To be turned into me NO LATER THAN March 15.
DO ONE QUESTION FROM PART ONE AND ONE QUESTION FROM PART TWO
1. Macbeth is known as “The Scottish Play” and uses as its main character a real Scottish king. How much “Scottishness” have the various directors of Shakespeare’s Macbeth introduced into the play and what impact does it have on the production? What is the relevance of introducing the Scottish material both by author and director?
2. Prof. McNulty pointed out that the play has a great deal of potential for exploiting its supernatural and grandiose elements. Prof. Patkanian pointed out that the entire play can be seen almost as ritual. Some productions have tended to “play these up” while others have “played them down”. How does this affect the visual aspects of the film in the three versions of the actual Shakespeare version watched this term?
3. Macbeth is originally written as a play. Transforming it into a film opens many areas for a different kind of treatment. In what ways are these exploited in the various versions of the Shakespeare Macbeth in the three screen adaptations we have seen.
1. In what ways do the two non-Shakespearian versions of Macbeth vary with the original? What “purpose” does it serve to alter the story the way the two versions alter it? What impact does that have on the characters and the way the film is filmed? In effect, what kinds of problems arise in taking a story and moving it in time (or place)? What can you say about the elements that become problematical?
2. Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (Kumonosu-joo) is often discussed relative to the way it converges and diverges from Shakespeare’s play. Some writers have argued that the comparisons are fine as long as Shakespeare is not set up as the “authoritative” version against which the Japanese one is measured. What kinds of parallels can you draw between Kurosawa’s alteration of the Shakespeare version and the Shakespearean alteration of the actual historic Macbeth?
3. Kurosawa’s version is often said to be the purest translation of Macbeth to the screen although it is in some ways the most distant from the Shakespearean. How do you explain that? That is, in what ways does the filmed version capture the essence of the story even though it is the one the has the greatest changes from the original?