The word "懇" has two original meanings: one is to say that one will die before reaching adulthood, and the other is to die for the country and sacrifice one's life. The two meanings are never mixed. But in the 2015 version of Macbeth, you can clearly see that the two have reached the same destination. This not only means that, shortly after the film begins, the protagonist sends a group of "baby soldiers" who are "stinky" to the battlefield, and almost watch them completely annihilated; it also means that these boys are consciously taken, It is equal to Macbeth's untimely death in the opening scene: the same funeral, deja vu mourning, repeated in less than fifteen minutes after the film starts... These intentional themes are reproduced, of course, can not but attract the attention of the audience . In my opinion, it is these children who died prematurely in the war, and thus can be named "Sorrow", which makes this version of "Macbeth" not only show the desolate, majestic aesthetic style, but also for This dark original, written 400 years ago, has injected a touch of red blood from the present and implied real allegory, making the film another successful example of Shakespeare's adaptation in my mind.
It is rude to say that the name "Shakespeare" is like a curse, which is definitely enough to make the already complicated battlefield of "literary classics VS film adaptation" instantly fall into a tense situation: words and images, drama and film, classical With the modern, elite and popular, as well as the so-called "original meaning" and "new meaning", these "entangled sins" are all resurrected at this moment. In this regard, each family has always held their own opinions and disagreed. In contrast, whether the adaptor can see what no one has seen before and what no one has said before, while retaining a bit of literal poetry, and then dig out the interpretation space and vitality of the work in the current context? It is undoubtedly the quality that I value the most. If it is specific to "Macbeth", then after seeing so many contemplations on character and destiny, inspection of kingship and lust, textual research on Scottish history and the James era, and even interpretations that cross the boundaries of times and cultures, 2015 What kind of development will be made in this edition of this year? ——This time, the critics and the director are of the same voice, and they have repeatedly stated that the biggest originality of the film is to introduce the perspective of modern psychology and interpret Macbeth as a victim of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Thus deepening the recognition and understanding of the tragic protagonist.
However, after reading the film, I felt a little bit unsatisfied with this widely circulated statement. Historically, the modern knowledge of PTSD provides some theoretical support for Macbeth's deep and dark inner drama, which undoubtedly continues the tradition of psychoanalysis in Shakespeare studies. However, considering that the Oedipus complex has become a kind of popular mythical cliché, should we also realize that while a theory (especially a classical theory) opens up a world, it is also very likely to create a new cover? More importantly, under the seemingly scientific, rational, and objective appearance, isn't PTSD becoming a popular vocabulary or common sense associated with a far deeper anti-terrorism (war) context? Therefore, when we choose to talk about PTSD, we essentially avoid talking about which topics at the same time. It is not a question worthy of reflection. So in the same way, when the Fassbender version of Macbeth is easily labeled as a PTSD patient, is there something that we turn a blind eye to?
In my opinion, the consistent line of "Sorrow" in the film actually points to Macbeth's psychological crux: it is not the post-war trauma of ordinary soldiers (such as American soldiers returning from Afghanistan), but It is clearly a sense of guilt for personally turning innocent young lives into weapons of war. Think of the young soldier who was "armed" by Macbeth himself and has been "gloomy" ever since! ——Under the highly stylized slow motion, he was dragged from the ground, pushed forward by Macbeth, and then had his throat cut. It was precisely the first appearance of the witch on the battlefield. Next, the director made the following monologue even more ingeniously, when the protagonist buried him (they): "This magical revelation will not be a bad omen, but it is not like a good omen... If it is a good omen, why then Words can cause terrible impressions in my mind, make my hair terrify, and make my heart utterly out of tune, so that I can't stop beating?"—isn't this enough to show that deep down in my heart, I have Macbeth, who was awarded the title of Lord Court, knew that the status and honor at the moment were all due to the death of the young man under his feet? Fear and anxiety, its origin!
Therefore, Macbeth must appease the dead with a funeral. The essence of the so-called "national mourning" is to slaughter and give justice in the name of the country, to incorporate ghosts into heroic spirits, and to turn violent deaths into sublime ones. However, Macbeth, who had looked straight into the abyss, knew that a ritual could not really bury the crime; Here, the director arranged for the dead soul of the young soldier to hand over (reward?) the murder weapon. It must be said that it is an insight into the subtleties of human nature - the anxiety of the murderer, which can only be released in another murder; the anxiety of the "unnamed crime" , can only rest temporarily under the charge of "conspiracy to usurp the throne". When the tyrant asks the witch for a spirit, it is the same soul among the ghosts who calls him stubborn and cruel; because all those born to his mother are hard to harm him. At that time, Macbeth did not say that it was like receiving amnesty, but rather said that it was like seeing a close relative, with an expression of "you are still good to me", how could he have expected the trap in the prophecy? ... Until the truth came out, "May the tongue that told me such words be cursed forever", the camera shot back to the boy's grim face again - it turns out that all the temptation and instigation are just ghost revenge tactics; all deceit and instigation, but It is for blood debts! All those in high places who walk on bones should remember:
We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return to plague the inventor!
From this point of view, it may be possible to explain why the classic passage in the original work-Macbeth's crazy ravings after the monarchy was greatly deleted in the film: according to the deduction of the film, the monarchy is actually far from the "original sin", Instead, it has become a continuation of the "original sin", or even just a metonymy. Likewise, Cotillard's version of Lady Macbeth doesn't wash her hands (which may disappoint many viewers) and wipes her murder weapon instead. But considering that it was a gift from the young undead, then what crime she was trying to wipe away could not help but be thought-provoking.
However, if we return to the point of view of "Sorrow", then the more interesting difference may be that although Mrs. Macbeth was in a trance at that time, she was not sleepwalking as written in the original play; on the contrary, she also returned to the original In a small chapel (in this film, almost all the scenes about Lady Macbeth are shrouded in a strong religious atmosphere and mystery), repenting and weeping to the "imagined child" (director's words) in the void. If it is said that in Shakespeare's pen, the plot of sleepwalking and washing hands constitutes a response to the sentence "a little water can remove traces for us, isn't it very easy"; then this in the 2015 film The plot, of course, refers to her previous call to evil spirits: "Come on, the devils who are watching the evil thoughts of mankind! Relieve my female weakness, and use the most ferocious cruelty to permeate my whole body from top to bottom... ...into the breast of my wife, and use my milk for bile!" And of course the maddening words of her husband: "I have breastfed a baby, and I know how a mother loves and sucks her child of milk; but I will pluck my nipple from its soft tender mouth and smash its head while it smiles at my face..." No doubt, in the director's eyes, the loss of a child ( Another form of "Sorrow") constitutes the source of Lady Macbeth's cruelty - although this is not necessarily the original creation of the film, as in the 2006 fashion film "Macbeth" starring Sam Worthington; But the highlight of the 2015 edition is that it gives us a clear view of this cruel "bottom line", which is the moment when Macduff's child is burned alive - and Cotillard's tears say it all, so of course she has to pay A child repents, because only these young lives who have been innocently mutilated are eligible for trial.
When the cloudless and sneaky highland turned into a sea of fire, this dark, gloomy, even the name of the "Scottish drama", whose name was so ominous and ominous, finally fell into its heavy curtain. ; however, that does not mean the end of the tragedy - you see, Malcolm, son of the late king, and Friens, son of Banquo, two children who miraculously escaped from Macbeth, He has already raised his father's sword and plunged headlong into the blood mist that had swallowed thousands of children! ——Seeing this, I suddenly remembered the battle with the crosses under Jeremy Irons' feet in the 2012 BBC feature film "Shakespeare Uncovering" when he was explaining "Henry IV" and "Henry V" The cemetery of the fallen; I remembered the drama "The Aftermath of Macbeth (formerly known as Dunsinen") that was staged in Beijing in 2014. It was obviously from the shadows of the war in Afghanistan or Iraq... Perhaps, this is the 2015 version What Macbeth is trying to tell us:
There are still countless children who have been artificially drawn into the whirlpool of war and the abyss of death again and again. Compared with the rise and fall of heroes and tyrants in history, and the death of princes and generals, isn't that a bigger tragedy?
View more about Macbeth reviews
