Dunsinane (version 3)

Like the English soldiers chasing Macbeth’s heir, Dusinane treads on some swampy ground. Although it is easy to claim that David Greig is making a statement about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom (there are Welsh warriors in the invading army), the occasional introduction of themes from more contemporary battles reframes the conflict in a more sinister context.

In one scene, an attempted seduction of 'the hen girl' by one of the soldiers ends up with the soldier stabbed and the hen girl committing suicide. It isn't clear whether this is an act of resistance or just an unfortunate misunderstanding. Yet, given the various suicide attacks employed by 'terrorists' - and Greig's own interest in the Middle East - it's hard to see this as anything else than an example of how a 'peace-keeping' force will be opposed.

Dusinane  is a bold script: it refuses to give simplistic answers to questions of national identity, and provides King Duncan with a plausible argument for his limited tyranny. The tragic anti-hero, Siward, is 'a good man' and, as his antagonist Queen Gruach points out, this goodness causes much of the bloodshed.

Confusion isn't necessarily a weakness - Dusinane insists on being discussed, thanks to Greig's complex moral scenarios. It is as if Greig has rejected the opportunity to make a grand statement, and replaced it with a series of competing ideas. Variously, the English are seen as victims (stuck in a land unlike their own, in a conflict they cannot understand), obsessed with the rule of law (this is what breaks their leader Siward) and venal: the Scots are thuggish (Duncan is not above killing his own men if they don't defend his honour 'enough'), intelligent tacticians (Macduff comes off as sensible and alert to the shifting loyalties of the clans and the codes of diplomacy), argumentative (their anger at the English is described as being an irritation at not being allowed to fight each other) and subtle (Duncan has a witty speech when he tries to explain the 'meaning' of certain words to the literal Siward).

Unfortunately, confusing the medieval conflict between England and Scotland with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't helpful: the literal violence of the Middle East is equated with the occupation of Scotland in the twenty-first century. Greig pictures an invading army with sympathy, and makes the reasoning of both sides clear. As a play about international politics and the danger of applying one set of laws in different countries, it is powerful and moving. When it comes to the question of Scottish independence, it is worrying.

None of this is to say that Greig's script is poor: leaving open these questions, and being slightly shocking makes this more than a cheap Shakespeare cash-in. Apart from the scenery chewing of the main actors, it has been directed with an even hand, and the comedy scenes are a vibrant up-dating of the 'groundling' scenes from Shakespeare. Siward manages to get his tragic ending, and Queen Gruach is appropriately regal, cruel and stubborn. 

Greig's skill is in not answering questions, and in doing so, provokes more. Is it an act of cowardice to give so muddied a version of Anglo-Scottish relations? Is the confusion of modern warfare and the past valuable? What is the responsibility of the playwright? 

The unfolding of the play can only happen after it has finished... and so the big question.

The play is meaningless without a strong and engaged critical response... and where is that happening?