I've seen a LOT of productions of Macbeth over the years, ranging from elementary students in summer camps to college, shakespeare-in-the-park and mainstream performances to 3-female well-trained actors playing all the roles with a pool-of-mud as main prop.
We had seen Frances McDormand in Macbeth at the Berkeley Rep 5 years ago and, despite high expectations didn't find that production successful nor the performance by the lead actors particularly accomplished. But maybe it was the fault of the direction, and maybe McDormand would carry it off better in film. So we gave this film a try.
This movie *was* interesting, with lots of stylish visual effects -- and way better than the Berkeley Rep performance -- but still somewhat disappointing for us.
The best stuff is mostly visual, it's shot in black in white with lots of stark contrasts, shadows and plain backgrounds, minimal sets devoid of furniture, very small cast -- after a brief look at a column of soldiers standing still as they lifted their branches and standing still as they put them down, the battle scenes consisted of two one-on-one fights involving Macbeth and you didn't see or hear any other fighting or even people -- it reminded me of one of those very small intimate productions of shakespeare I've seen -- some of which were extraordinary. Lots of great closeups of haggard faces. The witch (singular, but with clever visual tricks to make 3), played by Kathryn Hunter, was stunning. There were several strong performances in supporting roles.
(Oddly enough, the first name of the actor playing Macduff was Corey in both the Berkeley production and this movie, which initially made me think it was the same guy, but no. They were both quite good.)
Denzel Washington's delivery was clear, but too fast, soft, and undifferentiated -- a lot of drama, and sometimes even meaning, is lost that way. He did get a little better toward the end as he became more unhinged, though the "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" was still done fast/soft/monotonic as he walked down a stairway. Come to think of it "is that a dagger I see before me was also done soft/fast/monotonic as he walked down a seemingly endless hallway Maybe it was the fault of the direction, it felt like so much was the equivalent of park-and-bark, someone speaks while standing still (or moving slowly at a constant speed], those listening assemble in some configuration and stand still. It all looked sharp, stark and surreal but it didn't make me become emotionally engaged the way the Shakespeare I most like does.
Other things also felt they were there to look cool, but were at best orthogonal to the drama and sometimes even distracted from it. There's a long slow buildup of a drop of water about to fall that reminds me of the end of "Blood Simple" -- but I'm not sure what it's for. There were one-word title cards taken from the text [Spoiler: "When" near the beginning ("when shall we three meet again..."), "Tomorrow" ("tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow..."]). Very stylish, but what's the point?
There are some edits and re-arrangements and minor changes (without dialogue) to the story. I don't object in principle, shakespeare is often cut and adapted, even the elizabethan/jacobeans did it (as early as middleton's additions to the witchs' later scenes), but I'm ambivalent about some of the specifics here.
I get why they might cut malcolm's long bit about how evil a king he would be (and it's hardly the first macbeth I've seen to cut it), though it's a shame as it is about the only juicy bit that actor gets, otherwise he's just a baby-faced non-entity -- and it gives some balance and meaning to the choice of who should rule the kingdom. They also cut one of the witch's prophecies, the one with the line of descendants of banquo (I'm sure Coen could have made some great visuals for it) To be sure, Macbeth's sense that it's all for nothing if the kingship passes to Banquo's descendants is never in doubt, but the futility of trying to avoid the prophecy (as well as the 3-fold symmetry the prophecy would provide) would be neater if it were included.
(Spoiler) They made Ross the third murderer, which is a little gimmicky {though I discovered through googling, Zefferelli's Macbeth film did it, too), but ALSO did some extra business with Ross, the Old Man, and Fleance that doesn't make sense if you think about it too much.
I guess I can see the allure of making Ross -- who is seemingly everywhere as a messenger, and a friend of Macduff's wife and Macduff as well as Macbeth -- seem sinister and ambiguous -- what's his agenda? But it does distract a bit from the intensity of focus on Macbeth's dramatic conflict.
So, all in all, I don't know. There was a lot I liked, but a few things I didn't, and it didn't check all the boxes I'm looking for in the drama and in effective use of the language.
We had seen Frances McDormand in Macbeth at the Berkeley Rep 5 years ago and, despite high expectations didn't find that production successful nor the performance by the lead actors particularly accomplished. But maybe it was the fault of the direction, and maybe McDormand would carry it off better in film. So we gave this film a try.
This movie *was* interesting, with lots of stylish visual effects -- and way better than the Berkeley Rep performance -- but still somewhat disappointing for us.
The best stuff is mostly visual, it's shot in black in white with lots of stark contrasts, shadows and plain backgrounds, minimal sets devoid of furniture, very small cast -- after a brief look at a column of soldiers standing still as they lifted their branches and standing still as they put them down, the battle scenes consisted of two one-on-one fights involving Macbeth and you didn't see or hear any other fighting or even people -- it reminded me of one of those very small intimate productions of shakespeare I've seen -- some of which were extraordinary. Lots of great closeups of haggard faces. The witch (singular, but with clever visual tricks to make 3), played by Kathryn Hunter, was stunning. There were several strong performances in supporting roles.
(Oddly enough, the first name of the actor playing Macduff was Corey in both the Berkeley production and this movie, which initially made me think it was the same guy, but no. They were both quite good.)
Denzel Washington's delivery was clear, but too fast, soft, and undifferentiated -- a lot of drama, and sometimes even meaning, is lost that way. He did get a little better toward the end as he became more unhinged, though the "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" was still done fast/soft/monotonic as he walked down a stairway. Come to think of it "is that a dagger I see before me was also done soft/fast/monotonic as he walked down a seemingly endless hallway Maybe it was the fault of the direction, it felt like so much was the equivalent of park-and-bark, someone speaks while standing still (or moving slowly at a constant speed], those listening assemble in some configuration and stand still. It all looked sharp, stark and surreal but it didn't make me become emotionally engaged the way the Shakespeare I most like does.
Other things also felt they were there to look cool, but were at best orthogonal to the drama and sometimes even distracted from it. There's a long slow buildup of a drop of water about to fall that reminds me of the end of "Blood Simple" -- but I'm not sure what it's for. There were one-word title cards taken from the text [Spoiler: "When" near the beginning ("when shall we three meet again..."), "Tomorrow" ("tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow..."]). Very stylish, but what's the point?
There are some edits and re-arrangements and minor changes (without dialogue) to the story. I don't object in principle, shakespeare is often cut and adapted, even the elizabethan/jacobeans did it (as early as middleton's additions to the witchs' later scenes), but I'm ambivalent about some of the specifics here.
I get why they might cut malcolm's long bit about how evil a king he would be (and it's hardly the first macbeth I've seen to cut it), though it's a shame as it is about the only juicy bit that actor gets, otherwise he's just a baby-faced non-entity -- and it gives some balance and meaning to the choice of who should rule the kingdom. They also cut one of the witch's prophecies, the one with the line of descendants of banquo (I'm sure Coen could have made some great visuals for it) To be sure, Macbeth's sense that it's all for nothing if the kingship passes to Banquo's descendants is never in doubt, but the futility of trying to avoid the prophecy (as well as the 3-fold symmetry the prophecy would provide) would be neater if it were included.
(Spoiler) They made Ross the third murderer, which is a little gimmicky {though I discovered through googling, Zefferelli's Macbeth film did it, too), but ALSO did some extra business with Ross, the Old Man, and Fleance that doesn't make sense if you think about it too much.
I guess I can see the allure of making Ross -- who is seemingly everywhere as a messenger, and a friend of Macduff's wife and Macduff as well as Macbeth -- seem sinister and ambiguous -- what's his agenda? But it does distract a bit from the intensity of focus on Macbeth's dramatic conflict.
So, all in all, I don't know. There was a lot I liked, but a few things I didn't, and it didn't check all the boxes I'm looking for in the drama and in effective use of the language.