LITERARY ANALYSIS: MACBETH

All of us have (hopefully) read Macbeth to some extent, but with Dr. Preston's permission, I was able to hack the literary analysis outline and turn it into something different, because while I was reading Macbeth, I found it to be quite humorous and enjoyed the plot's irony thoroughly.  So on a act-by-act basis, I'm going to hopefully share with you a different point of view on the story of the ambitious traitor of Scotland.

ACT I:

ACT I begins with the "weird sisters."  If you don't already find the fact that they're called "weird" somewhat humorous, you have to take another look at it.  When these sisters encounter Macbeth and Banquo later on, their reactions to these sisters are priceless.  "Speak, if you can" is how Macbeth addressed them.  They basically called these witches animals or beasts, because these witches had beards and looked disgusting.  Later still, once Macbeth tells Lady Macbeth about King Duncan's eminent arrival to their land, Lady Macbeth enters a soliloquy in which she basically asks the gods to "unsex" her so that she could murder the king herself.  Although back in those times, women weren't supposed to commit acts of treachery, she seriously wished to be a transvestite so that she could kill somebody.  Today, the reversal is, "if you weren't a girl, I'd slap you," or something of that nature.  Not to mention, Lady Macbeth and Macbeth's relationship throughout the play is comical, because Macbeth, who is a big strong captain of the Scottish army and a ruthless killer at that, succumbs to the will of a senile woman who wears the pants in the relationship.  Shakespeare literally wrote a story about a tough guy who's secretly insecure and whipped.  There's some irony in that.

ACT II:

When Macbeth kills the king, he freaks out.  He's killed so many people before, but he freaks out this time and totally forgets to leave the evidence in the room.  With blood on his own hands, he starts blubbering and makes his wife go back in there and finish the job.  Shortly after, someone's knocking at the door and the Porter answers half-drunk and half-asleep because it's still the middle of the night.  Macduff enters and wishes to see the king while he is sleeping - in the middle of the night.  Did anybody else find that weird?  Macduff is ultimately a creeper and discovers the murder and starts yelling, which gets Macbeth all worked up, which makes him kill the watchmen.  I thought it was weird.  From the words of Ron Burgundy, "that escalated quickly."

ACT III:

The story becomes slightly more serious from this point on.  Macbeth becomes king and decides to have Banquo killed due to his insecurities about the witches' prophecy.  That part is easy to understand, but later at the feast, the ghost of Banquo haunts Macbeth, and his own wife again has to cover for him.  I think it's funny that the king of Scotland who's killed a hundred men in battle still needs a female figure to hold his hand because there's skeletons in his closet.  His wife later scolds him and questions his manhood.  Fleance's escape only takes on relevance to the point that some people blamed him for the murder of Banquo.  The witches' prophecy about Banquo's sons becoming kings gets completely left after Banquo's death.  Thought I'd point that out.  Fleance never substantially re-enters the play.

ACT IV:

Let's skip to the part where Macduff, the creeper, flees to England, which leaves the paranoid Macbeth room to kill his wife and family, because that's what civil people do when somebody leaves the country.  There's of course other reasons for Macbeth's doubts on Macduff, but having his family murdered honestly had no point other than to introduce Macduff's wife and son.  His son, by the way, is a sarcastic kid, and he is funny in his conversation with his mother where they just go back and forth about his father.  In the end, the child's sarcasm and witty remarks result in his death, which is ruthless to say the least, but I bet it would be a pre-teen's dream to say something really funny and cruel right before they get shanked to death.  Later, as Macduff visits Malcom, Malcom tests Macduff by first making himself look evil.  Ross shows up and tells Macduff that everything back home is all good only to tell him shortly after like "yeah, about your wife and kid, yeah they're dead..." as if that wasn't previously important information.

ACT V:

Everything just goes wrong for Macbeth in ACT V.  His wife is just crazy from wearing the pants too long, then Macbeth prepares for battle against most of his old friends.  Then, his wife kills herself, and he receives this news from one of his allies, Seyton (which sounds phonetically like Satan).  When your new best friend is Satan, you might be doing things wrong.  Then, one after the other, the witches prophecies come true to the very bone.  As Macbteh fights with the insurance that nobody woman-borne could hurt him, Macduff the creeper announces that he was a sesection, and Macbeth freaks out!  It was the ultimate SIKE of medieval times.  Macbeth dies, Malcom becomes king, then boom "the end."  Everything happened so fast.  It was like a climax and a resolution in two pages of reading.

It might have sounded like a narration, but certain things just stood out to me while reading.  Although I didn't quote instances because I'm trying to condense my thoughts, there's really a lot to look at while reading from Macbeth.  Some characters may have very well been likely created for the sole entertainment of the audience due to the dry humor that they produce.  I simply thought that the idea of a tough soldier who lets his wife run his life let three ugly hags control his fate, and where there was any doubt, he killed it... literally, until his actions consumed him.  I'm sure anybody could parody this, because throughout the play, there were plenty of behind-the-scene raunchy jokes (such as the witches reference to the sailor's wife who had nuts).  Many clever things were brought to the table on this one, and I got a few chuckles out of it.  If you didn't read these parts closely, you should read it again.

P.S. I know that this literary analysis was slightly confusing and only addressed a few areas, but I had to hijack it in this way in order to avoid telling you guys too much of what you already know.  Plus, all of the deeper literary elements and obvious seriousness of the play was avoided for you all to discover on your own.  There were numerous allusions and various double meanings within the play to keep track of as it is.