On Saturday I bought the movie Big Fish. I didn’t get a chance to watch it, however, until last night, when I went to Fiona’s to watch it. Towards the end, she went into her room and I heard a somewhat muted scream. Not the kind of OMG a crazed killer with a bloody knife in one hand and the head of my neighbor in another–rather the kind when you see a weird insect. Specifically, it was a Scutigera coleoptrata, better known as the “house centipede.” I bravely grabbed a shoe and started my attack. It scurried along the floor and hid behind some stuff in her closet. Cautiously, I moved aside the fortifications and made my final attack. Swat after swat and some crushing finally defeated the monster. My heroic efforts surely saved a life; I’m proud. It was the freakiest looking thing I’ve seen in a long time. I must admit, I checked the floor a lot the rest of the evening.
In vaguely related news, I bought another movie today: Peter Pan. I saw in in theaters and was entranced. It really is an excellent movie. I particularly love the guiltless arrogance of Peter. How can one help liking something so sublimely joyful? The story is just so overhwelmingly happy, but not at all sappy. I also love a movie with really good bad guys. Pirates somehow seem the best baddies. My all time favorite is Dennis Hopper in Waterworld. It may be a Kevin Costner (aka bomb factory) movie but Hopper’s character is just so deliciously evil!
My parents bought The Last Samurai today. I’ve not yet seen it but I hear good things. I shall promtly report my findings, since I know I have thousands of devout fans whose every purchase is based solely on my awesome word.
I have my final exam tomorrow in World Literature Though the Renaissance. This exam will cover The Song of Roland and Macbeth. It will also have a small portion on the movie Scotland, Pa., which we watched because it is a modern adaptation of Macbeth. The movie was actually really good and I am considering buying it. It moves the setting from medieval Scotland to a hamburger stand in 1970s Pennsylvania. The transition works surprisingly well. I wrote a possibly excellent paper on the similarities and differences between the film and the play. I should probably actually finish reading the play before I take my exam tomorrow. In fact, I will now offer my essay. Maybe some student can plagerize it and get kicked out of school. It wouldn’t be the first time my words have ended up in someone else’s paper. I’m proud of that!
Differences and Similarities Between Macbeth and Scotland, Pa.
Scotland Pa. is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The filmmakers could have filmed the play virtually unchanged, or they could have merely updated the language, or they could have kept the language and updated the time and setting. They chose instead to update the setting and language, but to keep the story and characters.
Scotland Pa.’s most obvious difference from the text is the setting. Macbeth is set is medieval Scotland; Scotland Pa. is set in a 1970s American hamburger stand. This change is beneficial in several ways. The typical audience member is unlikely to be familiar with the social structure Shakespeare wrote about. Moreover, our relative familiarity with more modern English monarchal structure actually works to mislead the audience. Our understanding is that the crown should pass from father to son, but King Duncan is perfectly free to name a successor other than his eldest son. This makes his choice of Malcolm over Macbeth in the original version seem far less objectionable. In the context of a business, however, Macbeth clearly should have been promoted over the slacker son. We expect nepotism in royal matters. Also, the murder of Duncan in the movie differs substantially from the play. Shakespeare has Duncan stabbed while sleeping at the Macbeths. The filmmakers instead bring the Macbeths into the hamburger stand where Duncan has just had a fight with his son. The Macbeths tie Duncan up and stand him in front of a fryer where they discuss how to get the safe combination from him, and killing him. This discussion is also a part of the deeper character development carried out by the filmmakers. Macbeth is prepared to murder Duncan but does not want to hear Duncan speak. Talking is a distinctly human ability and perhaps by not letting Duncan say anything, Macbeth can de-personify his intended victim in his head. The appearance of the three witches in the stand, itself further psychological character development since only Macbeth can see the witches, leads to the convenient accidental murder of Duncan. The movie’s version of the murder leaves the Macbeths somewhat less guilty than does the callous murder of the play. The increased development of characters can also be seen in Duncan and his sons. Malcolm is a minor character in the play and Donalbain is little more than a name. The movie, however, spends significant time on these two characters. Malcolm in shown as a lazy and rebellious teenager who would much rather smoke pot and listen to music than join in his dad’s interests. Donald, slightly renamed, goes along with his dad by playing football and does not openly protest, though he too has no desire to do the things Duncan would like. In the play, the brothers flee Scotland, but in the movie, they stay in the town and inherit Duncan’s doughnut fortune. They freely give over ownership of the hamburger stand to the Macbeths. Malcolm is free to rock on and Donald can have his invariably male company over. The introduction of the father-son conflict updates the story. Modern audiences can relate well to the idea of a middle-class small-business owner who, having achieved success on his own accord, now pushes his progeny to excel, but who themselves rebel against his overbearing nature and too-high standards. Such a scenario resonates better than Scottish nobility of nearly a millennium ago speaking in words written 400 years ago. The end of the Macbeths and the story itself is significantly altered in the movie. The book involves an army of men, international intervention, and an elaborate prophecy about the situations under which Macbeth can be killed. The movie simply has a fight between Macbeth and Macduff on the roof of the hamburger stand in which Macbeth is eventually knocked off and falls to his death. Lady Macbeth bleeds to death after cutting off her hand and Macduff becomes the new owner of the stand.
Although the filmmakers chose to make many significant changes, they left the names and essential plot and theme the same. The story, in both forms, teaches that advancement is something to be earned. Eliminating those who would stand in the way by such heinous crimes as murder may procure an ephemeral gain, but actions will always eventually catch up with criminals. The movie also maintains an important manifestation of guilt. Lady Macbeth is plagued in Shakespeare’s version by a bloody spot on her hand that she just can’t seem to get clean. The spot, of course, is in her head. In the play, she is injured by a splash of oil from the fryer. Though the burn quickly heals, she imagines it infected. She thinks that everyone is looking at it and goes to ridiculous efforts to conceal and heal it.
The makers of Scotland Pa. took a very old play and carefully adapted it into a modern film. They preserved the fundamental story and some of the more memorable details. To make it more relevant to contemporary audiences, they effectively shifted the story of murder and betrayal forward four centuries and down considerably in social class.