merely an introduction.
I think I will try searching for a play online every time I read one Act, it
gave good inspiration. I look forward to reading the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Anything you want to tell me...