Confession: I'm not waiting for Godot, but I like that brand of strong coffee named Beckett...

“What I believe to be true I must therefore preserve. What seems to me so obvious, even against me, I must support.” (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays) 

I support Beckettian theatre, readings, film adaptations, anything and everything connected. I must, even if it is all against me: from the core of the philosophical approach in his plays, to the honest pointing towards a bare reality of inner life or the mere elitism that comes with it (a false elitism if you ask me, Beckett's plays aren't made for specific social categories, over-endowed brains etc, he's addressing to no one, yet to everyone if there to receive his messages). Ah, even people. No sigh.
Also, I dare say I feel close to Beckett's personality (no reasons exposed here though) and will rant a bit on....hmm, I didn't even plan what to write about, boom the absurdity!!!  But I keep on, keep on...typing. Beckett, just like Picasso, refused to explain his art which is only a gift in the end: each has to see with his/her own eyes. Mine see the following... Anguish, anguish, anguish! I'm an existentialist with a diploma (with honours!), letting the a flood of thoughts rolling...so...

First roll: How Beckett is perceived depends most possibly on a very intimate part of one's being: the amount of realism contained in each personality, the level of alienation and/or the magnitude of existential tremor. Any existentialist who might read these lines knows that existentialists are the most sensible people, and that...we understand among ourselves...Beckett must have been one of us, and surely his plays scream on that note.
Sometimes I wonder why isn't Beckett more popular, that is in the broad view of the term? Loved. I've seen highly educated people making a grimace or put a look of contempt when only hearing Beckett's name... I've not seen anyone outside academia or at least well read people even mentioning Beckett. It pains me. But I think I can find the root of this, and it's something which might apply to a whole miriad of modern and postmodern writers: this type of writing, despite the fact that it comes from within and it's that roughly cut from human feel, it comes in a form hard to digest doubled by a general need (greed?) to consume forms of art which distance audience from realities. In this sense, it's no wonder that Edwardian and Victorian writers are even today hard to be replaced from people's preferences, given that they ENTERTAIN and leave space for a happy ending in their works, i.e. these bring a solution (any solution, but one!) which adds a little hope in audience's mind. An audience which lives in a world as grey as the one depicted by Beckett...so who or how many would want to come back to that when ''consuming'' art? Beckett's plays offer not this opportunity of escaping the reality as most art/distractions do. Keep rolling.

Second roll: Beckett is like an espresso. It shots straight into your head, fully awakening your conscience upon the world you live in (if you're a dreamer), or simply reminds you that what you see by yourself it's true (in case you're not a dreamer). I think Beckett's plays timeless: watch one, read one and think not it was written many moons ago. It's contemporary and you know it. It will enhance your sense of reality, like it or not. The strongest espresso you've ever had. You'll feel Beckett creeping in the neighbourhood of your perception, singing with you in the chorus that hymn of anguish and frustration. You'll feel awake until it will hurt you. And that's the point when audience divide, when you decide where you go; it's too much to bear, that some would rather step away and find refuge elsewhere by saying they don't understand Beckett ..or it's exactly what you know you bear daily and hoped for, reading somewhere the lines you couldn't write, but which tell you you're not alone, and the lines are given to you as a friendly pat on the shoulder accompanied with a ''I know, my friend, we're all in deep ***t, I'm in it too''. How to blame Beckett for being one of the apostles of soul fragmentation...when he was there, seeing it rise and fall and rise and fall...the tides of being. Smiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiile!

Third roll: We're all vagabonds, you just have to know if you are a Vladimir or an Estragon (from ''Waiting for Godot''). These characters are aware of nothing but themselves.Through them, you, me, we... witness man reduced to the basic needs, animated by nothing but hope. A bloody hope, named Godot! Doesn't it sound familiar? Wink, wink! Bang! Intermezzo: “A man devoid of hope and conscious of being so has ceased to belong to the future.”( Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays)
You must not forget that Godot will never come, so if you decide not to be a vagabond anymore, act. Be a Godot yourself, or stay a numb vagabond...sometimes you might get flair and inspiration and your own ironies and jokes will warm you (watch play below, you'll know what I mean! watch, re-watch!PLEASE!), but that will lead you nowhere. Wait for Godot if you please, but I'm not coming. Along.

Fourth roll: This rant is nothing but a leaf in that almost barren tree (same author, same play! WATCH PLAY!!!) ... an episode of yet another recording of the solitude of man in the world, as man has nothing but himself and other few men to count on/venture together in life's adventures. The existentialist cry,  frail and weak as it may seem, if it's all you know, let is how in its stong fragrance, like a Beckettian espresso. Drink!

“From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt - that is the whole question.”( Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays) 

''In the war you never know, you just go where they tell you. ''

 TALVISOTA 

Better known as ''The Winter War'', this is a film made in 1989 having in focus the Russian attacks over the Finnish territories in the infamous year 1939. Besides the filmographic quality and the acting, what impresses me above all with this film (which I've watched a few times by now) it's the soul fragmentation in human tragedy which the soldiers have to face step by step as the story evolves. I will not comment on the political background of the events, even if these were at the core of the story itself and were the real cause for the real events of the Winter War.

These soldiers are simple people, most of them farmers, taken initially to military manoeuvres from their homes in an atmosphere of incertitude whether an armed conflict will take place or not; they soon themselves involved in the ''real thing'', leaving their dear ones at home, confronting themselves with shortages of all sorts, dealing with different kind of superior officers, watching the death of their relatives and friends on the field, losing hope, losing sleep, lacking adequate food, becoming good mates of lice, getting a rare occasion to have sauna, but gaining trust and bonding to what only extremes situations bring in people's life: solidarity, materialised in this case in the form of camaraderie - which is the only good thing in war, if anything is good in them.
Progressively, the world they knew shatters, including the hope of returning to the life they had before. Among the biggest defeats which all soldiers must face, they lose the understanding of those at home, who without being confronted to the bleak world of the trenches, fail to understand these farmers, now soldiers, defending their native lands. They've not seen bodies blown by bombs for instance and their perspective on the confrontations stays stuck at a level of superficiality and in best cases, worries for their sons who fight. Yet if a son returns (as it's the case of Paavo Hakala) he's not seen and treated as he should be, as the family's understanding of the ways of the war and world and view on life differ to the extremes. Paavo goes back to the front lines and dies.

In Talvisota I see what I see in all war films (better or worst produced): they represent a tool of keeping alive a  conscience of the atrocities of war (any of them) and of the uncaring political regimes, no matter of their political doctrine. It's yet another film on a cruel reality represented by the lack of care of those who command and the so called political interests, to which adds the direct impact on the innocent people who by duty for their land go to war. I also believe that it's easy to judge, sitting in a chair and typing this on the computer and that it's hard for any of us to walk in their shoes, of those who fought and some died for their country, no matter where or which country that is... unless ourselves were ever to be confronted to such a situation. It's not those who fight, but those to command that should be blamed, in my opinion. People fight because...well, for instance, would we nowadays permit to a neinghbour or a stranger to enter by force in our house and live there as they please, taking our house and goods etc? As superficial as the example is, it is how I understand that a man transforms from a  farmer or anything else to a soldier: one has to defend what is theirs. Talvisota is a lesson in that sense. That lesson seems to be found in the final scene of the film, which I find the most tragic of them all: Martti Hakala's look contains that lesson and the numbness when it is announced that the fights are over. He's not the man he used to be prior to the war and the world will never be the same either.

This film, just like most of the war films are a reminder if we have eyes to see: that it should not all happen again. But how ironic it is to think that and hope that people and compromised politicians would change: only in the last couple of months there were news of conflicts in too many parts of the world.
Why does it have to be that simple people turn to soldiers each generation? Why do they have to die and those who don't have to reach the top of human pits of solitude and desperation...and find that there's no god, no family, no friends except in ther mates and their rifles?
As wise people put it: History Lessens.

ECLECTIC EYE (a minor rant on major musical issues....or viceversa)

Ever felt entangled in the web of your preferences when it comes to music? Or trapped as if wishing to get out of there and either discover something new or just rest your hearing until it gets too rested an hungry for sounds?
I think any true music lover has a spectaculously interesting relationship with music, especially when the range of genres liked aren't a few, but so many.... and when there's also the feeling of waiting and having expectations from music, things get even more complicated. A beautiful and complicated relationship then? Hmm... I have one, that's for sure. And lots of stories to tell about.
It's indeed a longlasting relationship, full of good and bad episodes, derailed directions, steady and loyal tastes as much as adventures of one night or one season .....but a relation which will be there until the sunset of my life. 
I pour my heart out in a moment of crisis, when I feel that many of the feats which characterized this relation seem to shake and I don't find myself in the same place as 2 years before, let's say. This particular moment gave me the occassion to look back on the history of crisis in this relationship and the mind machine registered these vivid episodes still: 

• Childhood: first frustrations I can remember of, were sometime before I went to kindergarden and what annoyed me most at the time was that I learned so easily all sorts of songs, but didn't know all the languages in which they were played, even if I pronounced words correctly and would correct people around me if they mistaken one... They were 80's pop rock songs, I recall of some 60's and 70's also (well, now I know they date from back then). That's gone now. Thank Lord of Foreign Languages! Long live the 80's (too late now, bah!......)!
• Beatles: probably around the age of 6-7....sad moments when I couldn't get hold of all of their songs. 
• Teenhood...one of the most ravishing and tragic period of them all. Bad moments went one after another: given it was the 90's clearly I had suffered from the trauma of European dance music wave, as much as the shame I confess here.....I liked Take That. No shame in admitting I played as much Ace of Base, as everyone of my age did. The good and saving part: Deep Purple, Judas Priest, Metallica and lots of other rock and metal bands, plus medieval and pre-classical music addictions. Lots of angry days that good music isn't made anymore. 
• Late teenhood: über-anger caused by music..or lack of it as I woudl call it back then: almost given up metal music in favour to classical. Über-happy: Lacrimosa and Therion saving my soul from falling into the trap of a closed mind and a metal radio show where I enriched my musical culture (a good school I'd say, and it would take  at leats 81372746547 pages to talk about all the bands and the music I learned about). Ah, and developing a taste to all sorts of ethnic music which impacts on me today still. 
• And now...the always ending ''now''. 

I know it's an blasphemous act of injustice to not mention all that music which stayed constant and near my heart but maybe that deserves another written page ...one day it shall be done. In that good and non-crisis sense, since late teens I can only count happy episodes which were too revolutionary to what I've known up until now in music and too dear to me as not to mention/name them .... what is happily coincidental is that these major bands which changed my way of being around music, metal music especially, came all from the land of (more than) a thousand lakes: Finland. In order of their apparition: Finntroll, Korpiklaani and two years back, Auringon Hauta. Everything else good which came along the way (i.e. lots of folk-metal bands), simply revolved around these marks.

Back to the current crisis... it's an era when and where I can get loads of informations on and about music, and indeed the discoveries were not a few in the last years...yet, I find most days an acute wish of more than I already know and can listen... Jethro Tull keeps me company, one of the best and the it's the kind which time, life events and any other music can never tear down from its special place... 
But being the most eclectic person I know, I had Shaman coming in my mind today, as well Judas Priest. After a good portion of silence. Maybe I'm not lost for metal after all...not totally. Hopefully this is not going to turn into a major relationship crisis and trips to some music counsellor...yet, for better and for worse, in sickness or in health, me and music are loyal companions, lovers, haters, best friends and spiritual partners. As it should  be. 

BEOWULF IN FILMS - or how cultural patterns establish....

The 13^th Warrrior (1999), along Beowulf and Grendel (2005 ) and Beowulf (2007) seem to form the triad of films that is most praised and valued in the popular conscience when it comes about the exploit of Beowulf figure. And not for nothing. A fast forward look on some aspects in these films, show how the figure of Beowulf made way and into collective memory and how it appears even in some films (very loved ones) that don't treat the topic in itself. 

I'll speed 3 or more arrows in the bow and shoot straight at these: 

The 13^th Warrrior, has as source for its script Michael Crichton's novel Eaters of the Dead. In the general view is constitutes one of the films that have accurate references to the novel of Crichton, and to the original source of inspiration as well. Yet there are some inaccuracies: for example, Melchisadek, ibn Fahdlan's interpreter for Greek and Latin is needed, yet in the book ibn Fahdlan knows both languages. Also the fact that the ambassador, ibn Fahdlan uses Latin in his communication with one of the Norsemen until he can speak the Norse language, is actually presented in the film in a more theatrical way (he appears to just listen the Norsemen while they talk to each other in their native language, and learns it by just that, surprising them one night with some memorable lines).  

Beowulf (2007) seems to bright into light the fantastical aspects of the story line in the poem, enhanced also by the effects of animation; it is the most modern made version of Beowulf, but I'm not exactly abounding in praise or love for it, nor have much to cling to in what I mean to point here. I may be mistaken, but....Moving forward! 

I'm reserving a special place for Beowulf and Grendel (2005). Directed by Sturla Gunnarsson is one of the best versions of the Anglo-Saxon epic poem, being set in the 6^th century AD; not only filmed in a wonderful setting in Iceland, also respects historical data in what concerns the customs/traditions depicted there and the amazing costumes, very close to what the Vikings used to wear. Buildings, weaponry and life-style of the Vikings were clearly studied with care, and that can be seen in the film. Another element of that aids the authenticity of the movie is represented by the dialogue specifically constructed from English words of Germanic origin only, without including Latin or French words. This aspect enhances the memory of the versed alliteration in the original poem.

It presents the first part of the glorious deeds of the young Beowulf, and respects the main lines of the original plot, bringing as a new element an intention to respect the history and present the events in the light of most accurate data, and be as historical as possible. It incites because it's not as simple as one might think in its content: it stirs the viewer to think about motivations to kill (Grendel, the thanes lead by Beowulf, and the hero himself), revenge as an act of some sort of justice (Grendel for personal reasons, Beowulf in his mission as a hero), a wide range of feelings experienced in the front of understanding another culture (Beowulf), psycho-social reactions and relations, the clash between opposed cultures and worlds, the superficiality with which the Christian fate was adopted among the Danes (or the whole of Scandinavia as a matter of fact). It is a film about the dawning on a new world, the raising of a powerful conscience: the scene in which Beowulf, after killing Grendel and his mother, piles up stones and raises a honorary little barrow close the place where the killing took place so that Grendel's son sees it and be aware that not all human are bad and also with the indirect message of not repeating his father's deeds. 

These three aren't the only films ever made on Beowulf, there are precedents in the history of film making, more or less related or connected by critics with archetypes contained in the poem, or simply episodic plot events they have in common: there are at least seven more, and more perhaps to have drawn inspiration from the poem, and especially the figure of the hero. 

But my aim in analysing these films lies in the lines below... 

In the final of his lecture from 1936, Tolkien ends with a memorable sentence: It is to idols that men turned (and turn) for quick and literal answers. (p.19) 

Is it that once with the development of the different forms of media that men do indeed search for quick ways to idols like Beowulf? How can a poem so old be so influential in arts? Why?

There are some possible answers. The poem Beowulf seems to have surpassed the centuries through its heroic character exactly because people need to believe in things which are above them, in demi-gods like Beowulf, who give hope. In literature, film, music, people find a refuge too. A poem like Beowulf ensures a cornucopia of perpetual answers and has established a pattern in the popular culture.

I would like to say that this phenomenon plays a social function: taking for example the series of very popular films Die Hard we can identify a pattern which was established in and by Beowulf, a pattern followed in these films: an outsider comes in to save the day against evil villain, the outsider is able to succeed where the locals fail dismally, although they outnumber and out-gun him, he receives wisdom and support from a local source and faces off against the bad guy, the hero is threatened again at the end after the main villain is killed. Does the structure of Die Hard align with the poem Beowulf because Beowulf has influenced a millenium of writers? Or is it that both tap in to a concept of the hero? Why must the hero be an outsider? 

This is where the social function arises: if the outsider is a hero, then it can be any one of us, the audience. It can be any of those men genetically designed to be doing heroic things, a demographic predominantly of males aged 16-30, but who in a modern society don't have that chance. If the hero who saves the day is a member of the same group which is threatened, then by implication, unless you are in a threatened group, you cannot be the hero, being a psychologically closed system. Yet if the hero comes from outside, especially if it's someone who is not ready or equipped to do the deed, then it could be anyone.

Possibilities are infinite. Dreams are allowed in, that triggers hope in too. People from the audience identify with the character they see on the screen, live the deeds through the screen.

There is another significant aspect also: the effects of Christianity in the social plan, meant more order, less confrontations and fights, a ''right'' held by men rightfully, a sign of manhood and a sense of it. Confirmation of masculinity. Aren't these art products mentioned here meant to serve a large mass of population consumption, as means for a quest? A quest in search not search of that which is lost, a nostalgia for "The Heroic Age" where Beowulf is the icon which fills the need of a Die Hard and viceversa?

NILS

Don't you just love those days when you can find easily on Internet a reminder that the day should be dedicated to an author, musician, scientist or any other personality that added  a gem in treasure of humankind? And furthermore, one who has made such a strong impression while you where a child that no matter when you're reminded of that personality, the impact of the name or of the memory is as dear and intense? I'm pretty sure this happens to everyone out there. Today it was one of those days for me, when on various Internet pages, there were posts about Selma Lagerlöf , given she was born on 20th November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_Lagerl%C3%B6f ).

As a child I watched in amazement and pure joy the cartoons inspired by her book about the adventures of Nils Holgersson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Adventures_of_Nils) and I remember that as soon as I could find and buy a copy of these adventures, the book had to be mine. And it was: I recall taking care of it after it was read and I can see even now with the eyes of memory the hardcover with a yellow background...and Nils flying with the geese. Nils stays as one of the beautiful characters that was generous enough to take me with him on his fantastic adventures...all thanks to Selma. Meanwhile, my book has found rest on a shelf of a child I gave it to, but the feeling of joy, melancholia and tenderness didn't disappear and I know I cannot borrow or give them to anyone. But I can share them, and listening the opening theme it's impossible to ignore the goosebumps and a little playful tear...

"Surrealism: The Poetry of Dreams" or my first visit at GOMA

It's been a year and a bit since I kept these thoughts bottled up, so it's time sharing them. They come from the experience of visiting a temporary exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane (http://www.qagoma.qld.gov.au/ ).
This post is in its honesty more of an attempt of learning, re -memorising the event and exhibition in itself... and the need of sharing this process of learning, with the hope of having your thoughts resting too for a bit... on the wings of surreal art.
The exhibition has been one of the highlights of my trip there in the summer of 2011, something I have expected with genuine emotion, as I was aware of the Surrealist works which the Pompidou Centre (http://www.centrepompidou.fr/ ) was going to bring to the Antipodes for some months. Something which was again a bit surreal: I was embarking on this trip, coming from Europe myself and finally see these works which travelled themselves....and producing amazement when buying the ticket at the gallery in the moment of answering the compulsory question ''where are you from?'' (they seemed to keep a track of that, a statistic on the visitors within Australian states)... ''I'm from Europe'' produced a surreal look...
I digress, time to enter in the gallery of memories about the exhibition "Surrealism: The Poetry of Dreams"...

The sensation of trembling accompanied me as a good mate, a mate that got over-excited when being welcomed by works of Max Ernst, Eli Lotar (Tudor Arghezi's son, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Lotar), André Masson ( http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=3821 ) and Andre Bréton's Manifesto, in original...a sort of birth-certificate and an expression of the authenticity of the surrealist beliefs (http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/SurManifesto/ManifestoOfSurrealism.htm , http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=768). 
The trembling went on a different path once familiarity took its place once I saw on the wall a group picture with the artisans of the Dada movement ( happily recognising Tristan Tzara at first glance), and peace, installed at arriving in the room where there was wall projected ''Un Chien Andalou'' (the product of the fruitful collaboration between Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali).

I've been fortunate enough to keep the notes I made at the place, and  I'll enumerate here some of the works which interested me most, some newly discovered, some warming me with knowing a bit of their history. From this chaos of impressions and notes, arise artists and some of their works. I've provided links to each, so that the learning is as vast as possible, although the richness of it it's hard to be taken in a single reading and/or browsing of these artist's masterpieces) : 

• Max Ernst's Chimera (here's a wonderful account on the artist's activity and a generous part of his works: http://www.artgalleryabc.com/ernst/blog ) . The Last Forest worths shown here: http://20buckspin.tumblr.com/post/2622338974/max-ernst-the-last-forest-1969
• Yves Tanguy  ( http://www.yvestanguy.org/en/ ).
• René Magritte:  Les marches d'éte ,Le ciel meurtrier , Souvenir de voyage, Le model rouge....these I've seen, but here one can learn more about: http://www.rene-magritte.org/
• Joan Miro, although I've remained with his Silence'in marked in memory....here's more:http://joanmiro.com/
• Joseph Sima http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sima 
• Salvador Dali: ''Halucination partielle'' has been the first painting of his I've ever been close to. The rest..is a 15 years love I had for Dali's art. Possibly needless, but still.... http://www.salvador-dali.org/en_index.html
• Dora Maar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Maar
• Victor Brauner ,Héron d'Alexandre, Le ver luisant..... and more:  http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/show-full/bio/?artist_name=Victor%20Brauner
• Picasso -Femme couchée..... http://www.artnet.com/artists/pablo-picasso/figure-couch%C3 %A9e-rLNm2u5TGecJBTr4bN62Ig2
• André Masson -Le labyrinthe......... http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=82217
• Jackson Pollock..here a lovely site where you can recreate in his painting manner: http://www.jacksonpollock.org/ and a web collection: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/
• Arshville Gorki: http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=2252
• Marcel Jean – Les gardiens du sommeil... http://www.galleryofsurrealism.com/mjma-1935ab.htm
• Dorothea Tanning- A very happy picture... http://www.dorotheatanning.org/life-and-work/view-work/work-242/
•  I've learnt for the first time about the ''informal tachisme'':  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachisme
• Simon Hantai: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/fyfe/fyfe4-16-10.asp
• Judith Riegl: http://www.judit-reigl.com/

Listing proved the most efficient way of delivering the main points of the exhibition, and even without imparting too much of my personal impressions I still hope that my personal effort brings a little attention on these manifestations...anti-art.
Until next post...enjoy life, love Art, learn! 

“FAIR IS FOUL AND FOUL IS FAIR” – REVERSED ARCHETYPES IN SHAKESPEARE'S MACBETH 

The intention of this article is to depict the archetypal patterns which are present in Shakespeare's Macbeth, with respect to the canon of Jungian literary criticism and more so, with personal accounts based on the frame of thought initiated by Carl Gustav Jung. In order that the analysis of the archetypes in relation to the characters of the play be succinct, there must be made a few accounts on what these (i.e. the archetypes) represent.

Archetypes are defined nowadays not only as meanings and symbols, but also as carriers of cultural implications forged in time at the humans' perception and creation fire, standing out as formed models on which knowledge of individuals' nature is based and which find a good lodging in the lines of a written work or another as well. In Humanities, these models, or prototypes as they were often called, have an established importance and have helped in understanding typologies of characters, especially through their representations in literature. Carl Gustav Jung and series of literary critics, have enlarged the view on these archetypes, the first by tracing the main lines/ characteristics of them and pointing a connection to literature, the latter by developing this connection, namely identifying the manifestation of these archetypal patterns in different pieces of literary creation.

More precisely, Jungian archetypes have been accepted largely as valid and rightfully connected to general representations of human character in its diversity, including in their embodiments found in literary characters. The pattern which an archetype carries “finds worldwide parallels, either in cultures (...)or in individuals (a child's concept of a parent as both heroic and tyrannic, superman and ogre).” ¹

In Jung's vision, these images and ideas are inherited on a subconscious level from our ancestors and preserved throughout generations, despite cultural or geographical separation, etc.

Through the concepts of archetypes, Jung marked thus a new vision in the literary criticism, based on these archetype structures, also known as archetypal criticism which connects literature with the “collective unconscious of the human race” (as he called it in his major work Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious ). Notable names in literary critique, such as Northrop Frye and Maud Bodkin, point at these archetypes as unifying elements in the sense that readers from different cultures and areas can relate to these archetypes (or motifs), breaking the barrier of differences when reading important works, such as the one in discussion in this paper (i.e. Macbeth).

In consequence, Jungian Literary criticism relates fiction and the symbols contained in them with the the mythical models pertaining to mankind's past, as being rooted in it. The manifestations of the collective unconscious in literature offers a perspective in examining the archetypes and their variations and Shakespeare's works abound in such archetypes explored in their evolution or involution by the Bard, embodied by characters of major complexity. The tragedies particularly, through their complex and strong characters offer the best possibilities for such identification, or echoes better said, some of the archetypes described by Jung, main or secondary.

My aim is to highlight these exact archetypes and their variations as mirrored in Shakespeare's Macbeth, following the categorization of the archetypes described by Jung : the Self, the Shadow, the Anima, the Animus, the Persona and some of their variations. Some of Shakespeare's darkest characters from the play portray a reversed image (archetype) that mustn't be neglected and that is stressed in what follows.

The Self, embodies the centre which regulates the psyche and coordinates the personal development of an individual. A person (or in this case, a literary character) is on archetypal level made up of all the archetypes and the sum of all learning which belongs to the collective unconscious, but it differs from other individualities through what defines it's own self (I). There's a interdependence between the existence of all the other archetypes and the Self, and they manifest through reciprocal influences. It may also represent the strive to an ideal individuality.

The most powerful Self in Shakespeare's play is Macbeth himself, who in his individuation is influenced by other archetypal characters (illustrating the interdependence between archetypes) and who proves himself the opposite to the ideal Self, reversing this archetype's characteristics.

Macbeth's individuation is most unnatural to what could mean ideal: in the beginning of the play he's shown as a noble general in the army, who proves himself brave and efficient in the battle, rewarded by King Duncan with another title which makes him the Thane of Cawdor ( the second scene of the first act) exactly as the witches had predicted to him before he met the King. That episode of most unnatural source awake in him the latent potential (the true nature of his id) of his true and dark self: he becomes the slave of witches' prediction and force events in order that his ascension as king produce, by assassinating King Duncan and taking the crown which is not rightfully his. He's in huge measure influenced (thus vulnerable and unstable) by his wife, lady Macbeth who wishes his ascension badly and sets him to the murder of the King. Ambition is the tragic flaw he carries and which led him to the discovery of the unideal, dark Self: greedy for power and with the ''support'' offered by his wife who poisons his head with twisted encouragements, he kills others as well with his hands or sends his men to do it (as in the case of Banquo and his son, Fleance, and also Macduff's entire family). He ruins all he has gotten already, by despising his good fortune and position:

“For brave Macbeth - well he deserves that name -
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements. “ (1.2.19) 

 

The interdependence of archetypes mentioned before appears in Macbeth's case in the form of evil influence: his reversed Anima (Lady Macbeth, who keeps his interest aroused for power, making appeal to his masculinity and lack thereof when he's doubtful) and the Shadow (the witches, who reveal his fate and set him the series of murders; the temptation to listen to them in fact, denote his real nature, the Shadow inside him who now had the opportunity to manifest: Macbeth serves as a fertile soil for the seeds of evil planted by the witches. Here opposes Banquo, who even if he had his share of prophecies of ascension, he doesn't take seriously what the witches have said to him about the fate of his kin, thus revealing a good nature, an invulnerable one).

Macbeth is not an isolated archetypal character of the Self in this play: his wife, Lady Macbeth follows him closely in a similar involution throughout the play; their opposite could be Malcolm, King Duncan's eldest son, who will restore the order of things as it will be shown in what follows.

The Shadow:

“By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes. “ (4.1.43)

This archetype is identified with possibilities which lie within oneself, with traits that the ego doesn't identify with, but which doesn't cancel the Shadow's existence or the possibility that those deep within traits won't or can't manifest at some stage, if chance offered.

In full, the Shadow comes to life in Macbeth's case, his wife, Seton (the only remaining loyal officer in Macbeth's army, who commits crimes for him), even Malcolm (in his talk with MacDuff, when he's doubtful of his good nature and leaves in his speech come out some of the dark traits of character to be shown).

But representative for this archetype are the witches coven. The Three Witches are the strongest personification of negative feats, being identified with the evil and it could be said that their words/prophecies forged the cauldron in which brewed the most awful thoughts Macbeth had. They bring the unknown, the unmapped realm of future prophecies and superstitions, witchcraft and spells, irrational and uncontrollable; they connect this world with a world of spirits that allows imagination to interpretations of various degrees of evil. They are the personification of the Shadow:

“What are these,

So withered, and so wild in their attire,
That look not like th' inhabitants o' the earth,
And yet are on 't?” (1.3.39)

They bring out to those weak at heart and mind luring images of future through their language. “Fair is foul and foul is fair” (1.1.13) comes as a paradox as “evil speaks a pleasant language”, dragging Macbeth's mind to a territory most humans don't go, or let the Shadow take their minds, leading him to the fall from a status which brought him consideration ans respect. The Witches' knowledge of the truth is that bate with which Macbeth is caught up in the whirl of madness and frenzy for power, even if initially he seems only astounded by the words they speak and still oppose some resistance to unnatural creatures:

“What! can the devil speak true?” (1.3.107)

“And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray ’s
In deepest consequence. “(1.3.132)

The Witches use a cryptic language, one that does not have a mortal sound in its invocking:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble. (4.1.10)

But the meaning of the language has double sense, and it does not allude to the pure truth, but use the information in a wicked way, as in the scene where they encourage and assure Macbeth that his end will not come from a mortal (or so it is interpreted by Macbeth himself):

“Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth. “(4.1.79) 

 

The Anima is described as being the sum of mysteries that constitutes the femininity. It also is that which permits a man to be in touch with a woman, being represented in dreams as a method of communication with a person. The Anima possesses all female encounters with men to help the relationship between the two better.

In the play, the Anima also is a reversed archetype, just like all others: instead of bettering it, the husbandry of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth brings to life the worst atrocities, fuelled by greed, blind ambition, hate, resulting in murder, madness and lost of feminine identity (or transcendence of gender identity) in Lady Macbeth's case ( Act I, scene V:

“The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits 
 That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,  
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;

Stop up the access and passage to remorse,

That no compunctious visitings of nature

Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between

The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,

And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,

Wherever in your sightless substances

You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,

And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,

That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,

Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,

To cry 'Hold, hold!' “ )

This transgression to feats of the opposite gender, or even more, to a sort of non-gender as she wishes only to become the personification of cruelty itself, makes Lady Macbeth to stray from the path of bettering her relation to her husband, and reversing that, she encourages him to lose himself the traits of a good man and become a tool of evil deeds. She advices shim to fake emotions and scorns him when he seems to back off or doubt from their bloody purpose:

“Your face, my thane, is as a book where men
May read strange matters. To beguile the time,
Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under't.” (1.5.63) 

 

The hesitation and mad actions of Macbeth are fuelled by Lady Macbeth's unnatural influence, an obvious distorsion of what a natural relation between a man and a woman should be: “She turns his temptation to greatness into a test of his masculinity, willfully deforming her own femininity in the process. She attempts to share his greatness and mitigate his psychic horror at his action but falls, in the end, to mental torment and death, leaving him to the final, futile, solitary stand against inevitable defeat.” ²

The Animus, similarly to Anima stands as its counterpart being the masculine representation in a woman's psyche, allowing a female to understand communication with a man, playing the same function if bettering the relation between the two.

In the play, it it reversed again: Lady Macduff, fails to understand the actions of her husband who is set to save the country out of pure honour and patriotic feelings: “What had he done, to make him fly the land?” (4.2.1739)

In the dialogue she has with her son about Macduff's leave to England, she judges him in haste and no sooner speaks words of most gravity:

“Son: Was my father a traitor, mother?

Lady Macduff: Ay, that he was.

Son: What is a traitor?

Lady Macduff: Why, one that swears and lies.

Son: And be all traitors that do so?

Lady Macduff: Every one that does so is a traitor, and must be hanged.

Son: And must they all be hanged that swear and lie?

Lady Macduff: Every one. “ (Act 4, scene 2)

She fails understanding his true nature and intentions , and she dies convinced of his treason, failing thus more in what their communion should be. Although, better that Lady macbeth, she does not have in common with the latter the admiration for her husband (much too exacerbated in Lady Macbeth's case).

The Persona is viewed by Jung as "functional complex ... by no means identical to the individuality"; it has been said that it function as a mask, usually one that protects the Ego from negative images or it can be viewed as the opponent of the self. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth again correspond as the most relevant characters for the manifestation of this archetype in the play, but Malcolm isn't too far from it in the talk he has with Macduff about returning to Scotland and and become a good king.

A relevant example for this archetype's manifestation is to be found in the in Act I, scene v, as Lady Macbeth instructs her husband into the art of pretence and falsety when expecting King Duncan's arrival, hiding their cruel intentions and prove to be indeed fair on the outside (persona) and foul in their nature, thought and feelings (individuality) :

“Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under't. “

The symbolism carried by the serpent is full in meaning: it might be herself, being the one who leads Macbeth into the act of murdering King Duncan. She could signify the source of evil and Macbeth only the tool through which the crime is done.

Banquo sees under these pretences and masks and that will bring him his own death at the order given by Macbeth.

Besides these main archetypes, some variations of them which surge throughout the whole corpus of literary creations must be mentioned as they reflect themselves (or their opposites) in Macbeth. They cannot be left aside, especially through the importance they bring to form a whole broader and perhaps more complete perspective of what the play presents; these archetypes, complete the main ones and they carry new information so to say, as they are the base of some of the actions the main characters perform. From their multitude, in Macbeth can be identified the following ones: the Child, the Hero, the Old Wise Man/Woman, the Martyr and the Warrior.

The Child: as an archetype is closely related to to the hope and the trust in new beginnings. In the play, Macbeth couple do not have a child, a heir who could be a factor in slowing their bloody deeds: it is most present through his absence, thus bringing no hope into the murderers of King Duncan and no streak of humanity, which always arises with a child's birth. Another tragic presence, this time physical, is the young son of Macduff, who is violently murdered by Macbeth's loyal executors, bringing an even darker input into the tragic atmosphere of the play. Another killed hope, one of noble descent himself and proven in fight, is young Siward, the son of Siward Earl of Northumberland: he follows his father to fight against Macbeth in Scotland, but he is killed in battle, adding a minus more in the economy of good versus evil: only the good die young. The only two characters of this archetype to survive are Banquo's son and Malcolm, the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland.

The Hero: is an archetype of transformation, the hero being subjected to a quest, an initiation and fulfilling the role of a sacrificial scapegoat. In the play, Macduff is the real hero: he performs the journey to England and its symbolism lies in his attempt to save the Kingdom of Scotland by this; he leaves his family at home, unguarded, becoming thus the scapegoat by attracting Macbeth's fury and ends in having his family killed by the latter's ''emmissaries''. Macduff is the figure which embodies honour itself, loyalty to the country and its rightful king (although with some flaws himself) and courage. He is having his most dear people in the world sacrificed on the altar of common good, for the welfare of his nation, and in the end he restores the natural order of things by being the one to end the life of the usurperer Macbeth. Macduff can also be seen through his actions as another version of the archetype of the Martyr. King Duncan as well, can be identified as a martyr.

In the literary critique, some opinions are formed towards Macbeth in the sense of a tragical hero, but even so, it's not corresponding to the classical acceptance of the term or to the frame of the archetype. His character indicates towards an anti-hero, more than anything; suffice to say only that weakness and vulnerability or cowardly killings cannot sustain a position of hero.

The restaurative or helping figure of the Old Wise Man lacks as archetype and presence in the play, but it must be mentioned in relation to the next archetype discussed here. There's no such a figure, except if considering the initiative of Macduff as pertaining to a wise man, yet Macduff is made out of more hero material than philosopher who gives advice or guides others .

The Old Wise Woman/Women appear in the play , as a representative of the collective unconscious. But it appears in the reversed form of it: there's no wisdom, but superstitions and popular believes and a whole corpus of dark witchcraft practices. The Three Witches illustrate yet another reversed archetype along Macbeth couple, functioning in close relation to the two. The coven of witches have also traits which belong to the archetypes of the Trickster and also to the Evil. An individuality belonging this archetype, could be considered Hecate, the queen of the witches, but her advices function also in a negative sense, thus reversing the ''normal'' archetype.

The Warrior's archetype finds in the play a few types (typologies) of warriors: Macbeth is one of them, at the same rank with Banquo, yet his falling into mischief and murder disqualifies himself from the belonging to this honourable category; he's the total opposite of those all brave who once fought along him: next killing he performs is a shameful one, it doesn't happen on the battlefield, and that dishonours him, by breaking a code of honour, not only a human law, as he kills the good King Duncan like a coward, at night, with a dagger.

In opposition there's brave men and embodiments of true warriors like Macduff, Banquo Lennox, Ross and Siward Earl of Northumberland and his son, Siward. To exemplify how this archetype function in its course of action, it deserves to look at the death of the Young Siward: it is seen by his father as an honourable one - he asks how his son died and then says there's no time for mourning (though not without pain), as his son gave his life in battle and for a good cause of his country. This is the real nature and trait of a true warrior. Macduff personal sacrifice, besides his deeds in battle is again taken as a real warrior would and does: he swears to revenge against Macbeth and he goes all the way through by beheading him during battle, not like a coward.

The play is filled with supernatural and unnatural and that is revealed not only in the events contained in it, but reading in depth the nature of the characters, it is full of darkest images. The characters and they archetypes they represent are a sum of the darkest traits of human nature, all gathered in a plot of hyper-stressed greed for power, dehumanisation, loss of morals, vulnerability and blind trust in inhuman forces, distorted relations, imploding madness followed by death, social disorder caused by the actions of disordered minds.

One of the best exploits of the Scottish play has been done by the German band, Rebellion. (All credit goes to the band.)

WORKS CITED AND REFERENCES:

McLuskie, Kathleen- Macbeth, the Present, and the Past, page 393, in A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, Vol. I-The Tragedies, Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture, 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, USA

Sanders, Andrew -The Short Oxford History of English Literature, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 2004

WEB REFERENCES:

http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=macbeth (used for the quotations)

www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/

MULTIMEDIA (DVD): Macbeth - Directed by Jack Gold (1983), BBC Shakespeare disc box set.

1. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press.

2 Kathleen McLuskie-Macbeth, the Present, and the Past, page 393, in A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, Vol. I-The Tragedies, Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture, 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, USA