Consequences of Stealing in Macbeth: Unveiling the Darkness Within

Goold’s Unique Interpretation of Macbeth

In his 2010 interpretation of William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, director Rupert Goold creates a credible inner conflict for the dagger speech by constantly changing the camera angles throughout the scene, alternating the lighting, and changing the tone of the background music. Goolds opens the film with actor Patrick Stewart hallucinating a dagger as he holds his ring out. Stewart is not sure whether or not it’s real, so he decides to reach out and try to grab it.

As the scene continues, it begins to lead to the inner conflicts that he starts to undergo. He begins to realize how important and serious things are about to get.

Camera Angles and the Suspense They Create

When the opening scene begins, Stewart is talking in a low voice and is continuing at a slow pace. As Stewart starts to see blood on the dagger, he reaches out to touch it. He then soon says, “as though there’s no such thing” (..). The camera angle then changes to a side view, emphasizing that there is nothing to be seen as he is shown whacking the air. He realizes that everything he sees is the murder that he is about to commit, is making him see a dagger. Goold utilizes a direct camera view, slowly zooming in on Stewart’s face. The text states, “Which now suits with it. Whiles I threat, he lives”. This shows that the more he waits there, the longer Duncan will be alive. Soon after, the bell rings, and the camera angle immediately switches to the tunnel. Stewart is then shown slowly walking towards the camera, giving a feeling that the death of Duncan is going to occur very, very soon. By focusing the camera on the background of the tunnel he was in, he would critically disguise himself into the foreground only to “pop” back into existence when the camera changed focus. This vanishing effect gave him a lot of his inhuman qualities. Not only do the change in camera angles create a dramatic effect, but they also give off a feeling of suspense.

Lighting Choices and the Consequences of Stealing

The lighting throughout the scene is constantly changing as well. Towards the beginning of the scene, Macbeth’s face is shown half dark and the other half lit up. In the 2015 interpretation, the horrendous dark lighting does not have the same important impact as the lighting choice in this interpretation does. This choice of lighting emphasizes and foreshadows the demolition of all that was good and the birth of all that is evil within Macbeth himself. The author is struggling with good vs. evil, just as a lot of people in the real world do as well. For example, stealing is just a basic representation of good vs. evil. The majority of people believe stealing is wrong because it is against the law. However, there are those who think of stealing as a need to survive and, therefore, as an act of compassion for your loved ones. This comparison relates to Macbeth by showing not only his evil side but also his double thinking of the murder. At the end of the scene, Stewart is shown walking out from a dark tunnel, with light going off behind him. As he walks closer to the camera, his eyes appear to be fully black as well. This powerful effect adds more of a serious tone and reveals that it is leading up to the death of Duncan. The choice of lighting intensifies the effect the film has on the audience and tries to portray a darker side of the story.

Background Music and Emotional Landscape

The background music of the scene stays constant throughout the beginning and middle of the scene. In the 2015 interpretation, there is no music towards the end. However, in this 2010 interpretation, the music has the greatest impact on the audience. As Stewart is talking about Duncan, the music starts to sound like a fast heartbeat, and as he walks down the tunnel, the music slows down as if it tried to gasp our lungs. Even though Macbeth had not made his move yet, we could already feel his killing intent. The music fleshes out the emotional landscape of the scene and helps place the viewer within the temporary reality on the screen.

Some may say that the 1971 Dagger speech presents a more credible inner conflict than the 2010 Dagger soliloquy. People begin to argue that the 2010 interpretation not only shows an invisible dagger but also a real one, adding more of a dramatic effect. Even though this may be true, adding two daggers to the scene just makes it totally confusing and unprofessional. Therefore, The 2010 interpretation definitely expresses a more credible inner conflict.
Though both film directors take a similar approach to the dagger scene with camera angles, Goold’s decision to reference the lighting, creating the “good vs. evil” tone, allows the actor and the viewer to better understand his inner conflict.

References:

1. Goold, R. (Director). (2010). Macbeth [Film]. United Kingdom: Illuminations Media.

Did you like this example?

254

11