![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Liev Shrieber was doing Macbeth. The production was entertaining, if uneven. In the really important parts the one that was weakest was Macduff--I liked Banquo a lot.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I'd never thought of it before, but there was a note in the program pointing out that Macbeth is kind of the anti-Hamlet. He's got lots of doubts, but they never keep him from acting. In a way he seems to just be compelled to follow his impulses and then wonder about it. Another friend said she always feels like Macbeth's kind of underrated as a part while Lady Macbeth is a bit over-rated. I admit I do find Lady Macbeth an annoying character, pushing her husband into doing stuff and then going mad herself. I considered making a joke about Shakespeare totally ripping off JKR with that prophecy that only happens because Macbeth acts on it (leaving out the part where JKR seems to undermine that by saying that had Voldemort picked Neville it wouldn't have worked), but instead I'll confess to the dorkier confession that at times I did look at Lady Macbeth and Macbeth and think I might be watching H/G, the later years. Seriously. ("If the king hadn't looked like my father when he was sleeping, I'd have stabbed him myself!")
That just made me think of
Another random HP thought I had yesterday. Someone was making a comment about Dumbledore talking about how he couldn't believe he'd have somebody so great as Harry to deal with. I think the person was contradicting another person's reading of that line as saying that DD had never felt close to someone personally the way he did Harry, and presenting this as a more acceptable reading. What struck me was that I really disagree with the whole idea behind this interpretation, which I think is backed up in canon. There's always all this focus on how great Harry is with his great power for love yadda yadda, and I think there is a suggestion that DD feels what he does for him because he's so personally special.
But that makes me think a lot less of Dumbledore (not that I have all that far to fall there!). I feel like he should have felt that way about any kid he decided to focus on specifically. Like, if he decided to take special interest in Ron Weasley wouldn't Ron have seemed just as great? Or even a kid who's decidedly not great, like Draco? I mean, obviously Draco's not a hero in canon but what I like about his story in HBP is even the little we see of it, imo, sets him up as a legitimate protagonist in his own story who's conflicted enough to hold his own and be worth rooting for. Obviously his being in Harry's role would be a very different story because he'd be going against his own, but I'm talking here just about rooting for him in the story he had.
Really I guess what the comment really did was made me imagine AUs in which other characters were put in Harry's role. I mean, we all know that whoever the hero was would have to win; they'd just have a different path to get there because of their own personalities. Ron would face a lot more confidence issues in the TWT tournament and might have just barely scraped it. Hermione would have more troubles with going too far. Neville would be more about the contrast between his timidity and abilities, and we'd probably get more of a sense that winning wasn't everything.
I don't think it's a flaw that I can imagine other characters in the role. That kind of seems like the point that a kid put in the situation makes good. I just can't help but think of it whenever it's suggested that it couldn't be anyone but Harry.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject