Ghost Of Banquo In Macbeth

In the production of The Tragedy of Macbeth there has been much debate over whether or not the ghost of Banquo should be portrayed by an actor or not in Act III Scene 4. This decision affects many parts of the play including production, and audience comprehension. In this essay I argue that it is more advantageous for no one to portray Banquo in this scene, as it will enhance ease of production and audience understanding. If the ghost of Banquo was not shown on stage then the audience would have a clearer understanding of Macbeth’s mental break and how it weakens the noble’s and lord’s confidence in their leader. This is seen when it is said:
Macbeth.
The table’s full.
Lennox. Here is a place reserved, sir.
Macbeth.
Where?
Lennox.
Here, my good lord. When is’t that moves your highness?
Macbeth.
Which of you have done this?
Lords. What, my good lord?
Macbeth.
Thou canst not say I did it. …show more content…
When Macbeth is told, “My lord, his throat is cut; / That I did for him” (3.4.17-18), as a confirmation of Banquo’s death, then Banquo appears just a few lines later as a ghost then the audience might be confused. If Banquo’s ghost was not shown then the audience would have a clearer understanding of what was happening to and between the characters. In contrast, if Banquo’s ghost is represented by an actor, and appears at the stage direction “[Enter the GHOST OF BANQUO, and sits in Macbeth’s place]” (3.4. 38) confusion may follow. The confusion will stem from the fact that the audience just saw Banquo brutally murdered then see him covered in blood, but present nonetheless, it may lead them to the conclusion that Banquo was not killed, only attacked. It would be clearer for the audience if an actor did not portray Banquo, as if the actor showed up again, after Banquo’s death the audience would likely become