How far do you agree that Lady Macbeth is presented as a "fiend-like" queen?

Shakespeare’s presentation of Lady Macbeth is a very complex one which changes throughout the play. There are many wicked aspects of her character which highlight her fiendish nature. She is capable of great duplicity as she hides her callous behaviour from those around her. Earlier in the play, she is presented as rejective of her humanity and continues to have a lack of remorse for her actions throughout the play. However, there are many redeeming qualities to her character which suggest she is not entirely demonic. Her deceptive nature is not sustained throughout the play, and she does express many human qualities- rather than fiendish ones- such as her compassion, guilt and a supportive disposition towards her husband.

   Earlier in the play, Lady Macbeth is presented as an indifferent, uncaring character with qualities of a “fiend-like” queen. When Macbeth murders King Duncan, she does not comfort her horrified husband who can no longer look at his hands. Rather, she insults his manhood: “infirm of purpose” and describes him as “white” hearted and cowardly. This is a character who appears not to care about the consequences of her actions, and mocks Macbeth for feeling any regret at all. There is a strong sense of apathy about her character as she chooses to focus on framing the servants instead of expressing remorse: “go”, “get”, “carry”. The chain of imperatives in her language highlight her almost mechanical lack of regret as she works to destroy any evidence of their involvement. A Jacobean audience would be particularly shocked at this presentation because regicide was considered the most blasphemous, horrific act to commit. To remain indifferent to this treacherous crime would be considered a very fiendish quality. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does express a non-fiendish, sensitive side. During the same scene as Duncan’s murder, she reveals had Duncan “not resembled my father… I had done’t”. This suggests that she does possess a moral side to her character which prevents her from killing someone similar to her father. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that to frame the two servants, she needed alcohol to “make me bold”. This is not something an innately fiendish or cruel person would need to do. Therefore, it is more plausible that the callous side to Lady Macbeth we are presented with in this scene - “a little water clears us of” guilt-  is a façade. A façade she uses to cover up the immense distress she feels, and one that may be a result of ruthless pragmatism, rather than wickedness.

  Lady Macbeth is later presented as more devilish when she rejects her humanity and femininity. This is an unnatural desire which connects her with the “murdering ministers” and isolates her from God: “tend on mortal thoughts”; “unsex me”; “take my milk for gall”. She appears to shun human nature itself in order to commit this crime. Religion was a very prevalent part of Jacobean society. To have utter disregard for God’s will was considered sacrilegious, and a fiendish desire. No longer does wish she wish to be human: “fill me… of direst cruelty”. The superlative “direst” connoting an extreme level of detachment from humanity and God. However, a much stronger interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does this sacrificially in order to help her husband achieve kingship. The character is presented as wishful and ambitious for her husband’s benefit: she wants him to be “crowned withall!” and fears that he is “too full of the milk of human kindness” to do so. She states that he should “leave all the rest to me” which suggests she is willing to do everything necessary to help her husband. This is a very loving characteristic. Perhaps she is willing to lose her humanity in order to help Macbeth with his rise to the throne. Whilst she does appear to act diabolically by rejecting her humanity, it is clear that Lady Macbeth’s motives for doing so are very human, and not “fiend-like” in nature.

   Lady Macbeth is presented as most “fiend-like” when Shakespeare establishes a duplicity about her character. When in the courtyard of her castle, she is described as “our honoured hostess!” with “fair and noble” qualities by King Duncan. She effectively portrays herself as a an “innocent flower”. This is juxtaposed with the infamous “unsex me” scene when she is presented as a very wicked character who is out of sync with the sacredness of life. In that scene, she would have “dashed the brains out” of her own child and ominously states that Duncan “never shall sun that morrow see!” Through the juxtaposition of the “sweet” and “serpent” like qualities of Lady Macbeth, Shakespeare suggests this is a fiendish character capable of great deceit: “beguile the time, look like the time”. However, a much greater interpretation suggests that this duplicity is not enduring- it dissipates as the play progresses. Later in the play, her guilt over killing Duncan is presented as uncontrollable and impossible to conceal She begins to walk and confess her sins during her sleep: she “write upon’t” a piece of paper, and exclaims that “the old man… had so much blood”. She appears unable to control her abhorrence for her actions: “out, damned spot! Out!” Lady Macbeth is no longer a character who can plot regicide, and then be a “noble” hostess to that very king. This fiendish duplicity is absent from her character later, and suggests that Lady Macbeth is not completely demonic in nature.

  Lady Macbeth is often a character who behaves in a “fiend-like” manner. She callously plots regicide, expresses no regret over Duncan’s murder, rejects her own humanity and is presented as a very deceptive character. All of these are the qualities of a wicked demonic character. However, a much deeper reading shows that there are often very human motives for these actions. Perhaps her lack of remorse over Duncan’s murder is a method of coping with the distress, or the rejection of her humanity was to help her husband achieve kingship. It is clear that Lady Macbeth is a character capable of both wicked and human qualities, but for Malcolm to describe her as an entirely “fiend-like queen” is not apt description for this complex character.

To what extent do you agree with the view that, in Frankenstein, Mary Shelley is exploring “the dark side of the human psyche”?

In Frankenstein, Shelley appears to explore various elements of the dark side within the human psyche; the darkness within our mind and how it is affected by the subconscious. There are many aspects of the human psyche, or mind, that Shelley explores through Frankenstein and the Creature: violent and impulsive instincts within one’s id; an arrogant desire to play God and the effects of guilt. However, it is important to note that Frankenstein is a Gothic novel. Thus it is just as plausible that Shelley may be trying to explore many Gothic themes instead, such as punishment, the dangers of science and the monstrous.

Through the doubling of Frankenstein and the Creature, Shelley could be exploring the dark, violent and impulsive tendencies within the id of the human psyche. After his own framed tale, the Creature is presented as very barbaric and fierce. He is often described as a “wild beast” and as “monster” which connotes how he has lost his human characteristics and that he has become more bestial. Much like an animal, the Creature appears out of control in his rampage: he “glutted” himself in violence and allowed himself to be “borne away” by murder. This frenzied representation of the Creature mirrors the presentation of the protagonist, Frankenstein, later in the narrative. He also becomes full of “fury” and a vengeance which “moulded my feelings”. Through a paralleling structure, the Creature is thus presented as Frankenstein’s doppelganger. Furthermore, both of them are linked by an allusion to Satan in Paradise Lost- each of them “bore a hell” within. The Creature, as his double, appears to symbolise the repressed instincts within Frankenstein’s own mind, his id. Nevertheless, these subconscious elements begin to seep into his own consciousness (or superego) after the loss of his entire family. Frankenstein begins to act on the repressed instincts that his creature represents. Thus it could be argued that Shelley is exploring the ‘breaking point’ of a person, where the lines between id and ego collapse in the psyche. However, a much greater reading infers that Shelley is exploring the gothic theme of punishment. By having Frankenstein deteriorate from a passionate young student who wants to satisfy his “thirst for knowledge” to a “hellish” monster hell-bent on revenge, Shelley appears to be presenting him as damned, or ‘sentenced’ for his crimes. The character’s many sins, such as creating the Creature, appear to be condemned through Frankenstein’s declining sanity. Thus, it is a much more plausible that Shelley is exploring the idea of punishment rather than the dark side of the human psyche.

Shelley appears to be exploring more of the human psyche’s dark side, such as ambition and arrogance, through Frankenstein’s characterisation. In the novel’s opening, Frankenstein is presented as utterly obsessed, devoted and addicted to the creation of his being: it has an “irresistible hold” on him. His “heart and soul, in one pursuit”- this connotes how he is more than a man of “enthusiasm”. He is portrayed as being in “slavery” to his passion, implying that he has lost all control to this addictive obsession. It could be argued that this “ardent desire” stems from a subconscious yearning to play God. He wants to find the “hidden secrets of nature”, to “penetrate” the mystery of life. Contextually, these secrets are what a reader from the 1800s would associate with as arcane and only belonging to God. To try and find these secrets would have been considered an abhorrent usurpation of God’s role. Shelley appears to be exploring the hubris integrated within the dark recesses of the human mind, and possibly highlighting how it leads to the “emaciation” of mind and body. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Shelley is examining the dangers of science instead. Frankenstein is characterised as devoted to scientific research and the “secrets of life”. This appears to be criticised by Shelley, who was writing during the rise of Galvanism and the Age of Enlightenment. Science appears to lead Frankenstein to “ruin” and decaying into a “lifeless” thing. Furthermore, the product of this scientific pursuit is a “daemon” who rampages through the rest of the novel, leaving only a trail of deaths. Thus, it is much more plausible that Shelley is instead analysing the dangers of science and not the dark side of the human psyche.

Shelley is at her most probing of the dark side of the human psyche when she explores the guilt of Frankenstein. In response to Justine’s impending execution, Frankenstein is presented as remorseful and sorry: he is in a state of “living torture” and “horrid anguish”. He appears to be devastated that someone full of “joy” could be blamed for the crime committed by his creation. It could be argued that, through Frankenstein, Shelley is exploring another dark element of the human mind: destructive guilt. After all, “remorse pressed upon” the heart of this remorseful character, and it appears that the rest of the narrative hinges upon his desire to destroy the Creature and redeem himself. However, a much stronger reading suggests how Shelley is not exploring the guilt within Frankenstein’s psyche. Would a regretful character let the “innocent”, “most grateful little creature in the world” be executed for crimes they did not commit? They would not, which connotes how he does not feel guilt at all. Rather, Frankenstein is actually presented as egocentric and indifferent towards Justine. Following Justine’s execution, the words “I” and “my” are repeated often, which connotes his lack of consideration for her suffering. His only concern is for “my pain”, and this is chilling for the reader. Shelley appears to be exploring how monstrous and desensitized to death Frankenstein has become, possibly following the practice of grave-robbing. Rather than examining the dark, guilty side of the human psyche, Shelley appears to be presenting Frankenstein as monstrously indifferent. As readers, we are left wondering whether this egocentric protagonist truly has anything ‘human’ to be explored.

It is clear that Shelley does slightly delve into the dark side of the human psyche, examining many aspects such as the impulsive instincts within the id, a hubris that leads to the usurpation of God’s authority and remorse. However, it is clear that these are not Shelley’s primary concerns, as a writer of the Gothic genre. There appears to be more of a focus on themes such as punishment, the dangers of science and the monstrous. Whilst it is still an integral part of the narrative, the dark side of the human psyche appears not to be a primary point of exploration for Shelley in her classic novel.

Macbeth (2015) Review

Kurzel’s adaptation of Macbeth is a skilful film that utilises many techniques to answer the key questions raised within the source material. Who is at fault for Macbeth’s violent crimes? How much sympathy can we as an audience truly feel for this flawed protagonist? The answers to these questions appear to be the impetus of this well-made adaptation. Film techniques such as the use of colour saturation, slow-motion and the restructuring of the plot all serve to alter our ability to show compassion for the protagonist as he begins to “stepped so far” into a world of death and brutality.

The use of slow-motion during the opening proves very effective at developing the gothic themes of the source material. From the eager shaking of Macbeth’s sword as he waits for the battle to begin, through to its climactic conclusion, Kurzel chooses to reduce the film’s pace significantly. As a result, every single detail of this bloody battle can be savoured by the audience. Every brutal attack that Macbeth and Banquo execute upon their enemies can almost be felt, as the scenes play out slow enough for us to become more involved with every stab, kick and slice. Kurzel appears to be using this slow-motion technique to glorify and stylise the violence, which may reflect the characterisation of Duncan and his lords within the play itself. Both Macbeth and Banquo are praised as “worthy gentleman!” for their savage fighting style; they are “honoured” and “valiant”. Duncan’s speech is filled with a chain of positive adjectives to emphasise how respected Macbeth is for his actions- “brave Macbeth, well he deserves that name”. This attitude to the protagonist’s heroic efforts is reflected by the use of slow-motion, which presents their patriotic desire to protect their country as impressive, magnificent and extravagant. However, a more effective use of this slow-motion is how it infers the powerful influence of the Witches in this play. In a short segment of the battle sequence, the pace returns to real-time for the soldiers who continue to participate in the combat. This is juxtaposed with the shots featuring the eponymous protagonist and the Witches, who remain in slow-motion. For the audience, this effectively emphasises the influence they have upon Macbeth. Only he can see them, and his focus is on these arcane figures rather than the bloody battle as it continues around him. Kurzel’s use of slow-motion thus serves to isolate Macbeth as a protagonist who is no longer of the temporal world. From this moment on, Macbeth appears to be under the supernatural influence of the Witches.

However, Kurzel appears to spend the rest of the film disputing the assertion that Macbeth is under the influence of overwhelming supernatural forces. In the play, the Witches are otherworldly beings with the sole goal of “draw him [Macbeth] onto his confusion”. The plot is slightly altered in this adaption so that Lady Macbeth sees these mysterious characters. Whilst it may appear to be a small adjustment, this heavily influences the audience’s response to the question at the heart of this play: ‘who is to blame for Macbeth’s actions?’ In the play, it is ambiguous and unclear. This adaptation makes the mistake of eliminating the uncertainty that makes the play the timeless classic that it is. For Lady Macbeth to meet the Witches, Kurzel inadvertently diminishes the integrity of their mysterious representation as paranormal beings. In fact, there is very little makeup or effects (if any) used on these characters, which serves to present them as more human than “juggling fiend”. Rather than “vanish” completely after their meeting with Macbeth, they simply walk off into the fog. Kurzel appears to be creating a very realistic and grounded version of this classic gothic play. Furthermore, the famous dagger scene is adapted so that it is a young boy in a dream who offers the weapon to Macbeth. In the play, the origins of this dagger are much more obscure. We never truly know whether it is Macbeth’s “heat-oppressed” mind that hallucinates this image, or the Witches tempting him down a road of violence and death. Kurzel’s adaption does not preserve this mystery: the Witches are much less supernatural and arcane in this film, as the ambiguity which made them so interesting in the play is stripped away. This also makes it very difficult to blame Macbeth’s transgressive murders throughout the play on the overpowering influence on the Witches. Whilst the use of slow-motion earlier did appear to suggest that Macbeth was completely enchanted by their power, it is clear that the true fault for Macbeth’s actions lies with the protagonist himself.

In fact, Kurzel and Fassbender’s presentation of Macbeth appears to deliberately restrict our sympathies for the protagonist. During the film, the domination and command of Lady Macbeth is almost entirely omitted. Cotillard’s performance is very subtle as her character seduces Macbeth into committing regicide, rather than completely overpowering him. When Macbeth cowardly asks “if we should fail,-” in the film, it appears to stem from a fear of disappointing his wife for not being masculine enough. In the play, it is Lady Macbeth who uses his manhood and his pride as weapons in order to convince Macbeth. The film does not utilise this key concept within the play, for the delivery of Cotillard’s lines are too quiet for us to interpret her as the commanding partner of this relationship. In fact, much of the dialogue in the play has been cut from the film’s screenplay. Following Duncan’s murder, the use of imperatives and insults in her language- such as “infirm of purpose”; “white” hearted and “go get”- is absent from Kurzel’s adaptation. Similarly to the Witches’ presentation, her influence has been stripped to its core so that there is very little of it. This serves to increase the blame of Macbeth’s actions upon the titular protagonist himself.

Furthermore, Kurzel presents Macbeth as worthy of the titles “butcher” and “devilish Macbeth” during the act of regicide itself. In Shakespeare’s source narrative, the murder is completely omitted. It takes place off-stage, which may initially infer that Macbeth feels so much guilt for his crime that he cannot process it. He runs and hides immediately, refusing to go back to the “sorry sight”. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this crime is actually more abhorrent for the audience, hence why it is absent from the narrative. There is a suggestion that the crime is too horrific to be imagined. Kurzel appears to be adapting the play so that it coincides with the latter interpretation. He chooses to include Duncan’s murder within the film, and directs it in a perfectly chilling way. In what is one of the most accomplished scenes in the film, the audience is left repulsed by the violent, barbaric and bloody murder that Macbeth commits. It is the repeated stabbings, and the uncontrollable burst of ferocity, that presents Macbeth as so cold, and so indifferent. Thus, it could be interpreted that Kurzel is deliberately restricting our sympathies for the protagonist. Whereas the play included a duality about his character, which made him both sympathetic and morally revolting, the film does not portray Macbeth as someone we should feel sorry for. Even the film’s colour saturation, so that the scene appears orange and red during the final battle sequence, serves to distance us from Macbeth. We struggle to feel sympathy for the character because the colour saturation obscures him from view; all we can see is the ‘red’ that symbolises his bloody and violent path to power.

Whilst this film is flawed in its lack of ambiguity or mystery, there are many elements of the source material that Kurzel translates to screen faultlessly. He masterly reflects the glorification of violence in the play through stylised and stunning visual storytelling, and he cleverly restructures the story to open up original interpretations on how we as an audience should respond to Macbeth’s character. It is an impressive film that proves to be a faithful adaptation of this 400 year old play, whilst also having its own fresh, innovative and modern flair.