>But the medical gentleman seems to have said that any number of the serious characters were mad. Macbeth was mad; Hamlet was mad; Ophelia was congenitally mad; and so on. If Hamlet was really mad, there does not seem much point in his pretending to be mad. If Ophelia was always mad, there does not seem much point in her going mad. But anyhow, I think a saner criticism will always maintain that Hamlet was sane. He must be sane even in order to be sad; for when we get into a world of complete unreality, even tragedy is unreal. No lunatic ever had so good a sense of humour as Hamlet. [...] The whole point of Hamlet is that he is really saner than anybody else in the play; though I admit that being sane is not identical with what some call being sensible. Being outside the world, he sees all round it; where everybody else sees his own side of the world, his own worldly ambition, or hatred or love. But, after all, Hamlet pretended to be mad in order to deceive fools. We cannot complain if he has succeeded.
>But, whatever we may say about Hamlet, we must not say this about Macbeth. Hamlet was only a mild sort of murderer; a more or less accidental and parenthetical murderer; an amateur. But Macbeth was a good, solid, serious, self-respecting murderer; and we must not have any nonsense about him. For the play of Macbeth is, in the supreme and special sense, the Christian Tragedy; to be set against the Pagan Tragedy of Oedipus. It is the whole point about Oedipus that he does not know what he is doing. And it is the whole point about Macbeth that he does know what he is doing. It is not a tragedy of Fate but a tragedy of Freewill. He is tempted of a devil, but he is not driven by a destiny.
What do you think?
>>7703917
Is that Orson Wells?
>>7704929
The Orson Welles Macbeth is a must watch.
>>7704945
I've heard people shit on it a lot.
>>7704945
By far his worst Shakespeare adaptation imo. It's mostly like a filmed play, with sparse sets, and none of the typical Wellesian style (except for the ending).
>>7704970
Oh and he makes some very bad changes to the play, including adding a brand new major character who makes little sense.
>>7703917
I think that I don't know whether to be more disappointed in Chesterton or in the 'medical gentleman' he is arguing against. Weak stuff indeed.
I think old Gilbert is on to something with his "Hamlet is the sanest person in the play" idea. If you want to get down to it, we in our everyday lives accept an awful lot of crazy shit, just to get by. Hamlet just decided he wasn't going to have it any more.
Hamlet is both mad and not-mad.
>>7704970
Some of the silliest writing I've ever read.
You don't know what Wellesian is.
Macbeth: conventionally lit, shot straight ahead because if the camera moves 5 degrees you'll see the end of the absurdly sparse set
Othello: chiaroscuro lighting, weird angle from a weird position, grand locations
Or compare it to the shot from Chimes, which is also a generic "3 people talking" scene. Extreme angle, big light source with visible beams, huge location...big, bombastic, in your face. That's Welles. Not a generic view of a dinky stage.