What's up with Ross?


Hey everyone,

I read through all your comments and most of the times I was very impressed. One thing is missing though.
What does Polanski make out of Ross?
He is playing on both sides. I mean, he is the third murderer plus he killes the other two murderers later one. Later he tells Macduff that his family got killed, even though he (Ross) helped killing by leaving the door open. And at the very end, Ross is the one how pickes up the crown on gives it to Malcolm!!!
What do you say about that?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

In the film, Polanski adds an element to Ross that reinforces the foil theme - he makes Ross the Third Murderer. This makes Ross look like an overt opportunist

---

Yep. In the text the reader is able to, in a way, make up their own mind about whether or not Ross is 'good' or 'bad' - whether or not he purposely double crossed macduff or if he was just oblivious to the fact that murderers were going to kill Macduffs family. Polanski was able to take the human traits of Ross and exagerate them - I mean it i in human nature to suck up to those with power, which is what Ross was doing when he first helped Macbeth, he was trying to ensure his own future. When he saw Macbeths power sliding, he then went to join Macduff's forces. In using this human trait Polanski has created-or extended on- a captivating character that really adds to the drama and terrible feeling that is so wonderful in Macbeth.

reply

Polanski includes a wordless scene where Macbeth arbitrarily rewards one thane with a new title (necklace) and ignores Ross completely - even though Ross has carried out every bloody deed asked of him. It parallels the beginning, where Duncan names his own son the Prince of Cumberland rather than bestowing the honor on Macbeth. It's a good lesson for bosses: If your employees feel unappreciated, they will betray you - and possibly stab you in the eye.

reply

[deleted]

That's true. Maybe after Macbeth gave the title to Seyton and not Ross, Ross felt like he was just wasting his time with Macbeth and decided to leave, knowing Macbeth wouldn't care.

reply

Moral ambiguity...very Shakespearean.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

Ross is a very interesting character to begin with. In the original play when he goes to Macduff and Malcolm in England, he doesn't immediately give away to Macduff the fact that his wife and family have been killed. I think he was waiting until the right time and wanted to know when the hell they'd get up off their asses and come to unseat Macbeth. Once he saw that Malcolm was ready, he told Macduff the news. Now, in this film, it does seem that Polanski used him more, almost as a two-faced person, which is sort of what Macbeth was to begin with. Remember, Macbeth was a trusted general to Duncan and yet he killed him and took his crown.

reply

Yeah, his 'be sure to back the right horse' attitude is played up in the film pretty well, not so much the play.

reply

[deleted]

Ross was much more developed in this movie as someone takes sides not on principles but for personal gain.

reply

I first saw this film a long time ago and the performance that stuck in my memory wasn't that of Jon Finch or Francesca Annis, it was John Stride as Ross. Very engaging. (I liked Richard Pearson as the doctor, too.)

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

reply

I think John Stride was pretty bland and boring as an actor, but after further discussion into his character's duplicity I find his role and acting even more opaque.
We learn through nuance, not just dialogue, that he is ingratiating himself to whomever has power or authority. Once the King dies, he immediately becomes Macbeth's biggest "Kiss-Ass". After doing so much for Macbeth and aiding him in his cover-up and abetting his lynching, Ross decides to shift his focus elsewhere, mainly Malcolm and the effort to overthrow Macbeth.

This character development was dramatic license Polanski took in order to better explain the character of Ross and to reveal the corruption and duplicity in the monarchy.

reply

Ross is very strange in this film, certainly. Careful viewers are sure not to miss the tossing of power to Seyton and Ross's reaction to it. His role as murdering accomplice in three scenes, etc.

The oddest thing though, about this performance/interpretation, is his goofiness the morning Duncan is murdered. Riding alongside the body nonchalantly, smiling at people. Very odd. Not your father's Ross, certainly.

In response to a previous poster, in act 4, scene 3 Ross - I have always thought - is reluctant to give the news to Macduff because he's literally frightened a) of Macduff's reaction, and B) he actually prefaces the news by saying something like "I'm about to tell you the worst thing your ears have ever heard"... he's about to tell a true bad-ass that his entire family and everyone he ever knew from a child (nannies, tutors, cooks, servants, stable masters, etc.) are dead. I always saw the scene as he's trying to find the right opening for it, and when Macduff out of the blue says "How does my wife?" Ross panics and evades the question - he's not ready.

In this version much of that is cut, appropriately, since Ross is a double-dealing psychopath, apparently.



"Rampart: Squad 51."

reply

Polanski's reading of Ross is very odd, yes. He's an equivocating, uncertain reed of a man in Shakespeare's dialog, but Polanski chose to make him more like a double agent. I didn't really go along with it.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

reply

He is duplicitous and time-serving. This is Polanski taking the character rather beyond what is in the text. He has Ross as one of these opportunists who always try to be on the winning side.


"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply