I think that it would have been gross for the audience to have to watch them "kill" the king on stage. This way it was just short and sweet so they could move on with the rest of the play. We all know he's dead why dwell on it?
Shakespeare probably chose to omit Duncan's murder for several reasons. For one, he likely would've had some difficulty with portraying a very brutal murder onstage. Also, he may have wanted the audience's imagination to fill in the gory details of the murder, allowing them to individually visualize the scene that caused Macbeth's subsequent insanity.
Perhaps Shakespeare wanted to audience to imagine that the murder was so ghastly and brutal that it could not possibly be seen by sane human eyes. If this were so, it would increase the audience's idea that Macbeth must literally go crazy in order to commit such an evil act. This could also take place off of stage though to keep the viewers waiting for something more, something more gory, something to appease their senses... or... Shakespeare could be trying to get the audience to reserve some pity for Macbeth, so that when he does take his tragic downfall, he still remains the hero. In other words, allowing the audience to see Macbeth commit such an act would visually remind them just how in the wrong he is.
Ummm, Shakespeare probably decided not to show the "murder" of Duncan on stage because: 1. It would probably be pretty ghastly and some people would probably be upset, 2. It could possibly portray just exactly how brutal and gory it was to Macbeth, and 3. The concession stand wouldn't be able to sell anymore popcorn then cause no one would be hungry after watching that.
Shakespeare probably chose not to describe the actual act of killing Duncan because he may have wanted it to be left to use your imagination of how the act was committed and how cruel it was. Another, reason could have been that it was a scene that develops his insanity and leaves this tragic characteristic in the minds of the audience, to refer back at the end of the play. Meaning, the audience would decide if this committed act was morally right, wrong, or he is just going insane.
I think that Shakespeare had the murder take place offstage in order to allow the audience decide for themselves just how brutal and grotesque it actually was. By not showing it, Shakespeare is able to avoid limits on the murder, therefore the audience's perception of the murder can be as far out and crazy as they want it to be. Also, Shakespeare may have wanted the audience to feel as part of the play and by not being able to witness the murder they could be considered as citizens or other bystanders.
Back then seeing death on stage was probly frowned upon. Taking the murder off stage also can be what Kristin said, it allows the audience to use their imagination on just how intense the violence was. Shakespeare has no limit to how creative he can be with death. Taking the murder into a different environment could just be another way Shakespeare mixes things up and keeps his audience on their toes.
In Julius Caesar, I'm pretty sure the murder of Caesar is described, yes? So it's not a social thing...I like to think the murder is hidden possibly out of a sense of respect for Duncan, as in "I'm gonna preserve this guy's dignity cuz you'll miss him later."
I think it has to do with the fact that the way Shakespeare did his plays in the Globe theater, it would be really hard to enact that. A gruesome death would be cool but it would be hard to put that in the play because of the lack of technology.
I think that Shakespeare chose not to describe the actually killing of Duncan because he wanted to emphasize the gruesomeness and brutality if the murder. By having the killing take place off stage Shakespeare shows that the killing was too brutal for anyone else to see.
I really liked what Bryttin said first of all. anyway, i think it was hard to make a gory brutal murder look real (they didnt have the luxury of technology to create believable scenes), it would have upset the ladies there (remember, high class women/Queen) and murder and mutilation was shocking to people then. They couldn't turn on the t.v. at any time of the day and see someone get hacked up. So to show something so horrible may have been social suicide and killed the play...pun not intended.
Production values were not like they were in the time of Caligula and other insane Emperors, thus it was too bloody expensive to kill people, realistically, on stage, and since a poorly done kill sequence does horrors for the immersion value, it is only logical for Shakespeare to have Duncan killed off-stage, especially for such an important murder.
The reason could be because at the time to kill infront of so many innocent eyes would be cruel so shaskespeare could have just wanted to be slightly lazy and let their imaginations run wild. Also it could be that the clean up of that much blood would have been a pain and also too expensive for him at the time.
I don't know...I just have a hard time believing that people back then were as innocent & primitive as we'd like to think. I mean, people before the time of Christ had running water (Romans, Aztecs etc). And there were just as many obscenities then as now, if not more. I'm always hesitant to write people off as super-sensitive or lacking technology.
The most gruesome and terrifying images are those conjured within the human mind. Hinted violence and alluded death are great tools in the writers’ arsenal that help establish imagery without limiting its form or the scope of its intensity.
I think that shakespear did not put the killing of Duncan in the play because he did not want to portray that kind of act from Macbeth. Also he might of wanted the audience to use their imagination and picture what the murder must have looked like. This allows the readers to have their own opinions on the murder and they can think about the way Macbeth killed Duncan in their own minds. However in one of the Macbeth movies, the murder is shown and it is not as brutal as most might picture it to be. Macbeth just stabs Duncan a few times and then calls it quits. The director obviously had interest in including his version of the killing in the movie. He put his own imagination into that scene and his own input as to how it must've looked like.
I think that Shakespeare had the killing occur offstage because he wanted to let the audience fill that scene in themselves. I don't know how people back then felt about it, but the effect the murder had on Macbeth's sanity and the fact that it happened behind closed doors make me think that it was too grotesque to show to an audience.
I think that it would have been gross for the audience to have to watch them "kill" the king on stage. This way it was just short and sweet so they could move on with the rest of the play. We all know he's dead why dwell on it?
ReplyDeleteShakespeare probably chose to omit Duncan's murder for several reasons. For one, he likely would've had some difficulty with portraying a very brutal murder onstage. Also, he may have wanted the audience's imagination to fill in the gory details of the murder, allowing them to individually visualize the scene that caused Macbeth's subsequent insanity.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Shakespeare wanted to audience to imagine that the murder was so ghastly and brutal that it could not possibly be seen by sane human eyes. If this were so, it would increase the audience's idea that Macbeth must literally go crazy in order to commit such an evil act. This could also take place off of stage though to keep the viewers waiting for something more, something more gory, something to appease their senses... or... Shakespeare could be trying to get the audience to reserve some pity for Macbeth, so that when he does take his tragic downfall, he still remains the hero. In other words, allowing the audience to see Macbeth commit such an act would visually remind them just how in the wrong he is.
ReplyDeleteUmmm, Shakespeare probably decided not to show the "murder" of Duncan on stage because: 1. It would probably be pretty ghastly and some people would probably be upset, 2. It could possibly portray just exactly how brutal and gory it was to Macbeth, and 3. The concession stand wouldn't be able to sell anymore popcorn then cause no one would be hungry after watching that.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare probably chose not to describe the actual act of killing Duncan because he may have wanted it to be left to use your imagination of how the act was committed and how cruel it was. Another, reason could have been that it was a scene that develops his insanity and leaves this tragic characteristic in the minds of the audience, to refer back at the end of the play. Meaning, the audience would decide if this committed act was morally right, wrong, or he is just going insane.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shakespeare had the murder take place offstage in order to allow the audience decide for themselves just how brutal and grotesque it actually was. By not showing it, Shakespeare is able to avoid limits on the murder, therefore the audience's perception of the murder can be as far out and crazy as they want it to be. Also, Shakespeare may have wanted the audience to feel as part of the play and by not being able to witness the murder they could be considered as citizens or other bystanders.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he had limited paper and wanted to limit himself to the more interesting parts of the play.
ReplyDeleteBack then seeing death on stage was probly frowned upon. Taking the murder off stage also can be what Kristin said, it allows the audience to use their imagination on just how intense the violence was. Shakespeare has no limit to how creative he can be with death. Taking the murder into a different environment could just be another way Shakespeare mixes things up and keeps his audience on their toes.
ReplyDeleteIn Julius Caesar, I'm pretty sure the murder of Caesar is described, yes? So it's not a social thing...I like to think the murder is hidden possibly out of a sense of respect for Duncan, as in "I'm gonna preserve this guy's dignity cuz you'll miss him later."
ReplyDeleteI think it has to do with the fact that the way Shakespeare did his plays in the Globe theater, it would be really hard to enact that. A gruesome death would be cool but it would be hard to put that in the play because of the lack of technology.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shakespeare chose not to describe the actually killing of Duncan because he wanted to emphasize the gruesomeness and brutality if the murder. By having the killing take place off stage Shakespeare shows that the killing was too brutal for anyone else to see.
ReplyDeleteI really liked what Bryttin said first of all.
ReplyDeleteanyway, i think it was hard to make a gory brutal murder look real (they didnt have the luxury of technology to create believable scenes), it would have upset the ladies there (remember, high class women/Queen) and murder and mutilation was shocking to people then. They couldn't turn on the t.v. at any time of the day and see someone get hacked up. So to show something so horrible may have been social suicide and killed the play...pun not intended.
Production values were not like they were in the time of Caligula and other insane Emperors, thus it was too bloody expensive to kill people, realistically, on stage, and since a poorly done kill sequence does horrors for the immersion value, it is only logical for Shakespeare to have Duncan killed off-stage, especially for such an important murder.
ReplyDeleteThe reason could be because at the time to kill infront of so many innocent eyes would be cruel so shaskespeare could have just wanted to be slightly lazy and let their imaginations run wild. Also it could be that the clean up of that much blood would have been a pain and also too expensive for him at the time.
ReplyDeleteI don't know...I just have a hard time believing that people back then were as innocent & primitive as we'd like to think. I mean, people before the time of Christ had running water (Romans, Aztecs etc). And there were just as many obscenities then as now, if not more. I'm always hesitant to write people off as super-sensitive or lacking technology.
ReplyDeleteThe most gruesome and terrifying images are those conjured within the human mind. Hinted violence and alluded death are great tools in the writers’ arsenal that help establish imagery without limiting its form or the scope of its intensity.
ReplyDeleteI think that shakespear did not put the killing of Duncan in the play because he did not want to portray that kind of act from Macbeth. Also he might of wanted the audience to use their imagination and picture what the murder must have looked like. This allows the readers to have their own opinions on the murder and they can think about the way Macbeth killed Duncan in their own minds.
ReplyDeleteHowever in one of the Macbeth movies, the murder is shown and it is not as brutal as most might picture it to be. Macbeth just stabs Duncan a few times and then calls it quits. The director obviously had interest in including his version of the killing in the movie. He put his own imagination into that scene and his own input as to how it must've looked like.
i think that showing the murder onsatge would be disrespectful so he decides to do the killing offstage.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shakespeare had the killing occur offstage because he wanted to let the audience fill that scene in themselves. I don't know how people back then felt about it, but the effect the murder had on Macbeth's sanity and the fact that it happened behind closed doors make me think that it was too grotesque to show to an audience.
ReplyDelete