Did the Patient in Macbeth Kill a Child?

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 4/26/13 at 7:19pm

My apologies if this has been discussed before. But it's obvious that patient has committed a crime - all the evidence collection when he comes in - and I just assumed from his interaction with the doll and the sweater that he had killed a child. Did everyone else get the same impression?

Also, this might be reading too much into it, but he grabs the doll by the crotch right before he hurls it against the wall. Might this imply sexual abuse, or am I looking too closely?

[PattyO'Furniture]

Posted: 4/26/13 at 7:24pm

VERY interesting and well-supported insight.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/26/13 at 9:01pm

There is no one correct answer.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 4/26/13 at 9:57pm

I felt the same way. That moment before he throws the doll is very carefully placed.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 4/26/13 at 10:55pm

I think murdering the child is part of it, for sure. Why else would they leave the small sweater and the baby doll in the observation room for him? I don't recall him grabbing the doll by the crotch when I saw the show so I can't comment on that. It could be intentional or it could be a coincidence.

I also think there's a chance that this isn't the first time he's acted out this scenario in the facility. I think the injuries in the first scene could have happened not immediately following the crime but when the staff thought he was stable enough to move from solitary confinement to general population. When he injured himself, they moved him back to solitary, removed potentially hazardous clothing, and left him in a room for constant observation. The doctor and orderly seem all too comfortable with his patterns and when in the story he'll need medical help to calm down to not have experienced it all before.

This is all part of what I love so much about this interpretation of Macbeth. There isn't a definitive reading of the performance beyond the basic facts of a patient reenacting Macbeth under observation in a facility. There's the new interpretation of the text through Cumming's performance and then the new context of the performance in location and casting. It's layered without any easy answers and designed to make you reconsider everything you know about Macbeth.

Updated On: 4/26/13 at 10:55 PM

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 9:44am

Ah, to lose one's mind and to be placed in an asylum.

Was there a crime committed, if so, did he witness it or commit it? Did such an act cause him to lose his mind or was his mind already lost causing him to commit the crime? All good questions, makes you wonder.

There were a couple of discussions last year in regards. Comments from last year, discusses seating but there are a couple of spoiler comments as well.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?page=2&thread=1047816

[PattyO'Furniture]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 11:21am

"This is all part of what I love so much about this interpretation of Macbeth. There isn't a definitive reading of the performance beyond the basic facts of a patient reenacting Macbeth under observation in a facility. There's the new interpretation of the text through Cumming's performance and then the new context of the performance in location and casting. It's layered without any easy answers and designed to make you reconsider everything you know about Macbeth."

Yes! What trent said!