Essay: Macbeth – Analysis of Dagger Scene and Interpretation of Film Adaptations

The dagger scene in Macbeth is important as it elaborates the thoughts and ideas in Macbeth’s mind. It is the epiphany which changes his views on life and death. Kurzel, Goold, Ashford and Branagh all present compelling and intriguing perceptions of the text. In this essay, I will analyze three adaptations of Act 2 Scene 1 “the dagger scene” by Justin Kurzel, Rupert Goold, Kenneth Branagh and Rob Ashford’s from Macbeth by William Shakespeare. I will be arguing that the lighting within the three adaptations approach the text differently creating different visual mediums. This essay will elaborate on each director and their adaptations and will take a look at the different approaches taken. In particular, taking into consideration that when compared, each adaptation has similar but different views on the dagger scene and Shakespeare’s text. Specifically, the techniques and different combinations which were used to create the scenes and accentuate the text.
The three films presented have excellent adaptations of Macbeth in which different aspects of the original text were adapted by the directors of the films. Each director viewed Shakespeare’s text and envisioned something different. Of the three directors, Goold’s dagger scene provided the most captivating performance. In his adaptation, Goold ignored “in form as palpable / As this which now I draw.” (2.1.39-40). Although this is so, it was adapted through the acting and body language of James Stewart. The soliloquy grasps the viewers’ attention as the director wanted the viewer to be pulled into the darkness and anger of Macbeth. From the quick flash-cutting shots of Stewart, the viewpoint of the fictitious dagger that cannot be physically seen is being portrayed differently, allowing the audience to witness a different perspective as if it’s being used. Furthermore, the camera is being brought closer to Stewart, giving the viewer a sense of claustrophobia. The sequence seen by the audience made up for the words which were missing from the play. Similarly, “I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.” (2.1.35) was ignored by Kurzel. Instead, the establishment of the mise-en-scène gave a clear distinction to his adaptation. The audience is able to witness an individual presenting the dagger to Macbeth. He tries to touch the individual’s face but is merely a picture of his imagination and his subconscious (1 min, 0 sec – 1 min, 15 sec). As well, “And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood, / Which was not so before.” (2.1.46-7) was ignored by Kurzel. Macbeth entering the vast environment in the night is seen with a long shot to present the setting which is being used in the scene. He closes his eyes and shakes his head to question whether what was occurring was real. The individual vanishes like a ghost into the night and Macbeth was left with a dagger and with the intention to kill Duncan. On the contrary, Ashford and Branagh’s live play had no revisions to the text, using the words of Shakespeare right into their adaptation. The play is performed on a traverse stage which focuses the attention of the audience specifically on the actor(s) and what is occurring on the stage. This creates greater intimacy between the actor(s) and the audience, allowing the performer to create eye contact and connect with individuals.
All three scenes emphasized “a dagger of the mind, a false creation,” (2.1.37) which brought the subconscious imagination of Macbeth to life for his eyes but was also portraying to him what he was truly feeling about killing Duncan. As Ashford and Branagh’s adaptation was a live theatre version of the play, the audience was able to understand what Macbeth was seeing, which was part of an illusion. It can be seen in the clip that the dagger is being shown with a bright light overpowering it and Macbeth being blinded by it (0 min, 47 sec). The darkness and power which the dagger entailed was too strong for Macbeth’s impure thoughts to take control of. In contrast, Kurzel and Goold’s scenes were filmed on a set and partly in the environment. The audience was not able to see the dagger which Macbeth thought was there in Goold’s adaptation. In his scene specifically, there is a change in lighting seen when Macbeth’s soliloquy starts and is moved into a close-up shot which when combined, plays a large effect on the overall feeling (0 min, 25-34 sec). The darkness which set into place brought an eeriness to the scene and caused the audience to be focused specifically on James Stewart. In Kurzel’s scene, the director took a different approach where a medium-shot was used to portray Macbeth’s soliloquy. “Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible / To feeling as to sight?” (2.1.36-7) was emphasized by Kurzel when the hallucination of his subconscious was handing him a dagger and the fear of the unknown could be witnessed by the viewer. There was no lighting within this scene other than candles being burned around the lodge. This added an effect as fire symbolizes the agony, fear and guilt of Macbeth of the cruel thoughts and perceptions which he was envisioning.
The film-score played a role in the mise-en-scène in all three adaptations but differently. Kurzel’s adaptation uses the sound of motion from the wind and the burning candles in the background to emphasize the suspense leading up to the death of Duncan. At 1 min, 10 sec, Kurzel underlays Macbeth’s soliloquy with brass and string accompanying the sequence until the climax when Duncan is gruesomely stabbed numerous times by Macbeth in his sleep. Furthermore, the quick flashing shots between the horses, Duncan and Lady Macbeth combined with the score of the film causes the audience to cringe. The horses becoming violent when tied up are sensing that something is wrong. They symbolize the frightening death of Duncan in his sleep. When this is occurring, Lady Macbeth is praying and is asking for forgiveness for her sins as she is forcing Macbeth to do such hateful deeds. This can be seen with the presence of many candles. In contrast, Goold underlays the soliloquy with an eerie and ominous sound and brings the viewer within arm’s length of James Stewart. Being face to face with the actor increases the suspense and the experience of the scene while still feeling threatened by what they might do. While Kurzel brought the viewers into Macbeth’s mind, Goold took a different perspective and allowed us to view Macbeth as onlookers. Finally, taking a look at Ashford and Branagh’s live play, audio for most of the soliloquy has been stripped which brings in suspenseful and tense moments for the viewers. As well, the audience is able to focus specifically on the voice which emphasizes the emotions of the scene. The silence is broken with the sound effect of a piercing sword and the varying emotion with the actor’s voice, keeping the viewer keen on what is to come.
In conclusion, the three adaptations of Macbeth each brought a different perspective of the dagger scene through the mise-en-scène, lighting and portrayal of the characters through the acting. The visual medium which directors use to present Shakespeare’s text, forms a different experience for each viewer. Goold created a menacing, claustrophobic environment for Macbeth, Kurzel created subtle but powerful emotions through the darkness and film-score and Ashford and Branagh created a live performance which played with different aspects of the mise-en-scène.
2019-2-19-1550550076