Macbeth (Film Review)
Nov. 1st, 2015 09:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakNo Doctor Who review this week, because it's another two parter, and in this case what I think of it REALLY depends on what the solution will be, because the allegory is really heavy handed and potentially disastrous.
However, last night I watched the latest cinematic version of the Scottish Play, aka the one with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard.
Thoughts: overall, this strikes me as director Justin Kurzel's GrimDark Shakespeare fanfiction, err, vid. Not that Macbeth is a bundle of laughs in any case, and any screen Shakespeare ends up having lots of lines cut (unless it's Kenneth Branagh wanting to make a point about Hamlet), but not so coincidentally, this Macbeth is lacking any and all of what few lighter moments there are. Which means no porter scene at all, no precocious Macduff kids chattering away before doom arrives. Considering the porter scene in particular is always held up as evidence of Shakespeare being a genius (i.e. it's the most suspenseful, tense moment of the play, Macbeth has just committed regicide, there's KNOCKING, and suddenly! Drunk Comedy Scene!), this tells you something about Kurzel (and his scriptwriter team's) idea of how to do drama versus good old Will's.
Otoh team Kurzel even added to the body count, ways of execution and motivation. The opening scene is a funeral for the Macbeths' child (thereby solving ye olde contradiction between "I have given suck" and "he has no children" in ways that doesn't evoke actual history, where historical Lady Macbeth, Gruach, had a child by her first marriage), watched over by the witches who speak a few lines from the play's opening scene, and the implication that losing their child is partly what motivates the Macbeths and already started to unhinge them is there through the rest of the movie. The opening funeral scene later is doubled, and this one goes beneath a spoiler cut because it's in the last third, Kurzel-only, and maybe someone does care to be spoilered. I already mentioned that the scene at Macduff's castle with the kids is gone. Instead, Lady Macduff and children are seen running through the woods pursued by Macbeth's men, then we cut to them getting executed by Macbeth burning them alive in front of his castle in what recalls the funeral pire of the Macbeth kid in the opening scene while Lady Macbeth looks on horrified (and breaks). I know the movie was conceived before the latest season of Game of Thrones was broadcast, but I have the irresistable image in mind of Team Kurzel (the credits list no less than three scriptwriters, hence team) watching and thinking "yes! burning children alive is the one horror Will failed to come up with! Let's use that!.
Speaking of history, though, the movie attempts to go for a "primitive Scotland" atmosphere by excising any and all contemporary to Shakespeare stuff. Except for the royal castle in the second half of the movie, there aren't any castles at all, Macbeth while he's still a thane has a settlement of wooden huts/houses. (Lady M's reference to "my battlements" is duly gone as well.) No dialogue between the Doctor and the Not!Lady in waiting (who is reduced to a silent female companion of the queen's). Oh, and (entirely correctly) no kilts, in case you feared there were. Though everyone but Cotillard goes for a Scottish accent, which is wavering in Fassbender's case, though the rest is more steadfast.
Acting: Fassbender does his thing of intense brooding with undercurrent of emotional turnmoil, which he does as easily as breathing, but because that's already how he STARTS, there isn't much of an emotional arc. Also the film is the type of Macbeth production which actually visualizes M's hallucinations. (I've seen productions where the dead Banquo actually shows up, and productions where he doesn't, and let me tell you, the later always worked better for me. And showing the dagger Macbeth imagines never is as good as relying on your leading man, not to mention it patronizes the audience.) Marion Cottillard isn't as hard as she could be early on, nor really insane and in pieces later. She doesn't sleepwalk, she returns to what used to be the Glamis estate and speaks all the lines of the sleepwalking scene awake as if musing about her past, until the camera reveals that she's directing them at her imagined dead child. No suicide as in the play, either; she dies in bed, leaving Macbeth to speak the "tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" monologue at her corpse while cradling it. (Basically she dies of broken heart over her husband's fall a la Padmé in Revenge of the Sith? Now the Skywalkers and the Macbeths, there's a comparison I never thought I'd make.) In a movie that's GRIM with capital letters, it comes across as an odd restraint or maybe as the wish to keep your leading lady sympathetic.
Another thing: this is a movie with a fondness for male cheek touching, forehead touching, and men cradling each other. When the messengers arrive with news for Macbeth and Banquo, Macbeth is busy cradling a fellow warrior whom Banquo patches up. Duncan cradles Macbeth's cheek (and before that of the rebellious previous thane of Cawdor while pronouncing sentence on him), Macbeth and Banquo do it to each other, Macbeth holds the slain Duncan and so forth. You get the impression someone really really liked both the "I know it was you!" scene between Michael and Fredo from Godfather II and Craig!Bond's thing for cradling people ('Vesper, Mathis, M) a lot. Or, to put my highbrow hat on, Kurzel is going for a correlation between death and physical expression of affection. (Not surprisingly, the Macbeths end up having sex while conspiring Duncan's murder.)
Influences of previous film versions: Polanski for the final twist. No, it's not Ross as in Polanski, but Fleance, but the implication is the same. (And presumably Team Wurzel wanted to tie up the Witches' prophecy re: Banquo's issue, presumably correctly assuming that most of their target audience don't know Banquo's issue were meant to be the Stuart dynasty.) The famous 1970s Trevor Nunn production (that starred Judi Dench and Ian McKellen and still is my favourite of the play) for individualizing the Witches and going for mother-maiden-crone, though Wurzel also adds a silent child witch and a baby for good measure.
Unholy influence of Zack Snyder: slo mo and frozen battle scenes and key points intercut by fast moving ones.
Trivia: you know, Tolkien came up with the Ents because as a boy he was disappointed when the "when Birnham Wood comes up to Dunsinane" prophecy didn't get fulfilled by the trees literally moving towards Dunsinane? Tolkien would have been horrified by Wurzels innovation on how the prophecy gets fulfilled, but it makes for the showdown visual he wants. The forest is set on fire instead, which dark orange background while Macbeth and Macduff are duelling. Considering Wurzel goes for Scotland at this point is literally drenched in blood, it makes thematic scene.
In conclusion: not a must among Shakespeare film versions, and I've watched both Fassbender and Cotillard doing better, but it should provide a lot of vid makers with material.
However, last night I watched the latest cinematic version of the Scottish Play, aka the one with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard.
Thoughts: overall, this strikes me as director Justin Kurzel's GrimDark Shakespeare fanfiction, err, vid. Not that Macbeth is a bundle of laughs in any case, and any screen Shakespeare ends up having lots of lines cut (unless it's Kenneth Branagh wanting to make a point about Hamlet), but not so coincidentally, this Macbeth is lacking any and all of what few lighter moments there are. Which means no porter scene at all, no precocious Macduff kids chattering away before doom arrives. Considering the porter scene in particular is always held up as evidence of Shakespeare being a genius (i.e. it's the most suspenseful, tense moment of the play, Macbeth has just committed regicide, there's KNOCKING, and suddenly! Drunk Comedy Scene!), this tells you something about Kurzel (and his scriptwriter team's) idea of how to do drama versus good old Will's.
Otoh team Kurzel even added to the body count, ways of execution and motivation. The opening scene is a funeral for the Macbeths' child (thereby solving ye olde contradiction between "I have given suck" and "he has no children" in ways that doesn't evoke actual history, where historical Lady Macbeth, Gruach, had a child by her first marriage), watched over by the witches who speak a few lines from the play's opening scene, and the implication that losing their child is partly what motivates the Macbeths and already started to unhinge them is there through the rest of the movie. The opening funeral scene later is doubled, and this one goes beneath a spoiler cut because it's in the last third, Kurzel-only, and maybe someone does care to be spoilered. I already mentioned that the scene at Macduff's castle with the kids is gone. Instead, Lady Macduff and children are seen running through the woods pursued by Macbeth's men, then we cut to them getting executed by Macbeth burning them alive in front of his castle in what recalls the funeral pire of the Macbeth kid in the opening scene while Lady Macbeth looks on horrified (and breaks). I know the movie was conceived before the latest season of Game of Thrones was broadcast, but I have the irresistable image in mind of Team Kurzel (the credits list no less than three scriptwriters, hence team) watching and thinking "yes! burning children alive is the one horror Will failed to come up with! Let's use that!.
Speaking of history, though, the movie attempts to go for a "primitive Scotland" atmosphere by excising any and all contemporary to Shakespeare stuff. Except for the royal castle in the second half of the movie, there aren't any castles at all, Macbeth while he's still a thane has a settlement of wooden huts/houses. (Lady M's reference to "my battlements" is duly gone as well.) No dialogue between the Doctor and the Not!Lady in waiting (who is reduced to a silent female companion of the queen's). Oh, and (entirely correctly) no kilts, in case you feared there were. Though everyone but Cotillard goes for a Scottish accent, which is wavering in Fassbender's case, though the rest is more steadfast.
Acting: Fassbender does his thing of intense brooding with undercurrent of emotional turnmoil, which he does as easily as breathing, but because that's already how he STARTS, there isn't much of an emotional arc. Also the film is the type of Macbeth production which actually visualizes M's hallucinations. (I've seen productions where the dead Banquo actually shows up, and productions where he doesn't, and let me tell you, the later always worked better for me. And showing the dagger Macbeth imagines never is as good as relying on your leading man, not to mention it patronizes the audience.) Marion Cottillard isn't as hard as she could be early on, nor really insane and in pieces later. She doesn't sleepwalk, she returns to what used to be the Glamis estate and speaks all the lines of the sleepwalking scene awake as if musing about her past, until the camera reveals that she's directing them at her imagined dead child. No suicide as in the play, either; she dies in bed, leaving Macbeth to speak the "tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" monologue at her corpse while cradling it. (Basically she dies of broken heart over her husband's fall a la Padmé in Revenge of the Sith? Now the Skywalkers and the Macbeths, there's a comparison I never thought I'd make.) In a movie that's GRIM with capital letters, it comes across as an odd restraint or maybe as the wish to keep your leading lady sympathetic.
Another thing: this is a movie with a fondness for male cheek touching, forehead touching, and men cradling each other. When the messengers arrive with news for Macbeth and Banquo, Macbeth is busy cradling a fellow warrior whom Banquo patches up. Duncan cradles Macbeth's cheek (and before that of the rebellious previous thane of Cawdor while pronouncing sentence on him), Macbeth and Banquo do it to each other, Macbeth holds the slain Duncan and so forth. You get the impression someone really really liked both the "I know it was you!" scene between Michael and Fredo from Godfather II and Craig!Bond's thing for cradling people ('Vesper, Mathis, M) a lot. Or, to put my highbrow hat on, Kurzel is going for a correlation between death and physical expression of affection. (Not surprisingly, the Macbeths end up having sex while conspiring Duncan's murder.)
Influences of previous film versions: Polanski for the final twist. No, it's not Ross as in Polanski, but Fleance, but the implication is the same. (And presumably Team Wurzel wanted to tie up the Witches' prophecy re: Banquo's issue, presumably correctly assuming that most of their target audience don't know Banquo's issue were meant to be the Stuart dynasty.) The famous 1970s Trevor Nunn production (that starred Judi Dench and Ian McKellen and still is my favourite of the play) for individualizing the Witches and going for mother-maiden-crone, though Wurzel also adds a silent child witch and a baby for good measure.
Unholy influence of Zack Snyder: slo mo and frozen battle scenes and key points intercut by fast moving ones.
Trivia: you know, Tolkien came up with the Ents because as a boy he was disappointed when the "when Birnham Wood comes up to Dunsinane" prophecy didn't get fulfilled by the trees literally moving towards Dunsinane? Tolkien would have been horrified by Wurzels innovation on how the prophecy gets fulfilled, but it makes for the showdown visual he wants. The forest is set on fire instead, which dark orange background while Macbeth and Macduff are duelling. Considering Wurzel goes for Scotland at this point is literally drenched in blood, it makes thematic scene.
In conclusion: not a must among Shakespeare film versions, and I've watched both Fassbender and Cotillard doing better, but it should provide a lot of vid makers with material.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 11:42 am (UTC)Well, that scene on GoT already made me question a lot of my life choices, so this might indeed be a Macbeth version I'd skip.
About Lady M's death: any chance it could be read as "withering away" from depression? "My husband is v. evil now, I must depart this sinful earth" seems uncharacteristically lame for her.
Speaking of Macbeth versions, have you ever seen the modern take with James McAvoy and Keeley Hawes, which turns Macbeth into a sous chef (!) who murders his boss, because he keeps stealing his ideas and tries to hold him back? It's... interesting to say the least. Richard Armitage plays Macduff (the head waiter) and is sadly a bit wasted to that part, and McAvoy is kind of odd, but Keeley Hawes is a revelation.
ETA: I almost forgot, the best part are the witches who are here represented by a pair of garbage collectors.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 03:22 pm (UTC)"Withering away from depression" would also work, but my impression was that the movie did tie it to her horror re: Macbeth burning the Macduffs. Now mind you, you can argue that in the text the Macduffs' deaths had an impact on Lady M ("The thane of Fife had a wife... where is she now?" during the sleepwalking scene), but so had Duncan's death ("who'd have thought that the old man had so much blood in him?"), which it hasn't in the movie.
Getting sidetracked now: an essay (written years ago), I don't remember by whom, argued that the key difference between the Macbeths is that Lady M doesn't have any imagination and M does. So he knows ahead of time that no, it won't be that one murder and then everything is fine and dandy and they can start their happily ever after. And he goes to pieces before and immediately after because he's capable of imagining everything going worse and worse. This reaches its climax with the banquet scene and him seeing Banquo. But that's it. Not that he's happy or less paranoid (au contraire) afterwards, but he's basically accepted he's dammed and in the "on to reigning in hell now" stage.
Whereas Lady M starts out eminently practical and can't imagine being tortured by her conscience. They'll kill Duncan, become King and Queen, and that's that; she's only afraid of M's scruples getting in the way before they get there. She certainly can't imagine him deaing with his scruples by going ever stronger in the opposite direction, or that she herself would be bothered by her own part in the original murder. Plus she's used to their dynamic; he's the one with scruples, she's the one who urges him on. She can't imagine this changing. So when he starts to order kills without her imput and keeps seeing dead people walking, it throws her off balance and gets her thinking, and from there it's a one way ticket to nightmare road and eventual suicide (in the play).
no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:52 pm (UTC)I agree about the deaths of the Macduff family having an impact on Lady M. in the play, but I felt that was more her inability of dealing with the consequences of their ambition, than her being devastated that her husband is turning out to be capable of doing ever more horrible things. She has this moment before they kill Duncan where she asks to have her tedious womanly compassion taken away so she can do it, and I guess that didn't work quite as easily as she hoped? It wouldn't have occured to me to see it as lack of imagination on her part, more a willful ignoring of what the consequences could do to them. I guess for me it's more openly guilt, with a helping of "this won't bother me if I just repress it."
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-03 12:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-03 11:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 12:09 am (UTC)I think my favourite scene was the unexpected change which had Malcolm walking into Duncan's tent and finding Macbeth with the corpse - because it is so clear that Macbeth has done it, and Malcolm knows, and Macbeth knows that he knows, but Malcolm is so terrified that all he wants to do is get away from this smiling madman.
That made me think that you could play the scenes after the murder on the premise that most of the thanes know perfectly well that Macbeth did it, but many of them are willing to go along with it because they didn't think Duncan was up to the job (as he doesn't lead his troops into battle any more, if he ever did) and don't expect Malcolm's going to be much better, whereas Macbeth's a proven soldier and leader; they only begin to have qualms when they realise that he isn't stopping with Duncan... I don't think I've seen it done this way, but I think it might work.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:54 am (UTC)Re: most of the thanes knowing and playing along; I could see that, especially since before Duncan makes Malcolm the Prince of Cumberland Macbeth has a realistic hope of becoming the successor anyway, Scotland not having primogeniture at this point. If a production went this way, they could even make the tedious scene where Malcolm is trolling Macduff later more interesting, because what if Malcolm actually is telling the truth instead of trolling? Or mostly the truth? But I haven't seen it done this way, either.
You know which other regicide/ursurper I could see having the silent assent of much of the court? Claudius, in Hamlet. Especially once young Hamlet comes home and showcases instability, thereby proving he'd have made a terrible king. And we only have young Hamlet's word for old Hamlet being the most wonderful of the wonderful.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 12:48 pm (UTC)I always thought Malcolm was Malcolm the Maiden, but apparently that was his great-grandson. But there's no particular reason to think Malcolm's going to be a wonderful king, unless you're used to a primogeniture set-up and assume that God will have made the old king's eldest son the ideal successor.
Do you know Cavafy's poem King Claudius?
PS I was wondering about bastard son, because the young man appeared in Macbeth's visions when he was getting upset about his own line not continuing - but clearly Lady M wasn't thinking about him, so he had no special meaning for her. Macbeth might have been thinking that he could have had him legitimised... But I suppose he might have been able to adopt a surrogate son (perhaps a nephew?) as the next best thing. Presumably Lady M has been unable to have more children, and in this scenario Fleance is That Annoying Brat who gets on their nerves because he's the same age the Macbeths' child would have been.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:14 pm (UTC)