Thursday, October 4, 2007

Macbeth Act 5 questions

44 comments:

morganw said...

Why was the scene between Macbeth and Young Siward in the play? Was there some hidden message that I failed to understand?

ryanm said...

morganw, i think that scene was in there because it again shows macbeth killing more people setting him up for his death at the hands of macduff

katyj said...

Morgan - i think that the scene was in the play to show Macbeth's swollen ego. he is convinced that he cannot be killed so he acts all courageous and kills Young Siward without any regret.

ParkerH said...

Does anyone know why there was no mention of anything besides like swords and shields? I mean, there was no mention of siege weapons or anything that goes with castle seiges. Any insights?

morganw said...

Thanks for your help!

morganw said...

Parker - I think that was merely because it was too hard to displey that through a globe-theatre style play.

KekeK said...

I think it was just put in there for the Old Siward to show how proud he was of his son that died a hero's death trying to fight Macbeth.
He also needed a scene to show that Macbeth still thinks he's invincible.

ryanm said...

parkerh, i think that shakespeare left out those details such as almost the entire battle because they were simply unimportant in his mind.

mitchl. said...

In the scene where macbeth is fighting young siward, why did young siward not know that he was going to fight macbeth? I think that if macbeth is the king, then people who are at battle with him should know what he looks like.

morgant said...

About challenging the system:

Macbeth tries to control his fate. To follow the natural order of things, people usually say something like, "I can't control my own fate. Whatever happens to me happens to me." Well, not Macbeth! He wnats to control his fate. Fate can't necessarily change just because one act is committed against the natural order of things. Does this make sense?

morgant said...

wants**
Sorry, I spelled that wrong. =D

ryanm said...

mitchl, young siward is just a boy in comparison to macbeth, and usually people dont get a chance to ever see the king up close so maybe he didnt know what macbeth looked like

Ryad said...

We never found out what happened to Fleance did we?

ryanm said...

ryad, i dont think we ever found out what happened to fleance. maybe he fled to england with the rest of the rebels to fight against macbeth....but i dont think it ever says

morgant said...

ryad- the last we heard of Fleance is when he fled from the murderers. I thought that was really wierd. I thought that Fleance would have some part in the end of the story because he is Banquo's son and also one of his descendents. I just thought that was really wierd.

ryanm said...

morgant and ryad, i think that fleance will become king shortly after malcolm's reign. because the prophecy says banquos children will have the throne.

morgant said...

Why does Lady Macbeth say, "No more o' that, my lord, no more o' that..." Hasn't she been encouraging Macbeth all this time?

Tylerg! said...

Mitch L- Maybe Macbeth was weraing a helmet in the war and young siward was too. This probably obscured their vision and they couldn't tell who eachother was with a helmet covering his face. Whatever happened to Donailbain, where did he end up? He is hardly reerenced in Macbeth and seems like a pointless character?

Tylerg! said...

Mitch L- Maybe Macbeth was weraing a helmet in the war and young siward was too. This probably obscured their vision and they couldn't tell who eachother was with a helmet covering his face. Whatever happened to Donailbain, where did he end up? He is hardly reerenced in Macbeth and seems like a pointless character?

catem said...

Tyler, Donailbain fled to Ireland after the murder and nothing else has been mentioned about his well being. I am not really sure why Shakespeare put him in the play though.

Morgant, I get what you are saying. I agree, if there really is such a thing as fate, then it will happen no matter what, but I think that it is our decisions that lead us to our fate. I mean there wouldn't have been a play if Macbeth just sat around and waited to become king.

catem said...

Tyler, Donailbain fled to Ireland after the murder and nothing else has been mentioned about his well being. I am not really sure why Shakespeare put him in the play though.

Morgant, I get what you are saying. I agree, if there really is such a thing as fate, then it will happen no matter what, but I think that it is our decisions that lead us to our fate. I mean there wouldn't have been a play if Macbeth just sat around and waited to become king.

catem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
josed said...

It really is a good question, what happened to Fleance. I think he grows up and replaces Banquo in Malcolm's court. Then, since Malcolm "never touched a woman," he would take Fleance as his son.


Still, I don't get it. Why would Macduff rip off Macbeth's head? Was he that mad? Why was Macbeth so mad at everyone at the end? He was screaming at his servants and told one to cut his face to hide how white it was

josed said...

Oh yeah... have we done the test questions yet?

josed said...

The blog, I mean?

lesliel said...

josed,
no we havnt done them yet, i think those might be for the test day, but im not sure. Rya and ryan, I was totally wondering that too! I kind of wish there was more in there about Fleance and Lady Macduff and all those people. I also wish that the ending was a little more like exciting. Maybe it was just the way I read it but felt that it was a little week like lord of the flies... but hey, that's just me. =D

maddisonm said...

It is interesting how much Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s relationship has changed. At first Macbeth was the one with all the gilt and the one who was saying that he could not wash away the blood form his hands and the one who hallucinated. Now Lady Macbeth is the one who is sleep walking and is frustrated that she can not wash away the blood from her hands. It is almost as Macbeth became less regretful Lady Macbeth became more regretful. Do you guys agree?

alyssas said...

Maddison M.- I agree. At first Lady Macbeth seems unaffected by the murders and it seems that she has no regret. But in the end, she feels so much guilt that she kills herself.
Ryad- That's a good point. We never do find out what happens to Fleance or Donaldbain. It seems like Macbeth kind of ends abrubtly like LOF did.

josed said...

Ok, thx, but my other questions still remain open.

alexf said...

katyj--- i think that there was no mention of anything besides swords or shields because maybe Shakespeare didn't want to get that in dept. Also, it might have been because it was mainly focusing on protecting and attacking...Sorry, that's all i could think of!

DawnielleN said...

A lot of people have been talking about Lady Macbeth and Macbeth kind of switching sides and I was also really surprised at the guilt lady Macbeth was feeling. I think that "appearance vs. reality is something that applies to her seeming so terrible and evil but DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP down she may have a softer side.

mattw said...

dawnielleN--- ya, I guess so. Its kind of like a cheap soap opera - so 'n so loves her, but oh, wait, he kissed her, but ooh, she reveals that she's really his ex-wife's sister's brother-in-law's dog's brother's owner's son's nanny! >gasp< anyways my point his that the more you find out about somebody, the harder it is to decide what type of person they really are, because you never know if you had dug a little deeper - would a new personality be revealed to you? only one person will ever know......will ella and trent ever share their felings for each-other? Will fluffy recover from his rectal surgery? Will anyone ever care?......TBC

alexd said...

Did anyone else think that Macbeth was killed way to quick in the book. It was like he just gave up or something.

Ryad said...

alex- he did give up. He realized he was defeated and just fought the best he could in hopes he would die with a little honor. But yeah it was really quick.

kristinah said...

I agree I think it ended really quickly with like no resolution kind of like LOF. I dont remember them ever mentioning where fleance went but Donaldbain went to Ireland(I think) and he does seem kind of pointless in the story. All he plays is another son. Maybe he is just needed so that the focus is not enirely on Malcolm and what he is going to do about his fathers death, it is kindof broken up between the two to make the audience think a little more. Lady Macbeth is a huge representation of appearance versus reality because in the beginning she is like ohh you can just was away your deed with a little blood but later we find that she is really very troubled by the things her husband and her have done. Also with the burnam wood I never even thought about them putting on the branches as a disquize that was a cool twist. I think it was dumb for macbeth to abandon his concience and only act upon his first ambition without thinking. That had failed him before and now he is going to continue upon it, dumb. I know you guys probley know this but in the play if anyone had any fear they were not concidered to be a man, and if they were without any fear they were a man.
It was an intreguing play overall but the end was disapointing because it just ended suddenly, there was all this dramatic suspens with all of the small scenes then it was like Macduff enters and Macbeth dies the end. I think they should have continued it in a little summary of the future line of kings or something.

Liap said...

i agree with kristinah, it flet really rushed and it lacked any real emotion. I mean the horrible king just died and everybody just like walks away. Also, the Siward's reaction to his son's death isjust like "okay he's dead but he was brave so it's okay" I don't really get it.

aaronw said...

In those times, to die in battle was an honor, liap. So that is why he doesn't show much emotion. I like the Harry Potter endings, where they summarize all the happenings at Hogwarts. Those are alot easier to understand. These two stories didn't end that way. If you've read the Da Vinci Code, that ends the same way. It's apparently "artistic'... ya right!!

ryanm said...

i agree with ryad, Macbeth probably realized he would be defeated brcause Macduff wasnt "born", he was "ripped out of his mother's womb". so macbeth was probably like oh well the prophecy says hes going to kill me soooo..... You never know maybe Macbeth would've won against Macduff. Does anyone else think so?

morgant said...

ryanm- well,that wouldn't have made Macbeth a tragic hero. Well, at least...I don't think so.

macm said...

I don't think it matteres that he knew. Sure he might have doubted himself for a moment, but if you're locked in deadly combat with another person you don't just give up do you? was also wondering, if Banquo's descendants became kings later, how do they get to become kings? Are they appointed somehow by the previous king, Malcolm? What if Malcolm has an heir?

amyw said...

macm---The next king is appointed by the previous king, in this case Malcolm. When Malcolm knows it's time to appoint a heir, he will choose someone, probably one of Banquo's descendants according to the prophecy.

amandah said...

I agree with liap the act was really rushed and nobody really cared when Macbeth died.

amyw said...

kristinah---I agree that the ending felt rushed. I mean, the rest of the play had all this detail and it was really long and drawn out, and the ending was really fast! It was almost as if Shakespeare ran out of paper or something because he'd used so much on the other scenes. This is how I feel at least.

Laurenc said...

I agree with everyone else who said the ending fealt rushed. I wish they would have at least given Macbeth a little more detailed of a "last stand" instead of just, his head got chopped off and everyone was happy.