Reaction to Beginning to Theorize Adaptation

Reading this section from the textbook there were a few quotes that stuck with me.  For example Robert Stam says "Literature will always have axiomatic superiority over any adaptation of it because of its senoiroity of an art form."  I find this to be very accurate, because just about anyone you ask of how the movie was that was based off of a book you will here the same thing generally, "the book was better."  I find this to be true because you can fit so much more information in a book then that of a movie or any other art form.  A movie is only a few hours long, a video game is only what technology we have at the time to create, and a comic book can only depict so much.  Yet with books there is so much to be said, details of environments, inner thoughts of characters, in depth descriptions of actions taking place, and it is up to the reader of how it is pictured in their own head, something unique to books.
Another statement or rather question that stuck with me was "If adaptations are by definition, such inferior and secondary creations, why then are they so omnipresent in our culture and, indeed, increasingly steadily in numbers?"  And the best answer that I can think of for this is money, money is just about always what it boils down to.  As stated in the reading, you may have a book that sells over a million copies but a movie adaptation will more than likely reach millions upon millions of viewers worldwide.  I have no problem with a movie adapted from a book, I love movies and its cool to see actors I like portraying a character I liked in a book.  In a sense it is preserving art, you can have a classic novel that maybe not everyone has read, but a movie that was adapted from it that does well and is good is in a way preserving that classic novel.  I also like to see different directors interpretations of different novels, for example Dracula has been adapted since the start of film and still has adaptations today, in that sense of the word adaptation I love it.  Yet when you have every popular film turned into a Broadway musical because they know that will sell, then I feel you've lost some of the original art.  Once art becomes purely for profit and not for art itself, then one cannot call it art.
One thing I love in particular is when an adaptation is not done directly as it was written in the book such as Lord of the Rings but rather indirectly such as O'Brother Where Art Thou by the Coen Brothers.  It is adapted from the Iliad and the Odyssey, but instead of the Greek epic it follows 3 individuals around the 1900's.  It in it's own way depicts a lot of the same characters throughout the book but in its own creative way, and to me that is the version of adaptation that keeps art alive and new ideas emerging.

Theory of Adaptation: Chapter 1

In Hutcheon's book A Theory of Adaptation, he references a pronouncement by T.S. Elliot on page two when he says, "...art is derived from other art; stories are born of other stories." Since American author Willa Cather has famously said there are only three or four stories and they keep repeating themselves as furiously as if they had never happened before, then it would follow, if she is correct, that adapting stories is a necessity. As Hutcheon points out, Shakespeare who we often view as the icon of British literature, freely adapted stories for his own purposes. Those stories were given new life and amazing longevity by The Bard. Thus the critics of current popular adaptations, may want to consider a broader historical context than the modern phenomenon of taking a popular novel and trying to spin gold out of it through a movie franchise. In fact, I would argue that the final two Harry Potter films add a distinctive value-added feature to the seventh novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. 
Hutcheon also mentions an example of conflict between high art adaptations and low art knock-offs. He states that for many, turning Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet into a ballet or an opera is a noteworthy achievement, while adapting it into a film for a modern audience is a money grab. It would be interesting to ask: Upon what criteria are the "high brow" critics basing their judgment? Why is it more noble to turn a Shakespeare play into an art form that only a few wealthy people can go see versus bringing the classic love story to life on the big screen for millions to enjoy? 
Hutenon's conclusion, adapted from the work of Dawkins, illustrates the evolutionary durability of stories as they morph, grow, adapt, replicate, and change across the centuries and across cultures. I think it was filmmaker Frank Capra who said there are only three universal languages - mathematics, music, and film. In our time, the most vibrant adaptation of stories has developed in the milieu of visual images. Therefore, not only does a movie such as, The Fault In Our Stars, expand John Green's original piece of art into another format, it actually continues the evolution of his artistic vision and that of William Shakespeare and of countless unknown story tellers who noted the tendency of young love to be star crossed. 

Macbeth Act II

I think what stood out the most for me in Act II was the change in Macbeth as a character. In the beginning on Act II, he is shaken with thoughts of the task he had to complete and even refuses to return to the room to plant the daggers on the chamberlains, which leaves Lady Macbeth to finish the task. Even when he returned with blood on his hands, he felt as though the blood would not come off and had to be reassured by Lady M, that a few drops of water would forgive the deed. What I found most

Interesting was how Macbeth acted after Duncan’s body was discovered. Macbeth sprung into action and gave off a confidence we had not seen in Act I. He became the forefront between Lady M and himself. Macbeth becomes focused on what his action will eventually bring him, which is the throne and all his previously shaken thoughts are thrown out the window. I honestly wonder how long he can keep this up. Seeing as before the deed was done he was already experiencing guilt driven hallucinations. Macbeth's thirst for power has driven him to commit murder; it seems as though he can change at the drop of a dime, and become someone entirely different when it comes to the matter getting to be king. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are a very interesting dynamic; I get the feeling that Lady M has to be weak in order for Macbeth to set up. For example, when Duncan’s body was found Lady M fainted and Macbeth took charge, or even before that when Macbeth went to murder Duncan and came back unwilling to return to plant the daggers. They seem to feed off each other in a way that is unhealthy and never being able to find a balance.

1. How far is Macbeth willing to go to keep the throne?

2. What will happen to the sons of Duncan? How do they feel about the death of their father?

3. Is Macbeth going to be able to keep this secret without driving himself insane?

4. Will the remaining men still be trusting of Macbeth? Will their suspicion affect their relationship?

5. Will the other prophecies take this type of action to be fulfilled?

Macbeth Act II

In act 2 Macbeth is consumed by guilty feelings before and after he murders Duncan. He has a monologue before he kills the king where he is holding a knife and thinking about what he is about to do. He says "A dagger of the mind, a false creation proceeding from the heat-oppresed brain?" He is not sure about what he is to do and thinks that it is crazy of him to be doing so. After he kills the king he meets with his wife, and then he claims to hear voices, one says "Macbeth shall sleep no more." He is scared and confused and is unable to dress the corpses to cover his crime. His wife must do that for him. I think that all of this shows that Macbeth is not convinced that killing the king is right. So far it seems like we have seen him struggle with the idea of killing Duncan more than we have seen him desire the power of the king. It makes it appear that Lady Macbeth is the force that really pushes Macbeth to kill Duncan. It seems like she desires power more than Macbeth does and that if Macbeth had a different wife he might not be interested in killing the king.

I noticed a couple things that were confusing to me. The second line of act 2 is "The moon is down, I have not heard the clock." I had thought that clocks weren't invented until around the 1700's, so I do not understand what they mean by clock. Also later on two men talk of strange tidings on the night of Duncan's murder, such as an owl killing a falcon and two horses eating each other. The horses eating each other is especially strange and I was not sure about the way that it connected to the story. However with the witches and the prophecy involved in the story, the horses are probably connected to that dark magic aspect.

Macbeth Act II

-One of the more memorable scenes that stood out to me was after Macbeth murdered the king he "saw" the dagger and gave his monologue.  This scene was a turning point in Macbeths sanity where he went from a noble leader and faithful to the king, where in the first act he was called out by his wife for his hesitation on killing the king.  It's very powerful, a way I interpreted it was when he questioned if it were real or "a dagger of the mind" was as if he were questioning his own sanity, as if he had really just betrayed the king and committed murder.  When Macbeth says "Witchcraft celebrates Pale Hecate's off'rings, and withered Murder"  I feel as if he is in a sense telling the witches that he has done what they asked so that their prophecy would come true.  Also the last three lines of this monologue I really like and really leave the reader with an echo if you will.  "A bell rings, I go, and it is done.  The bell invites me.  Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell That summons thee to heaven or to hell."  The bell of course being from his wife giving warning to Macbeth, it "wakes" him up from this hallucination as he leaves with the final thought of will it be heave or hell, did the plan work? and sure enough it did.
-Another scene that I felt held some leverage was Act 2 scene 2 lines 47-59 Macbeth has come back from committing murder and not just anyone but the king, someone to whom he was hesitant to kill.  Instead of a simple congratulations Lady Macbeth critiques Macbeth and belittles him.  She tells him to go back and place the daggers to frame the servants yet Macbeth declines doing so as if showing some humanity where as Lady Macbeth says "The sleeping and the dead are but as pictures; 'tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil."
-One question I have and it might be a simple answer that I just happen to be over looking but its very obvious that Lady Macbeth is the one in charge, she complains about Macbeth doing things wrong or not wanting to do things, so my question is why doesn't she do it? Obviously it is her husband who will become king and she queen through him but why not just get the jobs done herself.  Kind of like the old saying if you want something done right do it yourself.  Another question that I have is that did no one question Macbeth killing the chambermaids? or am I just naive and times were different back then.

Act II

Being a strong feminist, it was not hard for me to point out how strong of a woman Lady Macbeth was. Although she uses it for evil, she is manipulative and intelligent. In Act II she is thrilled about Macbeth killing Duncan. She arranges the plan and persuades Macbeth to follow through so that she can benefit and become Queen. She even states that she would have done it herself in 2.2 line 13. I believe that she wants to be a man but only so that she could possess more power. As a woman she is just the wife, an accessory for Macbeth but she is more than that. She is more than Macbeth will ever be. Lady Macbeth only needs Macbeth because of the patriarch society. But she is not inferior, she is stronger than her husband. Lady Macbeth has ambition, she is a woman who knows what she wants and can achieve her goals on her own. Even though she was not the one who murdered Duncan she made sure the job was carried out, and the right way. She first shows a "lady like" side when she attempts to comfort Macbeth after he realized what he just did. Then she goes back to being her independent self and takes care of planting the daggers on the chamberlains, something that Macbeth was too big of a coward to accomplish.

Why did Lady Macbeth faint?

Why weren't Macbeth and Lady Macbeth questioned for the murder?

Why is no one making an effort to protect Duncan's sons?

Macbeth Act II: A Question of "Clean"

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT

Part 1:

   Can mere water truly wash away the foul actions of a crime? Lady Macbeth seems to think so. Or, at least, that is what she tells her husband when he begins to worry in Act II, Scene II, lines 62-71. He has just murdered the king and, as one should after committing so despicable a deed, he is beginning to wig out about it.
     First off, his very descriptive, over the top worries show how seriously awful, world-shaking a crime he has committed. He knows the consequences will stick to him, whatever powers in the world try to break their hold (lines 63-64). Whatever he does, he will still have that murder of Duncan to deal with mentally. It's going to bleed out into all other aspects of his life, just as says the blood on his hands would discolor all the oceans on Earth (lines 64-66).
     Of course, Lady Macbeth thinks a little splash of water should set her mind straight (lines 70-71). If they just wash their hands, she believes that they will completely cleanse themselves of the murder discoloring them. She is so completely convinced that she goes and washes her hands . . . and washes her hands . . . and washes her hands right through the play. As Macbeth commits more murders and gains more power, Lady Macbeth futilely continues attempting to cleanse her murderous hands.
     Maybe all the death begins to catch up to some inner humanity residing deep within her? Or maybe she just reacted to her feelings of ambition here in Act I and Act II without really thinking about where it would take her? In either case, it's easy to enjoy the bit of irony here, where she believes washing her hands is all it takes to put the murder behind her and move on.


Part 2:

     Why is the Third Murderer such a big deal? They open the scene questioning him, and there is so much speculation. . . But where did he come from and why does he matter so much?

    Can Lady Macbeth see Banquo's ghost, too?

     Is the Old Man outside Macbeth's castle just a peasant? Or why he is there?

Macbeth Act II: Macbeth's Struggle Between Right and Wrong

Macbeth in Act II is struggling with a very guilty conscience, one that is making him feel as if he is going insane. In Act II, scene one, lines 33 to 41, Macbeth describes his confusion as to whether or not the dagger Lady Macbeth has left out for him is an actual dagger, or one invented in his mind. When he says “Or art thou but A dagger of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?”  indicates that he feels weighed down by his conscience. He doesn't actually want to kill King Duncan, but pressure from Lady Macbeth has brought “heat” to his mind, making it hard for him to stand firm in his own decisions. The choice in diction to use the word “oppressed” is very interesting, because it paints a vivid picture of a distressed Macbeth, who is literally a slave in his own mind. His fluctuation between wanting to do the right thing and trying to appease Lady Macbeth has left him feeling hopeless. He also struggles with his own hunger for power, because that hunger is so strong that he is willing to kill for it. But there is also a niggle in his mind that knows how unjust it would be to kill the man who has given him so much. I believe this little part of him is what is causing him to feel like he is going insane, but Macbeth eventually kills Duncan, and frames other people for it. 

Macbeth Act 2

2.2 lines 22-50 : Act 2 Scene 2's opening dialogue with Lady M shows a change in attitude with Lady M right off the bat. Where before she seemed afraid of Macbeth's failure, she says she is now confident that the deed will be completed, however we also see that she is as jumpy and alarmed as Macbeth when the owl shrieks, or she hears any noise.
There is also a sense that she is more hardened to the act that Macbeth has done than he is, even though she admitted she could not have committed the murders because one of the sleeping men resembled her father, and Macbeth is supposed to be the war-hardened soldier. The mentioning of her not being able to murder the men sets an almost-realization for Lady M; Macbeth has done what Lady M was not able to do.
The choppy dialogue and line structure enduces a sense of urgency and near-panic for the two Macbeths. Macbeth's panic comes from his lack of ability to give prayer to the two men he thought he heard praying before the murders. In his mind he has destroyed the calm of peace and prayer as evidence when he says "'Macbeth doth murder sleep'-innocent sleep" (line 40). He knows he will no longer sleep soundly in his own bed, which is also forshadowing Lady M's eventual spiral into insanity later in the play.
2.3 lines 89-94 : Macbeth leaves the room where the murdered men lay, and starts to speak about death, and mortality. It seems he is not only talking about the death of the men he murdered, and the death of the bloodline that these men were the head of, but also of the death of himself. He says "All is but toys. Renown and grace is dead." (line 91), which brings to mind the fact that he used the king and other men as pawns in his game to become king, or also that he himself is a toy that is being used by Lady M as she is the one that is encouraging Macbeth to commit these murders. Renown and grace could be an allusion to his own honor or internal struggle that died when he committed the crimes.

Questions:
1. In 2.2, when the Macbeths hear the knocking on the door, could it be that the knocking they are hearing is mostly internal fabrications from guilt or panic of being caught?
2. Also in 2.2, when Lady Macbeth mentions she was not able to perform the murder because one of the men resembled her father, we see a sort of softer side, of maternal protection for a father figure in her eyes. How does that contradict with the past mentioning of her murdering her own child if she so swore it? Are the two lines echoing one another, or is it a coincidence that while she feels a protection for a father-like figure, she could so easily murder her own child?
3.All throught 2.2 and 2.3, we see Macbeth fighting this internal struggle with himself over the murders he commits. If he is supposedly a hardened war hero, why is he having such a hard time with these actions? Is it that he has a sense of attachment and loyalty to the now-dead king, or does his guilt potentially stem from him feeling that these are the actions that he must take? What I'm trying to ask is, is Macbeth the tragic character being played by his wife and having to do these things for the betterment of his line?

Macbeth Act II

After reading Act II of the Macbeth play, I found that there were two scenes that interested me the most and engaged my interest the most. The first scene was when the porter going to answer the gate door for Macduff and Lennox. each time Macduff would knock on the door, we would make a reference to Beelzebub, or a reference to the dark image of that effect. The dark references peaked my interest due to the events that happened before it with the murder of the innocent King Duncan. I believe that the reference to the devil is used as symbolism of the lost of purity and of a greater good, allowing evil to fill the castle. the direct reference to the devil and calling his position such as "porter of hell gate..." as both dark and reinforcing the idea that something "unholy" has taken place. The second scene that caught my interest is right after the murder is committed and Macbeth and Lady Macbeth speak to each other. Lady Macbeth states that she can no longer say "amen".This particular act in act 2.2 is important in the idea of forgiveness and personality change. From the first moment Lady Macbeth was introduced, all she was concerned with was killing Duncan and Being the queen. however, this one moment show a dramatic change in the character. The fact that she is concerned that she can say "amen" shows that she is concerned with the idea that she can never be forgiven by God and thus never be cleansed of her sins or her worries about what they did. I find this to be in perfect alinement with the line "fair is foul, and foul is fair." This double loaded phrase illustrated that the once foul and uncaring Lady Macbeth will become fair and be tormented by the demons that haunt and torture her soul.

My questions for this act are some small things that I became aware of as I read. Why did Lady Macbeth make a comparison to Duncan and her father? Is this what causes her change and her transformation and her decent into madness? Another point that got me curious is right after the king's death, Macduff decides to leave the kingdom during this great time of panic. Is Macduff aware that someone in the castle killed Duncan? Has he already figured out that Macbeth is the murderer?

Macbeth Act 2

One thing I thought was most interesting in Act 2 is that there is a lot of foreshadowing. The dagger that Macbeth hallucinates and the blood on Macbeth's and Lady Macbeth's hands foreshadows that they have guilt inside them that could be dangerous. Banquo's son Fleance comes into the second act, touching on the prophecy the witches told that Banquo's children will eventually take the throne, which might come true. At the end of act 2, Macduff is suspicious of Macbeth and how he killed the chamberlains so quickly.

Questions:

1. Will Macbeth try to kill others? Macbeth easily killed the king so he might try to kill more people to ensure his power as king.
2. Does anyone find out that Macbeth killed Duncan? Macbeth and Lady Macbeth seem like they might feel guilty, so they might feel obligated to make things right and confess to their crimes
3. Will Banquo's children really make it to the throne? Fleance comes into the story in Act 2, so that mighty be foreshadowing that he could become king.

Macbeth Act 2: Duncan's sons

When first reading Act 2 scene 3, I was struck by the apparent lack of sorrow in Duncan’s sons.  Donaldbain has no recorded reaction to the news, and Malcom says “Oh! By whom?”  Not, “Oh God! How could this be! Oh, the horror!” ect as one might expect from a son. He exclaims in surprise, but moves on to his question with no show of grief.  Malcom’s reaction is almost when comical compared with Macbeth’s. In comparison with Macbeth’s extravagant “Had I died an hour before this chance”, Malcom’s line sounds something like “Darn. Who did it?” How could Malcom react this way, hadn't his father just named him the heir to the throne? It seems that Malcom is a cold and ungrateful son.

                I think that Macbeth’s exaggerated reaction is the secret to the brothers’ almost non-existent ones. In their conversation aside Malcom says “To show unfelt sorrow is an office which the false man does easy”. Malcom does not trust the grief expressed by the men who discovered the dead King. He does not wish to partake in their superficial show of mourning. I don’t think that the brothers’ lack of open grieving necessarily means that they did not feel their father’s death, but is more a contrast to the mourning of the less sincere.

                Interestingly, it is those with the most sincere grief, such as Banquoe and the King’s sons, who are the quietest in this scene. By contrast, it is Macbeth, the murderer, who takes up these pages with lengthy speeches about his sorrow. Knowing this, I think that the brothers displayed a wisdom that their poor father didn't have in deciding not to trust the men they were with, and to leave quickly. They knew as their father did not that “There’s daggers in men’s smiles” (Donaldbain, 2.3 line 135). The brothers lack of expression, and even their hurried exit, was more sincere a show of grief than all the woeful ramblings of Macbeth.

Questions:

1). Macbeth is a killer. The Captains speech in the beginning of Act 1 tells of his great and bloody prowess in battle. So why he is the one coming back dazed from the King’s chambers, while his wife is almost exasperated with his squeamishness?

2). Why is Lady Macbeth is comically unsure of her husband’s competence? This is like my first question, but a little different. We see Macbeth ad this great war hero in Act 1, but here his wife is says she has set the daggers out in plain sight, surely he could not miss them! And yet she is afraid he has. In her asides she makes Macbeth out to be a bumbling idiot.

3). Is there any greater significance in Lady Macbeth’s comparison of Duncan to her father?

Act II

            In Act II of Macbeth one particular thing stood out to me.  What I am hypothesizing to be Macbeth’s slow descent into madness, or perhaps his beginning spiral of becoming out of control. In earlier scenes we have come upon Macbeth talking and mumbling to himself about killing Duncan, and his small moral conscious that tells him that this is a bad idea.  He of course still ends up ending Duncan’s life at the urging of his power hungry wife.  But in the scenes right before Macbeth murders Duncan, we once again come upon him talking to himself.  In this scene Macbeth claims to see a floating dagger before him wondering if it is “A dagger of the mind, a false creation, / Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?” (2.1, 38-39) The most likely conclusion to take from this scene would be that the stress is getting to Macbeth.  Ever since the witches had prophesized Macbeth seizing the throne he has constantly been on edge, musing over how it will come to pass, and why Banquo’s children will be kings and not his spawn. You can tell the prophecy is becoming a bit of an obsession for Macbeth, and as with most Shakespeare’s plays, I predict that this weakness will seal his fate.

Questions:

-       Many times Shakespeare’s characters have a fatal flaw. Who has them in Macbeth, and what are they?

-       After the king is killed, does Banquo suspect Macbeth and fear for his life as well?

-       Why would Duncan’s children be assumed to be the murders? (I get that they are suspected because they left. But Macbeth becoming king happened all too quickly.)  

Macbeth Act II

Reading lines 30 through 57, the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth is one worth noting. After killing the King, Lady Macbeth has to reassure him of making the right decision, showing her power hungry ways and how controlling of Macbeth she can be. She acts more in a way of a man than he does, showing somewhat of a stereotypical role reversal. She speaks down to him, as if he is a child, which I think is very foreboding of what is to come in the next acts. If she can make him kill a king, then what else can she make him do, especially under his cowardly psychological state?   

As the reader, reanalyzing and comparing their relationship is one that will happen throughout the play. Macbeth always seems to come to Lady Macbeth for confirmation of what he wants to do, proving that without her, he wouldn’t seem to be as noble and brave as everyone else has him out to be. Is this just a front, or does his wife have ways over him that no one else can see? Lady Macbeth is an aggressive woman, saying in lines 53-54 that she will take care of the daggers and make the murder more realistic by putting them back in the room. As a headstrong woman, her confidence shows through and makes Macbeth come off as a cowardly man.

My questions are these: How will Lady Macbeth’s aggressiveness continue on in the play? Will Macbeth finally ‘man up’ and not be so afraid of his actions? How much more can Lady Macbeth convince her husband to do?

August 28, Macbeth Act II

In Act II of Macbeth, a part that captivated my attention was in scene three, verses 38-42. The focus on sleep and it’s relation to both Macbeth’s mental downward spiral and King Duncan’s death struck me as a metaphor for the damage that Macbeth has done that can no longer be repaired. Primarily, simply the repetition of the word sleep immediately caught my attention, as it begins the inherent obsession and torment Macbeth experiences from murdering the King simply to fulfill his prideful desires. Specifically, in verse 40 when Macbeth states, “Sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve of care/ The death of each day’s life”, shows how Macbeth has not only just committed an irreversible crime that will haunt him till his inevitable death, but how he has lost all hope of redemption and repair for his actions, with the “murder” of sleep that repairs that which is frayed and torn apart. I also enjoyed the imagery of sleep being “the main course”, and the “nourisher in life’s feast”, and how Macbeth is now cut off from this as well. It seems as all the possibilities he may have looked to in order to help reconcile what he has done are rapidly vanishing before his eyes, and the ensuing demolition of his sanity and soul are arising just as quickly as the others disappear. Macbeth’s psychological state is a fascinating part of this play, and the change of it from the beginning, middle, to the gruesome end seems to be something worth studying.

Questions: I didn’t fully understand Macbeth in verses 89-93 in 2.3. He talks about how there is nothing serious in human life, and then yet goes on to say how the earth has nothing left to brag of after a life is taken. Why are his statements so contradictory here? Is there a more correct way of interpreting this?

Also, in the porter’s speech in 2.3, lines 24-31, are the porter’s juxtapositions, “it makes him and it mars him”, etc., have any relation to the internal and external contradictions of Macbeth? Externally, he puts on the best possible appearance, seeming calm and collected, as if all is well; however, internally he is breaking down, both emotionally and mentally, and is a bomb just waiting to explode with all the guilt boiling inside of him.  This may be a bit of a stretch, just thought it was intriguing!