Introduction:
I enjoy a good Shakespeare
adaptation. Blame all those literary courses I took in college. Perhaps my
favorite of the Bard’s plays is Macbeth.
I really like the supernatural imagery, the battle of reason against ambition,
and all the crazy medieval Scotsman yelling at each other. You don’t see too
many adaptations of the Scottish play (could it be the curse?) so I relish the
ones I do get. I was pretty excited to see a new version featuring Michael
Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and sticking with the medieval setting was
music to my ears. Could this be the adaptation I’ve been waiting for?
Summary:
Macbeth (Michael Fassbender)
is the fearless vassal to King Duncan (David Thewlis). After engaging in a
battle against a traitorous clan, Macbeth and his brother in arms Banquo (Paddy
Considine) encounter three witches. These weird sisters prophesize that Mabeth
will soon be king and Banquo will be the father of kings. Macbeth finds the
idea interesting but maintains his loyalty. However, Lady Macbeth (Marion
Cotillard) does no such thing. She believes they can make the prophecy happen,
with a little push. Soon enough murder is committed, princes are blamed and
Macbeth is crowned king of Scotland.
Once he tastes power and
understands the means to obtain it, Macbeth begins to see enemies all around
him. He targets his old pal Banquo as well as the steadfast lord Macduff (Sean
Harris). But Macbeth’s fury and obsession start to look like insanity to those
around him and soon an army forms to depose this tyrant. But Macbeth seeks out the
witches again and they provide him with three pieces of information that
convince the king he is invincible. Is it fate or will that determine the
destiny of Macbeth?
Good Points:
- Some gorgeous cinematography and visual compositions
- Some unusual and effective twists on the execution of elements of the play
- The cast really seems to be engaged in the roles
Bad Points:
- Thick accents may make some of the dialogue difficult to follow
- The music is distracting and ineffective
- The pacing is glacial and the whole film lacks any energy
Overall:
Ouch. This movie hurt, and I
really like this play, but man was this a misfire. It all comes down to the
directorial choices. Justin Kurzel tries to imbue every line of dialogue with
meaning and portentousness. This results in long gaps between lines, meaningful
staring and everyone speaking as if they are so deep and serious that there is
not a drop of passion or energy on the screen. When the story should deliver
impact it just shambles toward you with no power at all. Such a disappointment.
Scores
(out of 5)
Visuals: 4
Sound: 3
Acting: 3
Script: 4
Music: 1
Direction: 2
Entertainment: 1
Total: 1
In Depth Review
A showdown in a personal hell. |
What is Macbeth really about at its core? It is about a man who lets his
desire for power overwhelm is judgment. Once he has this power, he fears to
lose it, and starts to destroy everything and everyone around him in the effort
to keep the power. Folded in and around this is the concept of free will. Is
Macbeth a pawn of God (or the devil) or does Macbeth forge his destiny at the
suggestion of the witches?
So at the very least an
adaptation of Macbeth must capture
these two elements and deliver them with a punch. We should see something of
ourselves in the Thane turned King. But Kurzel manages to defeat both of these
elements and renders the story inert. And Shakespeare should never be inert.
Let’s focus on the positive
elements first. Visually, I really love where Kurzel was going with this
interpretation of the play. He puts it in a medieval world that seems to still
be crawling out of the dark ages. Much of the costumes, sets and armor appear
to be inspired by Viking elements, giving everything a rough and earthy feel.
There is no pageantry here. It is a gritty and roughhewn world these characters
inhabit.
Lady Macbeth: shrouded in death. |
The lighting in the movie
has a very natural look, reminding me strongly of Zefferelli’s Hamlet from 1990. And like that film it
brings a sense of humanity to the setting. But it also adds an interesting
chill to the proceedings in this version of Macbeth. Not only does the land feel frosty cold, but the chill
seeps into the performances and music. It is an interesting and effective
visual style.
The two battle scenes that
bookend the film are also wonderfully realized. The first occurs in a fog-shrouded
heath. Shapes of armed men emerge and melt into the mist and it as the struggle
plays out it creates this wonderful uncertainty to the events. The screen is
bathed in blues and greys. It also reminded me of the final battle in Excalibur where Arthur faces Mordred for
their apocalyptic showdown. In many ways, this battle is the start of the
apocalypse for Macbeth.
The climax of the film
occurs on a battlefield enshrouded by the smoke of the burning Birnam wood.
Once again the figures of warriors appear and disappear in the smoke. But this
time the world is a blazing orange. The fires of hell are all around Macbeth, a
hell of his own making or a hell always destined for him?
These scenes are striking
and will probably stick in my mind whenever I think about this version of Macbeth.
The witches see all, but what do they know? |
I also liked how Kurzel took
some of the supernatural elements of the story and twisted them in unexpected
ways. In this version, Macbeth has two sons who die, leaving him without heirs.
And don’t worry purists, Kurzel tells their stories through pure visuals, no
new lines were added. The eldest boy dies during the opening battle. Macbeth is
helpless to save the boy. This lad appears during the film. He is the one
offering his father the dagger to slay Duncan in the famous “Is this a dagger I
see before me?” monologue. He also appears as the blood-stained ghost that
tells Macbeth that “none of women born may harm Macbeth”. I really like this
take, as it gives a personal touch to the action, and allows us to understand
Macbeth’s madness.
Even Lady Macbeth’s “out
damn spot” speech is impacted by the appearance of her youngest child, whose
death opens the film. Using these ghostly children is eerie and adds to both
characters in a way I’ve never seen done in this play before.
But I can’t avoid it any
more. I gave this film a 1, and there is a very good reason for that. I wanted
to turn it off. Honestly, I was so frustrated with the viewing experience that
I really considered stopping the film. But I kept hoping it was going to
improve, that Kurzel was setting up his film in an unexpected way and I’d see
what he was doing by the end. But nothing changed and the film limped along.
No time to enjoy our new found power. Let's plot more murders! |
There is very little passion
in this version of Macbeth. This is the story of a man who is
driven by his desire for power. But Fassbender’s performance is cold and aloof.
I see some simmering emotions appear here and there in the first act of the
play, but they didn’t convince me of his desire for power. After the murder of
Duncan, Fassbender plays the king as insane and paranoid. But it is a
performance that still feels cold. A few moments allow us to feel the fear,
horror and rage that the character goes through, but Fassbender often
underplays them.
Lady Macbeth fares little
better. Her key scenes in the first third feel distanced as well. I wasn’t
feeling her desires. A few moments worked well, especially her torment when she
sees the fate of Macduff’s family. But once again these moments were so few.
Both Fassbender and
Cotillard have delivered excellent performances in previous films. So what
happened?
Either Fassbender's falling asleep or I am. |
It was the direction. Nearly
all the lines are delivered slowly, with huge pauses after each sentence ends.
The camera holds on the actor and then switches to the other. You get another
ponderous delivery with so much gravity given to each word you wonder that the
whole film doesn’t turn into a black hole right there. Then another pause as
meaningful looks are shared.
I get it. You’ve got a movie
dealing with murder for power. You’ve got characters who are living in a harsh
and cold world. You’ve got fear dripping from every moment of the story. I can
see how tackling certain key scenes in this manner would work well. But not every
scene.
Case in point. The murder of
Duncan takes forever to unfold. Not only are all the lines delivered in the
slow style, but Macbeth takes his sweet time wandering over to Duncan’s tent
and killing him. The murder itself is brutal and violent (as it should be) but
lacks impact because it took so long to occur. Was Kurzel attempting to build
tension? I’m not sure, but I didn’t see a man destroying his humanity for the
sake of power. I just saw a really slow moving guy suddenly lash out. Didn’t
know he had it in him.
Don't just stand there, do something! |
To compound the problem is
the issue of the accents. I appreciate that everyone went for the Scottish
accent and we got plenty of Scottish actors in the film. Macbeth is the Scottish play so that is great. But even speaking
this slowly I had trouble understanding some characters, and I know this play
really well. My wife is less versed in this play and she had a real hard time
figuring out what they were saying. To be clear, we both watch a lot of films
and television from the British Isles, so accents are not usually that big of a
problem. But man, this was a tough one. I really wonder if it was the sound
mixing that made some of the dialogue sound so muddled.
One thing that I really
think contributed to the issue was the score. Modern film scoring preferences
rear their ugly head again. I don’t want to sound like a Film Score geek
whining here, but we get an atmospheric score instead of a thematic one. Fine,
that can still work. But instead of something that supports the film we get
these odd long drawn out cello performances. They are dissonant reminding me of
work for a horror film. They permeate the score adding additional weight and
dourness to the whole thing. You get moments of lots of low-end string
instruments churning away, creating some tension, but also distancing us from
the emotions. The music feels like oppressive fear from the first moment and
stays oppressive throughout. The result is that the atmosphere has no arc, it
is flat and turgid. Worse it is distracting. I got pulled out of the film many
times wondering what the heck the composer was going for with all that droning.
I will say the adaptation of
the play works fine. This version of Macbeth
has scenes removed and shortened. I didn’t notice anything vital missing, and
this isn’t one of the longer plays to begin with. But the execution makes this
feel like it is ten times longer than it is.
Yeah playing with your sword might be more fun than watching this. |
I’m not sure what Kurzel was
going for here. He has some wonderful imagery and some really interesting
concepts for executing the supernatural elements. I even like how he handled
the witches. They can be tricky. Go too over the top and the whole play feels
silly. But he keeps them very low key and mysterious. I think he could have
gone a bit further with that idea, but what we do get works fine.
The ponderous execution of
the dialogue, the dreary dourness of all the performances (the entire run of
the film) and the overwhelming atmosphere of oppression and importance crushes
the viewer. I didn’t feel a connection here. I didn’t feel any passion here. By
trying to keep things low key, gritty and important, the life is sucked out of
the story. Compare this to Ralph Fiennes powerful and passionate take on Coriolanus and the difference is clear.
You can make a Shakespeare adaptation of Macbeth
work if you embrace the lust for power, embrace the deep fear, embrace the
paranoia and embrace that final moment of nihilism that sends Macbeth into the
blade of Macduff. The emotions are what deliver that final catharsis. Without
them, the story is hollow. Give this one a pass and see Akira Kurosawa’s take
on the same story samurai style. Throne
of Blood captures everything Macbeth
is about.
You want to see Macbeth? I'll show you Macbeth! |
Avoid being foul. Be fair and click an ad before you go.
Shakespeare always represents a challenge to moviemakers. The truth is that most people haven’t read Shakespeare since they were forced to do so in high school; during a play or movie, they are one step behind in unraveling the Elizabethan dialogue. An uninspired production can seem to them more like work than entertainment. Often producers just throw up their hands and order complete rewrites (e.g. “West Side Story” and “10 Things I Hate about You”). Yet, faithful productions can work for modern audiences. But “ponderous” is definitely a killer adjective. The original productions, after all, were NOT intended to be ponderous. MacBeth has so much going for it that is a shame to see a production sink on a rock of boredom. There is no excuse for making MacBeth boring.
ReplyDeleteHaving grown up with the trilled “r’s” and glottal stops of my grandmother from Glasgow, Scottish accents are no problem for me, but is sounds as though must else would be.
One of the most interesting “Macbeths” I’ve seen was an off-Broadway version in Greenwich Village. It was set among gangsters in a 1920s speakeasy. Oh, Lady Macbeth was in drag, the weird sisters were dressed as exotic dancers, and the play was a musical. Will’s iambs were surprisingly adaptable to blues songs. The dialogue was original (they spoke of Scotland, not Chicago, despite the sets, costumes, and music) with only a handful of cuts and one addition (a Sonnet as a blues song): nothing non-Shakespeare was in the dialogue/songs. It worked.
Yet nothing this radical is necessary. A simple college stage production at Drew University worked too.
make that "much else would be"
DeleteYeah making a Shakespeare play boring is something any version should avoid. And I know they didn't go into this with that intent. But I really think they oversold the oppressive mood they created. The whole play doesn't need to be so one note, in fact it should rise and fall but steadily climb to the climax. Again, "Throne of Blood" does this so well. The finale of the film with Mifune facing down his attackers with defiant rage and being peppered with arrows is something you never forget. But the movie builds to that moment. But the time you reach the end of the 2015 version you don't feel the climax is earned. It isn't thrilling or compelling, you're just waiting for it to end.
DeleteI've seen the play live a couple times. The local college does a summer Shakespeare event each year, and their version of Macbeth was very good. Lots of atmospheric sets and cool lighting effects for the ghosts and witches. They had a lot of fun turning it into a haunted house style play. There was even a gore warning on the signs. "There will be blood". Yes indeed.
The other version I saw was a very poor community theater version. Poor acting, hilarious costumes and sets (they called it rehearsal dress style) and a male witch that was chewing so much scenery I swear he was having a fit or something. The capper was when the ghost of Banquo came out in sweats with some catsup... I mean blood, dribbled on his chest, and just gave Macbeth this open mouthed stare.
it took all my power to not start riffing on the whole thing right there. I should have recorded it and made my own MST3K. It was hilariously bad. But even at that point, it was entertaining. It even beat the 2015 version in that way.
That 20s version sounds great! Reminds me of a corporate takeover version of "Julius Caesar" they were putting on in L.A. bout six years ago.
Good review. Kurosawa is an excellent director isn't he? It's been a while since I've seen any Shakespeare. I can't remember the last one I've seen. Shakespeare in Love was a good film, but not based on anything he wrote, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I've always enjoyed Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet and it's been a while since I've seen it.
ReplyDeleteFassbender is a good actor though and I'm choppin' to see his take on Steve Jobs. Slow West was a pretty good film too. In fact he's already racked up a pretty good number of films he's been in.
If you enjoy Shakespeare and haven't seen Michael Wood's documentary, In Search Of Shakespeare, check it out. I've been meaning to re-watch it as well. I used to have a friendly debate with a friend who asked how Shakespeare could have written so many plays and was basically illiterate (or that's the gist of his argument, I paraphrase). Michael Wood addresses a small part of that. My slant is that artistry lands willy nilly. It's sort of God-given or there's no explicable reason for it. Sure it can be honed, but seems to be something mysterious. Besides I'm too much a romantic to think otherwise.
Kurosawa is one of my favorites. I keep meaning to write a review or two about some of my favorite movies from his filmography, but so much has already been said and said so well, I'm not sure I can add to it.
DeleteNot all of his movies are masterpieces (no matter what some critics say) and he really takes his time to set up stories. But when it all clicks it is hard to dismiss "Seven Samurai", "Throne of Blood", "Yojimbo", "Sanjuro", "Hidden Fortress", "Rashomon", or "Ran". I've seen of few of his non-period films and while they are good, they usually have an element that doesn't quite click with me. "Stray Dog" has a great first third and final third, but drags in the middle. "High and Low" is excellent in the first half, but loses some steam when it becomes a police procedural. "The Bad Sleep Well" is essentially "Hamlet" put in 50s Japan, and has a great core concept, but really bogs down about half way through.
One of his most unusual films, "Dreams" is a visual playground. So many different things going on in it. Not all of it works, but he creates images that you'll never forget. That huge rainbow in the first story always pops into my head when someone mentions that movie.
I've never heard of that documentary. Sounds like a good one.