The Tragedy of Macbeth

No, I won't.

This play has some good lines but has a very badly constructed plot.

All four film versions really struggled to get any sense from it.

Dreadfully dull and I know how it ends, so it's kinda ploddinly predictable too.

Can't wait!!

A Scottish African-American and a Scottish Midwestern American will surely unlock the key and knock some reality into this ridiculously-plotted, 400 year old dilemma of a play.

The Polanski version was the version that made some sense.

The version with Simone Signoret was so unintelligible the audience were tittering in the aisles.

[quote] Something wicked this way comes.

What does that mean?

Apart from 'something wicked is coming this way'?

Looks amazing

Wow. What's with the "bad plot" posts?! Great and honored soldier gets too big for his britches and wants to be king. Murderous ambition, a nagging wife, and three old spooky women override his doubts. So he kills the king and gets the throne; orders the murder of his friend and fellow soldier and becomes hallucinatory; orders the slayings of a mother and child and incites revenge; drives his wife to suicide; and finally he himself is killed. Dramatic catharsis is achieved.

The supernatural elements were not foreign to an Elizabethan audience. And political assassinations are not foreign to us.

R6, Why does it need to mean more? The reference is to Macbeth.

I watched it last night. I like Shakespeare a lot, and that includes Macbeth. I didn't love this version.

The cinematography is striking. The high-contrast black and white and the geometry of the castle are visually imposing. The crows make sense in the visual world created.

The choice of making the screen dimensions almost square is an odd one to me mainly because I was thinking "was this made for Instagram?" throughout.

The decision to make the three weird sisters into one weird sister seems like an unnecessary flair. I feel like it may have been done solely for the shot of the one bearing two reflections in the water...that's not a good enough reason. The actress was pretty captivating, but I didn't like that she was made to be a contortionist while speaking. Why?

The actors are fine, but just fine IMO. The writing is not IMO, and it's hard to know where to distinguish between one and other in terms of criticism. This is a very conversational-sounding approach to Shakespeare, which does make it more approachable. I can give it that. But it also sucked the magic and the philosophy out of it. The best thing about Macbeth IMO is the undefined import of the supernatural. There's so much of it and it is so varied and so important, but it's also written in such a way that it could all be real and it mostly be psychological, predictions notwithstanding.

This version killed off the floating knife that entranced and lured Macbeth to Duncan. Not only was it made just symbolic, but Macbeth didn't seem to really question whether his vision of it was real or not; it was just a metaphor to him. Boo.

Most upsettingly, why the fuck did they practically neuter Lady Macbeth? She was boring. I see that most reviews are glowing and one is not—the New Yorker, and I agree with the New Yorker. I felt like I was watching Frances McDormand doing an acting exercise while she was sleepwalking and washing her hands. It was almost embarrassing. I don't blame her. Changing the dialogue to sound like everyday speech takes the encantatory feeling away, which strips away all mysticism and much danger. Shakespeare's language is not best made contemporary not because you shouldn't update early Modern English, but because IT IS POETRY. Joel Coen sliced and diced Shakespeare's verse and it just made everything flat, and no amount of expressionist style could make up for that.

It's not the worst thing I've ever seen. It's not terrible. The language was much easier to follow than with most Shakespeare, so I can see how some might like it more than most Shakespeare. But I love Shakespeare's writing for the playful use of language and the complex ideas he weaves together both in the ways we think consciously and in the ways that dreams operate. If I had dreams like this version of Macbeth, I would really dread going to sleep.

R10, Are you telling me Joel Coen and Company changed Shakespeare's language?! And omitted "Is this a dagger I see before me"? And flattened the iambic rhythm to common prose-speak?

As for the Three Weird Sisters, they should be literally three old women. Having a single contortionist does not enhance their import or meaning, so why bother with the affectation?

How was the dinner with Banquo's Ghost handled, as a scene and by Denzel? How did you like the Macbeth--Macduff confrontation?

I'm probably going to hate this movie now, for I was anticipating a faithful rendition with great actors. You've made my mind "full of scorpions," r10!

R11 must be a 'prating knave' to expect this movie to be a 'faithful rendition with great actors'.

R11 The dagger is still there, sort of. But also not really.

One good thing about the new Macbeth: the dagger scene reminded me how funny AbFab is and I just watched the "Door Handle" episode.

I agree, R7. I'm really looking forward to this.

[quote] Looks amazing

Yes.

It's in black and white. And all filmed in a studio in Los Angeles.

What about the moving forest of trees at the climax?

That’s when the Ents march on Dunsinane.

"Unsex me here!"

Who was the slim guy in the stunning black shift? My husband says he’s not in the original play.

SHEATH, I meant.

Sheath?

Well, that was a crashing disappointment. Pointless exercise in stylization for stylization's sake that manages to lose both the beauty of the language and the psychological tension of the story. I'm actually stunned that they fucked this up so badly.

[quote] Pointless exercise in stylization for stylization's sake

This new pointless stylized studio-bound exercise is rip off of this pointless stylized studio-bound failure from 1954.

I'm really not interested. Wish I were. I just saw the opera Macbeth, and that'll hold me for a good long while. I can't imagine why they keep committing the same play to film when there are so many versions already. Throne of Blood was a very good one.

I loved it. Looks amazing, and sounds amazing too. Denzel gives a great, lived-in performance. Frances M doesn’t make quite the same mark but is still good. Compelling on every level.

[quote] Denzel gives a great, lived-in performance

Is he lived in like a Scotsman is lived-in?

[quote] the three weird sisters

As portrayed by Fran Lebowitz