I think that the reason the movie of Macbeth was different from the book was that the director wanted to leave the audience with questions; like is Fleance going to follow in Macbeth’s footsteps? Will the same thing that happen to Macbeth happen to Fleance? Did Banquo tel Fleance about the witches? And will Fleance become king like the three witches told Macbeth and Banquo? Directors are always trying to make great movies and bring in big audiences to their movies; and I think this was the directors way of doing so. I think maybe he was looking at a possebility of doing a part 2. Maybe he was trying to leave the audience with that suspence.
From what I saw I think if there was to be a part two, Fleance would of probably done the same as Macbeth. Maybe this was the directors way of showing us that Fleance also had a dark side. Or that most people would react just or similar to how Macbeth acted if we were in his shoes, even though we are so quick to judge him. Which I think is a great way of shows this because as I, and probably others, were reading Macbeth we though of Fleance as a good guy; someone who wouldn’t do what Macbeth did, and this ending shows that even a good person can do bad things for power or become blind and mad with power. I would of liked to see a part 2 to Macbeth to see even what I think is true…
No comments:
Post a Comment