Macbeth: Third Murderer
L Wood
Concerning the 3rd murderer, I've seen that part taken by the character
of Seyton, who has been made to appear as Macbeth's righthand man,
although in the text all he does is make a couple of brief comments
about Macbeth's armor and the fact that Lady M is dead. Is there a
tradition associating Seyton with the 3rd murderer? (I've read about a
production where Macbeth himself was the 3rd murderer.)
Is the third murderer considered an addition, not Shakespearean, like
the scene with Hecate? And what was Polanski doing in his film with the
character of Ross? He has Ross as the third murdere, and he has Ross
betray Lady macduff and family to the murderers. This makes his showing
up to report the murders to Macduff a very slimy plot twist. I always
thought the slaughter of Macduff's family was what finally caused Ross
to defect.
Lyn
Jane A Thompson
On Fri, 2 May 1997, L Wood wrote:
> Concerning the 3rd murderer, I've seen that part taken by the character
> of Seyton, who has been made to appear as Macbeth's righthand man,
> although in the text all he does is make a couple of brief comments
> about Macbeth's armor and the fact that Lady M is dead. Is there a
> tradition associating Seyton with the 3rd murderer? (I've read about a
> production where Macbeth himself was the 3rd murderer.)
Yes, I've read about both kinds of casting. I think there is a practical
consideration here, in that nobody wants to have to cast bunches of roles
with practically no lines (none, isn't it, in the third murderer's
case?). But also, a Macbeth who comissions assassins and then tags along
is different from a Macbeth who sends his henchman, and different again
from a Macbeth whose assassins are infiltrated by someone else.
> Is the third murderer considered an addition, not Shakespearean, like
> the scene with Hecate? And what was Polanski doing in his film with the
> character of Ross? He has Ross as the third murdere, and he has Ross
> betray Lady macduff and family to the murderers. This makes his showing
> up to report the murders to Macduff a very slimy plot twist. I always
> thought the slaughter of Macduff's family was what finally caused Ross
> to defect.
But Polanski's film was odd in several ways. Remember Malcolm riding off
toward witchville at the end? His was a cynical view of the play, in
which the more things change, the more they get even worse. "Slimy" is a
good word for it. Not to mention the spooky way the Macduff-castle
murders looked so much like the crime scene where Polanski's wife was
killed.
--Jane
Wolfgang Preiss
L Wood <allm...@mail.telis.org> wrote:
>Concerning the 3rd murderer, I've seen that part taken by the character
>of Seyton, who has been made to appear as Macbeth's righthand man,
>although in the text all he does is make a couple of brief comments
>about Macbeth's armor and the fact that Lady M is dead. Is there a
>tradition associating Seyton with the 3rd murderer? (I've read about a
>production where Macbeth himself was the 3rd murderer.)
It is not uncommon to let one actor play various of the smaller roles.
Seyton appears only in Act V, but one can combine most of the servants
or messengers in _MB_ into one role and then call this figure Seyton.
Seyton as the 3rd murderer is an intersting idea. We chose a different
approach in our production, though: Seyton as Macbeth's butler, so to
speak. His first appearance on stage is the first scene of Lady
Macbeth, when he brings the news of Macbeth's imminent arrival. The
audience gets the impression that Seyton knows a lot, if not
everything, about Macbeth's designs, since he's always around. There
is an interesting twist when Seyton acts as the messenger who warns
Lady Macduff after Ross' departure.
I see one problem with Macbeth himself being the 3rd murderer. In the
banquet scene, Macbeth seems genuinely interested in the outcome of
the assault. If he were the third murderer, he would know that Fleance
escaped, right? I decided to have one of the weird sisters double as
3rd murderer in our recent production. It is established in the play
that a witch cannot kill anybody. Therefore, the 3rd murderer grabs
Fleance while murderer #1 and 2 kill Banquo. While they are still
busy, the 3rd murderer deliberately allows Fleance to get away in
order to fulfill the prophecy.
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
\ (Not necessary if you're posting from Europe.)
wopr"at"stud.uni-sb.de \ To reply by e-mail, remove the second ".de"
\ from the address as found in the header.
Uni des Saarlands \ Sorry for the inconvenience. You know why.
Wolfgang Preiss
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote:
>wo...@stud.uni-sb.de.de (Wolfgang Preiss) wrote:
>>I decided to have one of the weird sisters double as
>>3rd murderer in our recent production. It is established in the play
>>that a witch cannot kill anybody. Therefore, the 3rd murderer grabs
>>Fleance while murderer #1 and 2 kill Banquo. While they are still
>>busy, the 3rd murderer deliberately allows Fleance to get away in
>>order to fulfill the prophecy.
>
> You know, I really find your idea intriguing. As the play
>stands, the third murderer seems redundant. By having one of the
>weird sisters pretending she has been sent by Macbeth to aid in
>the murders, only to allow Fleance to escape, reinforces the questions
>raised in the play concerning the role of fate in people's lives:
>did the weird sisters simply forsee what lay ahead for Macbeth, or by
>their prediction did they cause it to happen? A very interesting
>innovation.
Thanks.
>(BTW, where is it established in the play that a witch cannot
> kill anybody?)
In Act I, scene iii, the First Witch relates the story about the
sailor's wife who refuses to give her some of the nuts she's munching.
The witches then plot a revenge on that woman's husband, the "master
o' the Tiger". But they seem to be unable to simply sink his ship:
"Though his bark cannot be lost / Yet it shall be tempest-tost."
(24-25). It seems to me that the witches would sink the ship without
hesitating if they could - they don't seem to have too many scruples -
but they can't. I think the weird sisters can make a person's life
miserable, but they can't kill. That, people have to do for
themselves.
Tad Davis
L Wood (allm...@mail.telis.org) wrote:
: Is the third murderer considered an addition, not Shakespearean, like
: the scene with Hecate? And what was Polanski doing in his film with the
: character of Ross?
I think he was making him a kind of angel of death figure (as well as
making him an example of political wind-blowing). For the most part, his
appearances in the film are consistent with his appearances in the play;
with that one twist, and a few knowing glances, Polanski added a layer of
irony and mystery to the role.
Consider: Ross is the one who tells Duncan about the Thane of Cawdor.
He's the one who brings the news to Macbeth. He's the one who has the
conversation with Macduff about Malcolm and Donalbain and about going to
Scone or Fife. He shows up at Lady Macduff's castle just before the
murder, and he brings the news to Macduff. He is, finally -- though this
does not appear in the film -- the one who brings the news to old Siward,
after the final battle, that his son is dead.
One scene in the film that doesn't get its full due in the pan-and-scan
version available on videotape: when Macbeth is invested at Scone, the
thanes lift him up above their heads on a shield. Ross is standing next to
Banquo, turns to him, and says in a loud clear voice -- looking straight
at Banquo with a devilish grin on his face: "All hail Macbeth, King of
Scotland!" -- at which point the other thanes take up the cry. In the
video version, Ross's figure is trimmed from the right side of the screen.
We can see Banquo's reaction, but not who he's reacting to.
--
Tad Davis 215-898-7864 voice
(dav...@isc.upenn.edu) 215-898-0386 fax
Brad Filippone
Wolfgang Preiss (wo...@stud.uni-sb.de.de) wrote:
: L Wood <allm...@mail.telis.org> wrote:
: >Concerning the 3rd murderer, I've seen that part taken by the character
: >of Seyton, who has been made to appear as Macbeth's righthand man,
: >although in the text all he does is make a couple of brief comments
: >about Macbeth's armor and the fact that Lady M is dead. Is there a
: >tradition associating Seyton with the 3rd murderer? (I've read about a
: >production where Macbeth himself was the 3rd murderer.)
: It is not uncommon to let one actor play various of the smaller roles.
: Seyton appears only in Act V, but one can combine most of the servants
: or messengers in _MB_ into one role and then call this figure Seyton.
: Seyton as the 3rd murderer is an intersting idea. We chose a different
: approach in our production, though: Seyton as Macbeth's butler, so to
: speak. His first appearance on stage is the first scene of Lady
: Macbeth, when he brings the news of Macbeth's imminent arrival. The
: audience gets the impression that Seyton knows a lot, if not
: everything, about Macbeth's designs, since he's always around. There
: is an interesting twist when Seyton acts as the messenger who warns
: Lady Macduff after Ross' departure.
: I see one problem with Macbeth himself being the 3rd murderer. In the
: banquet scene, Macbeth seems genuinely interested in the outcome of
: the assault. If he were the third murderer, he would know that Fleance
: escaped, right? I decided to have one of the weird sisters double as
: 3rd murderer in our recent production. It is established in the play
: that a witch cannot kill anybody. Therefore, the 3rd murderer grabs
: Fleance while murderer #1 and 2 kill Banquo. While they are still
: busy, the 3rd murderer deliberately allows Fleance to get away in
: order to fulfill the prophecy.
Interesting theory, one that I hadn't considered before.
I thought I'd mention that in the Macbeth that was part of the BBC series
in the late 70's early 80's, the third murderer, following the death of
Banquo and escape of Fleance, actually murders the other two murderers,
then reports to Macbeth in the banquet scene. It's probably safe to
assume that Macbeth has this one murdered as well at some point.
Wolfgang Preiss
cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) wrote:
>In <336d7049...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> wo...@stud.uni-sb.de.de
>(Wolfgang Preiss) writes:
>>
>>
>>In Act I, scene iii, the First Witch relates the story about the
>>sailor's wife who refuses to give her some of the nuts she's munching.
>>The witches then plot a revenge on that woman's husband, the "master
>>o' the Tiger". But they seem to be unable to simply sink his ship:
>>"Though his bark cannot be lost / Yet it shall be tempest-tost."
>>(24-25). It seems to me that the witches would sink the ship without
>>hesitating if they could - they don't seem to have too many scruples -
>>but they can't. I think the weird sisters can make a person's life
>>miserable, but they can't kill. That, people have to do for
>>themselves.
>
>This is from Marchette Chute's Ben Jonson bio
>
>
>"....Witchcraft was still a living issue in Scotland. It was the
>remnant of the old fertility cult, driven underground by Christianity
>but still floursihing with well-organized vigor. When James I had
>sailed to Denmark to get his bride, three of the witches' covens had
>banded together to raise a storm at sea, acting under the leadership of
>a man who hoped to claim the throne if James had no heirs. Whatever
>future generations might think, the North Berwick witches were fully
>convinced of their own powers, and, as Camden said, 'openly confessed
>that they had raised the storms'" (p. 171).
>
>I think the witches speech is intended as an allusion to the incident
>cited above.
No doubt it is. But does that invalidate my perception that the
witches in _Macbeth_ are unable to kill? The historical witches tried
to sink the king's ship by raising the storm. The witches in the play
know that the "ship cannot be lost". Maybe I'm too much influenced by
the figure of another malicious supernatural advisor, Mephisto in
Goethe's _Faust_. He, definitely, can only urge Faust to do the wrong
thing, but he can't harm people out of his own power - he has to rely
on the collaboration of humans. For my personal liking, it's much more
interesting if people are responsible, not ghosts, devils or witches.
More of moral lesson, maybe.
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
\ (Not necessary if you're posting from Europe.)
wopr"at"stud.uni-sb.de \ To contact me by e-mail, remove the final "2" from
\ the reply-to: address.
JB3001
In article <5l9r3b$g...@smash.gatech.edu>, rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu
(Robert J. Fusillo) writes:
>Subject: Re: Macbeth: Third Murderer
>From: rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu (Robert J. Fusillo)
>Date: 13 May 1997 13:42:03 GMT
>
>Brad Filippone (al...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
>: Wolfgang Preiss (wo...@stud.uni-sb.de.de) wrote:
>: : L Wood <allm...@mail.telis.org> wrote:
>
>: : >Concerning the 3rd murderer, I've seen that part taken by the
character
>: : >of Seyton, who has been made to appear as Macbeth's righthand man,
>: : >although in the text all he does is make a couple of brief comments
>: : >about Macbeth's armor and the fact that Lady M is dead. Is there a
>: : >tradition associating Seyton with the 3rd murderer? (I've read
about a
>: : >production where Macbeth himself was the 3rd murderer.)
>
> The structure of the play suggests that Fate is involved:
>Mac, who has been able to get away with his crime until this point
>( fate said he would be king, and he is OK, with suspicion elsewhere),
but
>when he decides to go aginst the rest of Fate's prediction - Banquo's
>off spring as kings -- all Hell breaks loose for Mac. I did a production
>in which I emphasised this idea by having one of the witches -- dressed
in
>her act one costume -- appear as the third murderer. ( I also had,
>rather cornily, the witches present at Mac's death).
> This is a play about a man who is destroyed, not for being
>wicked, but for daring to challenge Fate.
>rjf
No, he's destroyed =because= he becomes wicked, that is the point of the
play. His downfall lies in the fact that he recognises his evil--as unlike
L M, he is spirtually aware. A tragic hero is, by definition, someone
whose heroic qualities are perverted to evil by powers beyond that
character's control--in this lies M's tragic status. Fate helps
orchestrate that downfall, but it is his own mind which ultimately undoes
him; his own human conscience.
As for the Third Murder, the point is it was Macbeth's will. And as long
as you know that the question of who physicaly done it is inconsequential
and not relevant.
Jamie Brough (student) Neve...@full-moon.com
Advldy
Yes, this use of Ross as the betrayer of Lady MacDuff has always bothered
me but his lines imply that even though he gives her a half-hearted
warning, his main job is to let in the murderers. It was unsatisfying to
be unable to reach a conclustion as to what Polanski's Ross is: loyal to
Macbeth, a defector who is
horrified with Macbeth's evil deeds, or just an opportunist who wants to
land on the right side at the end of the battle.
I think we have to look at the lines Shakes wrote--all else is the
particular director's
interpretation. I have not subscribed to this newsgroup for very long and
was happy to find your comments on Ross as he seems to be ignored a lot.
Have you heard other talk about his role?
Also, I live in Maine and the Brannagh film of Hamlet played for 1 week!
I missed it and will have to rent it. Did you see it and if so, what was
you impression?