something wicked this way came

Wow, where to start?  This was the first time I'd seen Macbeth on stage since our backyard production, which you may recall I edited the text of, directed and co-starred in.  Counting that, it was roughly the eighth time I've seen it on stage, but it hit me anew this time because it was the first time I knew it well enough to go "aha!  They cut something there!" and also know whether or not I had also decided to.  It was really cool.

Before I get too much farther (I wrote the next six paragraphs and then realized this had to be said much, much sooner!), the production I saw was Bell Shakespeare's at the Drama Theatre in the Sydney Opera House.  It finishes up this Saturday, so if you want to see it (and I highly recommend that you do!), make sure you get there this week.

I was also really interested to see that they had only eleven actors.  Having been what I considered to have been quite desperately short on actors (I'd thought I'd needed 15 initially as a bare minimum ... though in the end it was revised to ___, which ended up being really just an actor or two shy of sufficient for our purposes).  I suppose you're not particularly interested, but unfortunately for you this my blog and I really, really am, and so here are the 11 they chose:  Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Banquo, Macduff, Lady Macduff, Witch, Ross, Lennox, Angus and Duncan.  And it worked just fine.  (They did use the witch to double as several -- Macduff Son, another child earlier on, Seyton, an extra lady, etc. -- and Banquo as the Doctor.  They cut the gentlewoman and Hecate and Donalbain entirely, and I'm usure if Fleance was there or not, it was a bit hard to tell in the murder scene.  Also, they cut Siward/Young Siward, though their names were mentioned.)

I'm realizing more and more now that the number of actors needed is very much linked to the edits made and which characters are cut ... and yes, sure, if you performed it all exactly as Shakespeare wrote it with a different actor for every single part you would need upwards of 20 actors, but actually it works much better if you pare things down a bit.  For example, I am now quite in favor of completely taking out Donalbain (he does have amazingly few lines anyway and it works much more easily without him) and am a huge proponent of having the witches double up on roles -- which to me, depending on how you do it, works very well both thematically as well as practically.  In our production we did leave in Hecate, but I have no problem with cutting the role.

This production left a few things I cut -- for example, a lot of the bad weather/rough night sort of lines.  I agree that they are good to leave in for a professional show because they do really make sense, add mystique, build atmosphere, etc., but for our very amateur show they really just would have confused the already half-drunk audience.  We both left the porter (ours played by a witch, theirs by ... possibly Ross?).  They also left in (though cut somewhat) what I consider to be the most boring scene in the whole show, no matter where or how well it is performed:  the dialogue after intermission between Malcolm and Macduff.  I cut it down way more than they did.  Yeah, we probably lost a little in that, but like I said, my audience was much more heavily intoxicated than theirs and really didn't have a clue.  I really liked what they did in cutting out the doctor and the gentlewoman from Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene.  Quite possibly that's how I've seen it done many times before, but like I said, there was just even so much more that registered with me this time than ever before.  It really makes for a stronger scene that way.

Oh, incidentally, in our production I had to combine Ross/Angus/Lennox into one or two characters.  I didn't want to, but I do think it's more important to have a Macduff and a Banquo ... and seeing as Banquo and Malcolm were already the same person, there really was very little choice.  Another thing I'm realizing more and more is that the director really does have tremendous liberty with the script as far as cutting is concerned -- even a highly educated audience who has seen the show, say, six times prior is exceptionally unlikely to notice something along those lines.  A missing Banquo they could well pick up on (or perhaps they'd just think they saw him? ;) ), but a cut doctor (ha) would be noticed by only the most perceptive of scholars.

Interestingly, they billed Lennox as Lennox/Bleeding Soldier, which I found strange and unnecessary.  Banquo doubled as the doctor, but more so the Witch played many parts -- what I'm curious about is whether they consider her the Witch playing the other parts (which is what I did) or if they considered the actress quadruple cast ... they seemed to come down somewhere in the middle on that one.  Like double cast for the Macduff child, but maybe the witch for Seyton.  (Which they pronounced "see-ton" as opposed to "satan" ... I preferred it that way, having thought you had to pronounce it "satan.")

Okay, now that we've got the scripting stuff that happened ages before the production ever began tonight (Interestingly, the actress who played Lady Macbeth was the dramaturg for the production ... if you don't know what a dramaturg is ... google it!  Basically it's the person who does all the research about the history, costuming, past productions, etc., etc., etc.  It's a big job, but one most people don't even realize exists.), we can move on to my evening getting there.

I've had what I consider a really great weekend -- out with friends Friday night, a Cinco de Mayo party Saturday afternoon, followed by church (which was really, really good), followed by a night on the town with a good friend ... followed by sleeping in!  And doing not really all that much Sunday, except for calling home (hi, Mom!) and being reasonably productive by cleaning out the second of three desk drawers.  (It's rather overwhelming so I can only do one at a time.  Getting one done is quite an accomplishment.)  Furthermore, I made sure everything else stayed firmly in the closet, so it appears that my room is clean.  However, I am an extrovert and really need a bit more activity for a Sunday for the weekend to be an overall success -- enter, Shakespeare!

I stopped by what my friend Katie calls Char-Grilled Charlie's, but which seems to bill itself as Char-Grilled Chicken, and got a mix of salads to be my sustenance for the day.  ("Salad" is misleading.  They've got meat and heavy vegetables like avocados and pumpkins in them too.)  Then I hopped on a bus and headed into the city, where I made my way to the Opera House, purchased my ticket (it was pricey even with my student discount, but totally worth it), got a coke (don't usually splurge like so, but some days you just know you need a coke) and ate my dinner on the side of the Opera House while the sun set over the Harbour Bridge.  Or maybe it was setting over the Opera House.  I'm not really sure, it was in my eyes.  West.  It should go west, so that would be the bridge.  Yes, I was right.  Excellent.  Anyway, I finished my dinner happily and discovered I had a ziplock baggie full of cookie crumbs of delicious cookies Katie had made a few days ago, and thankfully I had a plastic fork, so was able to eat I think about two thirds of a (big) cookie in the form of crumbs.  It was a delicious meal.

Then it was time for the show so I went inside and whipped out my little notebook and only stopped taking notes when I took a bathroom break at intermission ... and then I returned quickly to write a few notes about the restrooms (lots of mirrors!  They're my favorite public restrooms in Sydney, and it's so rare I get to use them!  In fact, I was so excited to get to them I bypassed ones that were closer without even noticing.  I'll have to try them next time -- what if they're even better?!  They could be -- these ones downstairs are distinctly nicer than the ones upstairs.).  Incidentally, while we're on the topic of the Opera House, the girl that sold me the tickets said as a general rule of thumb, row A is not the row you want in the Opera House -- even if you are a front row kind of a girl or guy, she said that most of the theatres in the Opera House are raised, so it's better to sit back around row H or farther.  Personally, it still looked to me like I wouldn't have been unhappy closer to the front, but I did see what she meant.  Your call if you go!

The first thing you see about a production is generally the set, and so I did.  It was a great set -- completely open except for the floor, which was covered in a large rectangle of turfy grass.  It looked really quite realistic and even, dare I say, Scottish.  It was a bit muddy looking and perfectly "unperfect."  That is, it looked real.  There were a few tufts sticking up around the sides and upstage left had a larger section of tufts.  It was really nice.  Otherwise, they used a few props for chairs at the banquet scene and maybe a handful of others -- wine glasses spring to mind, as do daggers and swords -- but there weren't tons.  The stage was slightly raked, but what was even more noticeable was the ceiling, which was raked (tilted for you non-theatrical sorts ... though why any of you are left reading bamboozles me completely!  except Mom, who I suppose it was there for in the first place :) ) much more steeply (so both were coming in together at the back, though there was probably about six feet or so between them that was open and used for entrances/exits) and was -- !! -- reflective.  I won't say it was an outright mirror, but reflective is certainly the adjective that otherwise springs to mind.  (Mirror being a noun anyway ...)  It was really cool.

I really approved of the costuming in this production.  It was very much in keeping with my style of how I like to see shows costumed -- with purpose and symmetry!  Everyone matched nicely and the costumes added to the show instead of detracting from it.  They enhanced it, which is exactly what they are supposed to do.  Basically, all the guys wore dark charcoal gray sort of jeans with black shirts and black shoes and black belts when they were fighting soldiers and put on a bright teal (where they got that from I have no idea, but I liked it) coats when they were soldiers but not fighting (i.e, most of the time).  Duncan and Malcolm wore the same style but longer versions to denote them as royalty.

Lady Macbeth began the show in a long, form-fitting burnt orange color dress with a huge slit up the side (and orange eye shadow) with matching orange heels and a belt.  The style really suited her and the character she was playing.  In the next scene she lost the belt and gained a sort of chain X necklace around her front, and later she got a white cardigan over it I think when they were woken up just after the murder.  Later she got a dress of the same color but a shorter version (for the banquet scene?  maybe one before?) and similarly had various ways of wearing it slightly differently in different scenes.  (I think there was a jacket in one?)  For the sleepwalking scene, she was in a long white dress that looked a bit like a nightgown but I think was meant to be a dress as it zipped up the back.  It was silky and form-fitting as well.  She began the sleepwalking scene crawling out through the thicket upstage left, which worked really well.  I liked that the thoughts behind her costuming were similar to the thoughts behind ours -- start in strong colors (red vs. orange) and end in light ones (meant to be baby pink for us, though as the clothing budget was long since exhausted at the point, it ended up being light teal with with white polka dots instead ... vs. off white).  Both shows clearly reflected what was going on with her character.

Similarly Macbeth began like the other men, but ended up in all black by the end -- again, the same as our production.  Maybe it's not rocket science how to dress the Macbeths, but I do like it done this way.  It just makes sense ... and looks good, and helps make the plot clear, too.

There was only one witch in this production, which was the first time I'd seen Macbeth done that way.  I thought it was really cool to try it like so, but overall I prefer it with three.  But it was definitely worth doing, and really did work for this particular production.  The opening scene I was confused by in that I couldn't really tell what I was seeing or how -- it was definitely the witch in white/tans, but in retrospect I think what it was was the reflection of her on the ceiling and she was laying on the ground ... though I'm not positive.  We could see a rectangle of her suspended in the air ... at first I couldn't tell if it was a recording or happening live ... possibly it was projected there.  What was really intriguing about how they did the witch was that her voice was not just hers -- it was always a recorded voice over of several people talking.  She was saying the words too, but you got all the sound from elsewhere.  Thus, it was really loud and ... metallic? ... when she talked.  It was really interesting what they did with her -- at various times she seemed coy, playful, possessed, injured, yoga-instructor-like and various combinations and otherwise -- she seemed kind of robotic sometimes and when "she" spoke it was like she was possessed and she couldn't speak otherwise.  The part after intermission that's a bit longer in dialogue for all the witches was done really, really quickly ... which actually worked really well, especially considering there was only one witch on stage.

The first time the Witch met Macbeth and Banquo she had a great costume ... oddly reminiscent of Jenny Any-Dots in Cats, if you've seen that ... that was a huge skirt of neutral tan sort of colors that allowed her to sit down and put her head down and more or less look like ... an odd lump of something natural.  A rock?  A pile of dirt?  Well, something.

I thought the reactions of Macbeth and Banquo were good and very fitting and very different, which you don't always see -- Macbeth was intrigued, a bit scared, a bit gullible, a bit enamored, a bit credulous.   Banquo was a bit more skeptical, acting almost more as if it were all a bit of a Halloween joke someone was playing on them, a bit happy to try to flirt with the Witch and want to get his share of the joke, whatever it was.  Macbeth was treating her more seriously, Banquo more ... like you would when you're pretty sure if you blink a few more times you won't be dreaming any more, but you might as well keep dreaming as long as things are going well.

The one thing I didn't quite get in this production that I wanted to was Macbeth's shifting motivations.  According to Lady Macbeth, he is "too full of the milk of human kindness," yet we didn't really see that of him.  He always seemed pretty ambitious to me -- and having the "illness" that should accompany it.  Why she felt the need to help him was the part that wasn't overly clear.  (He did shift back later and let us see some of that "we'll proceed no farther in this business" -- but I think we needed to see that earlier as well.)

The relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth was one of the best I've seen, though.  They had good chemistry and their relationship seemed clear.  Again, in keeping with the interpretation I'd go with, at the beginning she had much more control over the relationship (as seen by, say, calling the shots as to when they kissed) whereas later he was definitely more in control (as seen by the opposite).  They were probably both mid to late thirties and seemed to fit the roles well.  As usual, the actress playing Lady Macbeth had a pretty throaty voice, but it didn't bother me as much as usual.  Macbeth wore a beard, which I wasn't thrilled about, but he pulled it off pretty well and it wasn't too straggly.  He did look the part, being reasonably tall and fit and ruddy -- brownish, auburnish hair.  She was blonde and curvy and carried her part well.

This production explored Macbeth's madness a bit more than most productions I've seen.  They used sounds and such to help convey that what he was hearing was really a bit nerve-wracking.  The Witch's voice alone was rather nerve-wracking.  The dagger was invisible, though halfway through the actor pulled out (was it a dagger?  it didn't look how I thought a dagger would look) a dagger.  Banquo's ghost was physically present (shirtless, and violently bloodied around the head). In the dagger scene Macbeth kept looking up at it ... which was mirrored by Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene where she also looked up a bit.  I took that to mean his madness had transferred to her ... which was possibly a leap, but not a huge one.

At the banquet scene both Lady Macduff and the Witch were there, though presumably as "noblewomen" instead of their characters ... kind of.  The Witch (! she had a black line painted down her face and chest, which was one way the actress was easily recognizable.  I've been trying to work out what that line was supposed to mean ... the line between madness and sanity?  Truth and lies?  Real and unreal?  Something completely different?) though was friendly with Banquo's ghost, though she didn't appear to be an apparition.  She was the only one besides Macbeth who acknowledged him though (he sat on her lap for quite awhile after she restrained him from touching Macbeth), which normally no character ever does, so that was quite interesting.  I think she stayed on stage after the other guests left and she and Banquo left hand in hand when Macbeth and Lady Macbeth left hand in hand.

While we're on the topic of the Witch, it's a bit like she was a possessed Barbie type figure -- the voice kind of reminded me of the Barbie Girl song voice (in a much darker way, but similarly "unhuman") and she was very blonde with straight hair and kind of looked like a Barbie -- physically but also in terms of how she moved sometimes.  It was kind of like she was a toy or a robot or something from Dr. Who that was given a voice by something else.  It was hard to say if she was willing or trapped -- if she was evil or if she was consumed by evil and too weak to resist.  Her hair often flung forward with her head down so you couldn't see her face and she was sometimes very able to move on her own and sometimes not.  She had different costumes but the other main one was a knitted sort of top that she wore with white underwear but no pants.  It was a pretty long sweater, but not a hair longer than absolutely necessary.  There was a bit of physicality between her and Macbeth (and slightly with Banquo) -- he did receive the news about Banquo's children being kings while laying on top of her and all the apparitions being given through her face -- but it didn't seem like it went any further than that.

With Lady Macbeth there was obviously a lot more physicality and this was the first time it hit me (since studying it when I'm pretty sure it was mentioned) that they really had probably had a child together that had died in its infancy (at least she had had one, and it seems reasonable to think it was his) ... and (flash of inspiration!) it would be very interesting to put on a production where she communicates to him that she's pregnant (which gives him hope that his children will be kings as opposed to Banquo's -- much easier for your kids to inherit if you actually have kids, which Banquo is clearly a step ahead of them there) and thus when she dies it not only is his grief for her but also his dashed hopes of an heir that die.  I feel like there's a bit more that could be explored there ... were the Macbeths unable to have children?  Had her child been with him or someone else before him?  Those have different implications -- if she'd had a child with someone else, then Macbeth himself is infertile and ... well, why get so hung up on Banquo's kids, because if you can't have any, of course they're not going to inherit your throne -- but presumably more likely is that it was theirs together and thus there's a significantly higher chance of them conceiving again -- and if that were implied after their initial meeting scene, it would add a bit more drama to the ... drama.

I liked that they chopped a lot of the political stuff out of this version -- especially near the end I realized that they'd cut a ton of scenes of battle preparation and that that actually worked really well.  I'd been a bit scared to cut as much around there (I definitely cut a lot -- had to get rid of Siward/Young Siward/etc. especially due to casting, but realize now it's actually much better that way) but it worked great.  This way they were really able to focus on Macbeth -- his mental struggle, etc. -- as well as Macduff and his personal vendetta instead of all the political battle scene stuff.  Otherwise it gets a bit too drawn out and confusing unless it's well done (i.e., not backyard!).

Lady Macduff did well -- she was in a pink girly sort of dress, which I thought was very much what I'd dress her in as well -- as did Duncan, Ross, Lennox and Angus.  Macduff did well, too, and he looked the part of a rough and tumble yet big-hearted family man.  Banquo also did well, and I liked the characterization he added -- like I mentioned in his reaction to the Witch vs. Macbeth's, which he carried throughout the performance.  I also liked the bit with him and the Witch.  Oh, Macbeth himself was the murderer of Lady Macduff and her child, which I'd never seen done before.  That made a lot of sense.  They also cut out the conversations Macbeth has with the murderers which really makes sense as well.  (I feel like I'm ready to re-edit the script again now!  I think I did alright the first time, but I feel so much more knowledgeable to do so again now that I've seen how professionals can do it really well.  I'd also cut Macbeth lines monumentally as our Macbeth was not an actor and was slightly (lots) freaked out by them ... but otherwise I'd be more inclined to let him keep them!  The show really is about Macbeth and this production did a good job of keeping him the focus -- it is a huge, huge role.  A title character in every sense.  Well, okay, not every sense.  Presumably one called, say, "King" could have yet another ... but close enough.)

The scene changes were good -- another thing I liked was that during soliloquies the others on stage generally froze or else moved in slow motion.  It was really effective.  There was some music during scene changes, but not tons.  Mostly kind of classical sounding I think?  I have no idea really.  The back of the stage was also kind of hazy most of the time.  It worked really well and suited the mood excellently.  It was a really good stage -- simple, but very effective.  The lighting was very well done.  A couple times I wondered if the sound was having trouble, but I think it was supposed to sound a little static-y sometimes as part of the madness ... or maybe not.  But overall it was really good.

Oh, I found it funny that on the bottom of the character list sheet there was an icon for the Australian Government and it said "Playing Australia" which I thought could be taken a bit more ... literally than it was intended to be!

Okay, that was all off the top of my head -- now opening the notebook to see what details I may have left out.  Unfortunately, as it was rather dark I got a bit muddled and wrote several lines on top of each other ... but hopefully I'll get the main ideas ...

--Oh yes!  They made several lines funny that aren't necessarily funny.  For example, "of all men else I have avoided thee."  (It was a sort of, well, duh! moment.)  Macbeth also gave a funny little "aha, look at me, aren't I cool?" gesture to Lady Macbeth when they first met -- one of those arms out, sway back and forth like guys do when they think they're cool ... :)
--"Twas a rough night" -- funny because the other guy has just chronicled a long list of reasons why it was rough and Macbeth sums it all up neatly for him.
--"You have displaced the mirth" -- funny because he's saying, come back, sit, let's party when it's clear that he has just gone psycho.
--Noticed (Australian) accents in about three words very strongly, and completely forgot about them the rest of the time.
--Most of the actors looked ... not the same, but reasonably similar enough it was hard to keep track of who was who, especially Ross, Angus and Lennox.  I could get Macbeth and Banquo and Macduff and Duncan was older (and didn't, as per usual, last long) ... and Malcolm a bit ... but in a way they all blended together.  I think it was the beards.
--My exact thought that I tried to get at before was:  "need to see Macbeth initially less ambitious/bloodthirsty"
--You could see Macbeth starting to go mad just after the murder and this was continued very well throughout.  I really liked that ambiguity seen on stage as it often isn't.  You can tell Lady Macbeth is getting worried that she's created not so much a monster as a madman.
--Good lighting (wrong order here) for Macbeth's dagger soliloquy -- a circle of yellow light around him for it, then it switched afterwards and he was backlit and silhouetted.
--Just after the murder and Macbeth is talking a lot, the others all slowly circled around him and walked in the circle.  Lady Macbeth fainted very out of the blue and quickly and was very quickly carried off by the closet guy.  It was after this (i.e., the murder) that she shows up in her shorter dress.
--the line "which is which" was delivered with the Witch nearby ... gave a nice double meaning
--just after intermission there was a scene I must have cut -- 2 men (not sure who -- Ross and Lennox?) talking about Macbeth and Macduff.
--the Witch plays Seyton
--tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow soliloquy was good -- Witch was on stage, but had fallen after death of Lady announced and didn't perk up again till it was time for him to address her -- spotlight on him ... I felt like there was a lot of crouching in this production, or at least of people standing in ways that would cramp their legs ... which, come to think of it, is exactly how I stood evidently much of the time as Lady Macbeth as well, but which I didn't notice until on a plane to America hours later and I suddenly was very nervous about what in the world was wrong with my legs when I was sure I hadn't done any exercise yet my thighs felt very much as if they had ... and then a few days later I realized I'd been half squatting half the time and no wonder my legs had noticed, even if the rest of me hadn't!
--the ending "focus on Macbeth and his mental state, not the battle.
--The ending!  Forgot to mention.  Basically Macbeth and Macduff were fighting, as they are wont to do in these shows, and Macduff had just seriously maimed/killed Macbeth and was about to behead him and the Witch had been lurking around the stage, moving downstage center and they were moving upstage center and she yelled "enough!" and it was an instant blackout.  Nothing more whatsoever afterwards, which actually worked well.  It didn't get messy and confusing and anticlimactic with Malcolm coming out and I did like it, though I would have held the blackout a few seconds more before going to the curtain call to let it all sink in a smidge more.
--Standing ovation worthy!  Evidently there were only two of us who thought so, but it was and I don't give mine away lightly.

I think what I like about Macbeth is that every time I see it there is something different and something new -- directors are creative people and everyone does do it differently.  There's always lots to look for to see what they'll do, and I really enjoy seeing how amazingly creative people can be even when working within such a tight confine as a Shakespearean script.  Like I said, I've seen it eight times and every one has been different -- the first time at Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival with one of my all-time favorite actors Giles Davies as Macbeth, another at the Stratford Festival in Canada (where Graham Abbey as Macbeth was the highlight), another in Stratford-upon-Avon where the witches ate the blood off their hands and ravens figured so prominently, another in Lincoln Inn Fields in London which had an all-male cast and was the first time I saw it outdoors and we sat in a long rectangle on either side of the actors and there were percussionists behind us and it got darker as the show got darker and they used real fire!, and another time outdoors at Shakespeare by the Sea in Balmoral (which my friend Melissa was acting in, though I didn't know her at the time!), another time in Leichhardt I think as part of the Fringe festival and set futuristically, sort of, and then most recently in our very backyard version with so many creative ideas I don't know where to start (not that I'm biased ...!) and then tonight, with only one witch and just very well done overall and with excellent costuming.