When looking at the different adaptations of Shakespeare’s Scottish play, there are many things to take into consideration. The differences and similarities that stuck out most to me included the language, settings, characters, and events.
For the most part, the language in the Scottish Play was drastically different from the language in the adaptations. This is obvious in the Throne of Blood, which is in Japanese, and can also be seen in the Dr. Seuss-ish rhyming of the travesty, and also in the more modern African associations of uMabatha. With respect to the language used, my favorite adaptation would be uMabatha, because although it has different language, it retains the same meaning as the Scottish Play.
Secondly, the settings of the plays were changed primarily in order to make the adaptations fit into their culture. For example, uMabatha takes place in an African village, and the Throne of Blood in
Japan. I think that this physical way of relating to the play to their own culture is the best thing that the authors could have done. The new setting makes the play closer to home, allowing people to understand the adaptations well. The set for the Throne of Blood movie was my favorite, but the setting that comes out of uMabatha was a little too distant from Shakespeare’s intentions with his original play.
The characters in the adaptations of the Scottish Play follow their counterparts in the original play almost exactly. Small changes such as the number of witches, or the elimination of certain [unimportant] thanes, were apparent, but fortunately did not affect the impact of the play. I thought that the one witch in the Throne of Blood had just as much effect, if not more, than the three witches in the original. I think that by eliminating characters a little something is lost, however it simplifies certain parts of the play which is a plus for the adaptations.
The last thing that stuck out to me in these adaptations was how true the events were to the original Scottish Play. This was especially apparent in the Throne of Blood, where these events are mirrored in the original play:
- The weather is bad when Macbeth and Banquo see the witch
- Lady Macbeth tries to get Macbeth to murder the king
- Macbeth and Banquo laugh about the prophesies of the witch
- The guards are drunk, intended by Lady Macbeth
- Macbeth kills the king but keeps the weapon in his possession, and Lady Macbeth has to bring it back to the murder scene
- Banquo and Fleeance are missing from the banquet
- Macbeth is haunted by the ghost of Banquo during the banquet, and his wife tells the guests that he must have gone mad
- The Murderer reports that Banquo is dead, but Fleeance had escaped
… just to name a few. There were some differences as well, but for the most part the degree to witch the adaptations stick to the original play is amazing.
I think that overall, the adaptations of the Scottish Play modernize it, and keep it alive for the new generations of the world.
Entries (RSS)
November 8th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
JJ, I completely agree with you that uMabatha was the adaptation that was closest to Shakesperes Scotish Play because they did keep the same events and people, even though they had different names and it took place in a different scenery. My favorite adaptation was Throne of Blood though because as you said, the director mirrored most everything in the Scotish Play into the movie. As you wrote, Macbeth does not do the murder completely to plan and all those other things you stated.
- Good job with your adaptation!
November 8th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Well I do agree that uMbatha was the best, and that it was a little off compared to the other adaptations so much as the setting but I must disagree about the “unimportant” thanes left out of The Throne of Blood. MacDuff is the man that, in the play, persuades Malcolm and the English King to send troops to Scotland in The Scottish Play in order to bring down Macbeth and restore order. Without MacDuff, Noriyasu (perhaps taking his place?) Seemed somewhat unmotivated to take the 1st Fortress and seemed only a backround character. Malcolm on the other hand wasn’t referanced at all despite the fact that he was in fact the most important character of the whole play. He is the one who is crowned King in place of his father Duncan and restores order to the royal line. Without him, there wasn’t much of an ending and the battle seemed to have been left unresolved. Good use of fog though.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Your blog was very well written and you made some interesting points about the Throne of Blood. My favorite adaptation of the Scottish Play is Throne of Blood. I like how they do a good job of sticking close to the Scottish Play and ancient Japanese culture. The background chorus as a prelude and a postlude was a great idea on the director’s part. The director also did a good job in the banquet scene, where some shots show what the main character is seeing and other shots show what the rest of the people at the banquet see. I found your blog very thoughtful.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Hi JJ, I really liked your views on the adaptaions of Macbeth. My favorite part of your post was your views on the settings shown in each of the adaptations. I completely agree that the setting was changed so that he audience would be able to relate more to the play then if it had been set in the original play’s setting. I also really like how each adaptation (excluding Travesties) was able to place the play into its new setting so well. It is really cool to see how each adaptation is so similar and different to the original at the same time. Keep up the good writing!