The Tragedy of Macbeth reviewed by Mark Kermode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Mark Kermode reviews The Tragedy of Macbeth. Returning from war, Macbeth receives a prophecy from three witches that he will one day become King of Scotland.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
If you like this video, why not subscribe to our podcast for more reviews, interviews and general wittering of the highest order:
BBC Sounds: www.bbc.co.uk/...
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Twitter: @Wittertainment
www.bbc.co.uk/5...
Fridays at 2:30pm on BBC 5 live. 
Кино
This was the one Shakespeare play we basically had to memorize in school, so I remember it clearer than most of the others. Personally, I loved this version of it: highlights were how Coen handled the witch(es), the dreamlike quality imbued by the lighting and cinematography, and performances by McDormand, Gleeson, Hunter, Root, etc. Washington was good but surprisingly understated I thought. While I agree with the comment that this version seemed to be siloed a bit, each character monologuing their way through the play - I felt that this version of the story was meant to feel more cerebral and moody, and perhaps that was the reason for the approach.
I love the set design of this movie. It felt like a play
I personally really liked it. I think it might have been too abstract for some people but I personally thought it was a refreshing take. All the cast is fantastic. I really liked the visuals of it
I like how they create something like it's a play. The lighting and the cinematography in that movie are just amazing, a lot to learn from that. I never watched the actual play, so can't say anything about how that... But I think why they perform like they are isolated is because they are trying to make it more like a play. Maybe I am wrong
It was probably at least partially to make it easier to film during covid.
@@jackiechannel6351 yeah!! Maybe
true. even in the very last second, before it cuts to the credits, you could hear a switch going off as if the theater is about to close.
@@carlramos9445 exactly
"It's like Marcel Marceau is in the room"
Simon's deadpan made my day.
Ooo I was hoping Mark would review this. Kathryn Hunter was phenomenal. I get Mark’s take on it - the scariest thing about it was Kathryn’s portrayal of the witches and the birds - maybe not seeing the ghost at the banquet contributed to this. Had I not done a refresher on the plot / meaning of the dialogue I would have been lost. But I loved the cinematography, that voiceovers weren’t used for the soliloquys. It’s got me interested in comparing the various film interpretations and I did see Justin Kurzel’s some years back.
Given your point of view, I think that you've neglected to mention that Gleeson was one of the few who appeared to engage his fellow actors as if in natural conversation. I found his performance quite compelling.
You can tell that all the actors in this movie actually understood and correctly interpreted Shakespearean language. It was natural and incredibly easy to listen to. When you watch BL’s Romeo and Juliet you can tell that many of the actors are just reeling of lines and they have no idea what they are saying. I thought The Tragedy of Macbeth was stunning, noir perfection.
Got to admit, still love that little scene when Macbeth washes his hands and as he continues to scrub away from his act his voice begins to become less controlled and his hands shake until he yells out and just throws the bowl. Strongest moment for me and it was certainly worth the price of admission. Though, I understand where Mark is coming from. It's been adapted so many times and if you're interested, you'll find that one that'll tell it best for you. Also, disagree with any props to Baz's "Romeo+Juliet" in that regard with it's dialogue.
Macbeth. Not McBeth. Mac = Scottish. Not Mc= Irish. Both meaning ‘son of’. Macbeth (by William Shakespeare) was very loosely based upon real historical characters. There was a King of Scotland (or at least Moray and the Isles during the Viking invasion of Cnut) named Macbeth in the 11th century, but very little is known of him.
@@dalriadaskillen Ha ha. I had a feeling I butchered that. Apologizes on that.
Justin Kurzel's adaptation is very good; as is Kurosawa's, as is Polanski's. But Macbeth's Macbeth and it's such a compelling story; it's no wonder it's been well adapted.
so beautifully shot! A total work of art
He's absolutely spot on, in terms of zero interaction between characters - almost like each individual is doing each performance in front of their own mirror. Ended up feeling like a school play.
Sadly I have to agree despite having looked forward to the release. Even the dialogue scenes were just close ups of faces to focus more on the monologue. I also fear that Denzel Washington struggled with shakespearian english. In Romeo+Juliet the actors spoke the original text like they were having a normal conversation - in this movie they went for ponderous monologing. The final nail for me was the costume design (sorry, pet peeve of mine). For all the marvelous set design and brilliant cinematography the costume department was phoning it in. Poor Ross couldn't even move in that tube they gave him to wear and the royal cloak looked downright bargain bin.
I really really liked it, even more than I thought I would . Loved Kathryn Hunter and also Alex Hassell as well .
Standout performance was one person playing weird sisters, says it all. It shouldn't have been .unbalances whole play, which is called Macbeth .
Great acting from some of the best to ever do it.
I agree with Mark about Kathryn Hunter's performance. She was excellent.
Yeah, she stole the show.
The trailers really got me hooked but i'm rather disappointed with the exception of Kathryn Hunter. I'm with you Mark.
This is probably something people would scoff at, but I turned the subtitles on for this and for me that might be the best way to watch a film of a Shakespeare play. Pretty much like a comic book. I've never had the pleasure of seeing a decent production of a Shakespeare play and hearing the dialogue has always been a problem. Also, instead of putting the captions at the bottom, position them up by the heads and mouths, so your eye is not darting back and forth and your attention isn't divided. This could be done in less of an intrusive way than you're probably picturing. More typographical, but still functional.
I thought I was alone in my feelings on this film. Thank you Mark for articulating so well how I felt about the movie.
Carl Theodore Dreyer - check and double check. Noir - check. Expressionism - check. For me even a hint in places of Frank Miller. Not only is Kathryn Hunter extraordinary, the conception and staging and cinematography and sound design of the her scenes are exceptional. Casting two reflections in the puddle before her, and being perched in the rafters are moments I will not soon forget.
But the disconnect between the characters is disconcerting and alienating. More than that, playing MacBeth so understated and so tired and so curled inward emotionally is, I guess, a decision, but one that does not work for me in this heightened story. Certainly Washington is capable of a more energetic and explosive performance. And MacDormand’s performance seems shockingly unmemorable. For a film so visually engaging the film feels like it needs direction. What you note as the characters being separated from each other also reads to me as actors all performing in their own different and distinct versions of the film.
Something else that escalates this separation of characters seems to me to be an over use of singles and closeups.
I saw Throne of Blood in 35mm the day before I saw TOM and was struck by how powerful the handful of closeups in the film are, how devastating they can be when used sparingly.
Many have written of the tendency when adapting high drama and musicals and opera to film of downplaying the emotions and naturalizing the acting style for the medium of film and how this can completely subvert the power of the material (see Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods). Coen and company seem to fall into this trap. By the time MacBeth and MacDuff meet MacBeth seems to have already given up. It’s a weary and wearying performance
Another takeaway from seeing both Throne of Blood and TOM together is how powerful an understated performance can be when properly integrated into a film as a whole. Lady MacBeth in TOB is terrifying in her stillness and coldness in comparison to the liveliness of the characters that surround her.
All in all, TOM is stunningly visualized but falls short as drama I feel. Would love to see an edit that turns the film into a silent movie
Like your comments. Kermode mentioned film noir, but not Orson Welles' 1948 version of this, which I saw on TV as a kid and got me into reading Shakespeare. Coupla years ago I reread the play and was shocked by the plot-holes and after-writer fill-ins to (barely) stitch it together from the way-shortened stage script for James !st which is all they had to do the first folio edition. Amazing that this mess has served for hundreds of years. Thurston must have noticed the same to start his movie with the Macbeths burying their dead one born. I wrote a version trimming the drama-less exposition scenes but adding - in Shakesperean style - the missing motivational confessions according to the historic origin of characters like Lady Macbeth and more explicable motivations of the McDuffs and the 'witches', who were, in my eye, just canny about 'men's business'. So sad to hear Kermode's summation of this half-Coen effort, which I don't doubt.
Sorry, Kursel, not Thurston.
@ProfBowen: " What you note as the characters being separated from each other also reads to me as actors all performing in their own different and distinct versions of the film.
Something else that escalates this separation of characters seems to me to be an over use of singles and closeups. "
Slightly better than a Zoom performance?
I would disagree slightly with the idea that it's a play centered on interaction between characters. There's a sense you can get as you're reading it that each character - well, particularly Macbeth and Lady Macbeth - is in their own lonely place. A little like Hamlet - the only reality amidst a bunch of play actors. Especially as the play goes on, anyway.
I've heard it said that it's a play that is hard to do wrong, but I've watched something like eight screen adaptations and have found most of them wanting in one area or another. The one-take Bela Tarr version, though you miss out on the English language, at least captures the play's intensity. The Fassbender version is also bloodless. Very mopey, slow, and diffuse. I would probably still choose the BBC tv version with Nicol Williamson and Jane Lapotaire or the Orson Welles version.
@@akimboblues7527 I have mixed feelings about it. A bit like this new version with Denzel Washington, I don't really feel that the leads fulfill the potential of the roles. But I've been meaning to watch it again. What do you think of it?
I didn't know Tarr made a Macbeth film! That makes me very excited
@@siddharthm6410 Yes. Although it's maybe not what you'd expect. It was made for tv, I think. Very tight tv frame, which adds to the claustrophobic atmosphere. Dark, grainy color. What makes it interesting is that it was filmed in a single take. Or two, maybe it was, including a short introductory scene.
@@akimboblues7527 You're right - every version expands your understanding of the text. Even this new version... I didn't think much of Denzel's Macbeth at first, but I've been thinking about it, and even a sort of lethargic Macbeth, one that doesn't really climb to the expected heights of nihilistic fury, is still within the scope of possibility for the role. I still don't think too much of his line-readings, which feel quite rushed, but some of the things he does when not speaking - when Duncan announces Malcolm will be his heir, for example - are really superb.
Haven't seen it, but as a Coen bros. devotee I'll check it out. The trailers for the film put me off, however. It felt more like one of those obnoxiously artsy cologne TV adverts, missing only a close up of Johnny Depp striking a longing/regret filled "what the hell am I doing here?" pose.
I liked it. It's certainly not the best film I've seen recently, which is the fantastic Licorice Pizza, but seeing Denzel Washington going absolutely full tilt is always a joy to behold. Corey Hawkins and Harry Melling also giving great supporting performances.
Mark knocked it straight on the head here
I saw this yesterday, I thought it was visually gorgeous and had some great performances but felt really empty.
"My issue with it is that while the individual performances are good, they appear to be individual performances." Yes, exactly!
Really like the 71 Polanski version ...it's like a folk horror movie .
I love the way you break it down from all The Hype
Of the suggestion that Americans can't do Shakespeare, may I direct the Jury's attention to the rather excellent Orson Welles version of Macbeth. I'm surprised it didn't get a mention.
*Looking forward to this one.*
Denzel is great here, especially when he goes "street" to show us a Macbeth who's a seasoned killer up against something profoundly unkillable. But in the several scenes where he has to play Macbeth's blood guilt, he seems to be rattling off lines without taking the time to understand, feel and inhabit them. It's here the text could have used the judicious trimming that elsewhere plays up his strengths.
Studying this in school, looking forward to seeing it.
I like Patrick Stewart's version; very powerful.
I haven’t seen it yet but the trailer looks amazing. I’m looking forward to it.
I think this movie got hit hard by the pandemic, I will still watch it out of love of those involved but sad to hear this and other reactions.
PLEASE go and see it at the cinema despite Kermode’s review!!!
I must admit, I'm rather surprised at Mark's opinion of the film, since he and I often share very similar views on films. I expected him to love it as much as I did, but now I am very curious as to where the difference in our viewing experiences lies
Maybe the fact that I had never seen an adaptation of Macbeth before, and that every part of the story was new to me, added to my experience, but I can't know that for sure
I agree with Mark on this one.
I agree with Simon.
Me too, couldn’t understand why everyone was raving about it.
THANK YOU!
Absolutely stunning elements, but no heart.
(Esp. from Denzel, who is carrying the story)
The Macbeths are kind of meant to be heartless though. That's like watching House of Cards and saying that you think that there was no heart. Lol
@@richierich7229 "The Macbeths are kind of meant to be heartless though." No, they are not. That is false.
Whilst watching the film I couldn’t get away from the questions plaguing me: “what are we doing here?”; why Macbeth, why now?”…..The film didn’t even attempt to answer these questions for me, and as such it never went further than merely a technical exercise.
Not seen the film yet but I’ve thought about the Tomorrow and tomorrow speech multiple times during these covid years. I’m holding out hope the film will speak to me. Macbeth’s sense that life can seem meaningless even after you have achieved all worldly power seems very timely.
I wanted very much to like this adaptation. The set design is, I suppose, visionary, but ... Without Denzel Washington, the entire film falls into a flat grayness. That said, in the second half of the film, Washington is worth sitting through the rest.
The language in Baz Luhrmann‘s ‘Romeo + Juliet’ “zings” and “flies off the screen”? Are you really sure about that Mark? I have always thought the delivery of the Shakespearean verse in that film to be pretty dreadful. All of the actors (with the exception of the ever wonderful Pete Posthlewaite) seem to either mumble or shout their lines. Half of the time they don’t seem to know what they’re even saying! I’ve met quite a few classical actors who feel the same about the performances and even Roger Ebert said as much on his initial review of the film. Despite loving the visuals and energy of Lurhmann’s contemporary interpretation of Shakespeare’s play, the vocal delivery of the dialogue has always been the WORST part of the film for me.
As someone with a degree in English language and literature his comment about Romeo + Juliet's language and performances blew my mind. I thought it was popularly regarded as one of the worst modern Shakespeare adaptations, Especially, in terms of the performances (Pete Posthlewaite notwithstanding).
Macbeth indeed needs to be RRRWWwr
Can't wait to watch this. Wonder why the other Cohen didn't join this project though...
I think he’s done making movies at the moment, or at least had something else he was working on. I remember reading something about him doing something for the stage.
@@Datjewboi He's doing Moliere. Just joking.
a series of cologne commercials with a macbeth theme
Washington and McDormand are way too old for these roles. Kathryn Hunter along with the cinematography are the only reasons to see this film.
I don't agree. They certainly looked very regnal in the film. Age is only a number.
I suppose age is inly a number, but most people at the time did not grow old and a warrior like Macbeth would have been a young man full of violent energy.
I don't understand why people are so positive about this. I think it looked like an episode of The Twilight Zone. Denzel Washington barely acted at all. Why was Ross the apparent controller of everything? Macduff was good. But overall, they were all way too understated. I didn't believe Denzel at all in this role.
In the time of smartphones, social media and Covid quarantines, multiple soliloquies aren't surprising.
As stated in an earlier reply: 'Shakespeare by Zoom'
I wasn't impressed by Washington in the slightest!
I guess I’m stupid but I didn’t understand the Shakespeare dialogue at all. Also Even though the cinematography was stunning I was extremely bored with everything else
I've never been able to get into Shakespeare's dialog either. I've tried, I've even read about how you are supposed to engage with it, but it's never worked for me.
you won't really unless you've studied it
Aaaagggghhhh!!!! I just dropped my iPad and ran to my 5th-floor window and jumped screaming to the ground, where I made the splat heard by every English teacher in America! Not understand Shakespeare? Not understand the greatest writer in any language in any century in the whole wide world??? This is my curse upon your head: May you spend the rest of your life reading ONE copy of People magazine over and over until your eyeballs film over with the thick crust of old age and terminal boredom!😝
@@zxbc1 Totally! Adding to it that there is a whole school of comparative literature erudites trying to prove that Shakespeare never even existed...I've seen a fantastic "Hamlet" play in Washington, D.C. "translated" in modern language and it did not take any quality out of the original.
@@Cor6196 Was that last line a Falstaff or a Lear or a Prospero?
B & W and stagy, sounds like orson Wells' version from 1948.
I saw it and its definitely worth seeing. I wont say anything else.
I saw that it was more about the language than the actual interactions between the characters. It was at least better than the 2015 version where the characters mumbled though the dialogue. I enjoyed for that fact alone.
I have to agree with you there, being half deaf and hating mumble-core, and amazed to discover that I have no problem understanding dialogue - even Shakespeare - in any movie before late 50's. Otherwise, the 2015 version is on the ticket in a way countless prior versions stage or screen failed to recognise.
Mumbled? what are you talking about? There was none of that.
I think of it as Acting: the Movie
A "bloodless" Macbeth. It is to be expected, no? It's a Coen brother, after all. He and his sibling understand irony quite well. But they're clueless about genuine human emotion.
Remember the relationships between Llewelyn Moss and his wife or Marge Gunderson and her husband? I have to respectfully disagree on Coens being clueless about genuine human emotion, pls. forgive me.
I don't think that's true. Fargo is a very emotional movie.
I'll stick with Throne of Blood and Orson Welles
Cohen certainly did....
Mr. Ed I guess they are good white versions!
@@calm1047 you could be mistaking it for Othello, MORON!
Just don't get it, tried a few times. Very good sleeps though. Maybe Denzel is just the ticket.........
Strangely, Denzel felt like the weakest link to me. I admire his washed-up approach to Macbeth, but every time he flies off the handle, he becomes Troy Maxson in Fences again,
Andrew I guess you are a expert when it comes to black actors because you couldn't look past talking about the movie and play Fences! I guess he was the same in all his movies!
@@calm1047 because of course you have to play the race card. So much for keeping your calm 104
PS: It’s “I guess your are AN expert”
@@calm1047 are black actors supposed to be judged by different standards? You know who'd despise that notion? Denzel Washington.
Throne of Blood utilizes the overarching plot of Macbeth and runs with it to be its own thing. Tragedy of Macbeth doesn’t do that and therefore is of less interest to me. It didn’t feel creative (except from a technical perspective).
"I suppose theres even a hint of German expressionism in there"
Even as a British person I find British understatement so annoying 🙄
The Tragedy of Macbethopause...
Does anybody get kidnapped?
Denzel and Frances - worst Scottish accents ever.
Really? Ah that's disappointing. Was looking forward to her performance.
@@PaulStargasm they're not attempting any sort of accent in the film. The commenter was joking. They speak just like themselves
Anyone seen the 2015 version and how it compares to this?
i like this one best, but enjoyed the 2015 adaptation as well. Both faithful but still able to add a few new ideas here and there.
I need to see this
There's an elephant in the room, right? 👀
No, Lady Macbeth and Macduff's wife are not played by men. It's the 2020s. To each age its way.
Did he like Michael Fassbender one ?
One of the best films I’ve seen, ever.
iI thought it told the story of Mabeth well and it was easy to follow what was going on.
Watch it again, Mark.
I will but doubt my opinion will change.
@@Mark-co8gt Different Mark.
@@jade7163 I do agree with different Mark though
Poster quote:
"ODDLY BLOODLESS" - MARK KERMODE
Clickbait for the squeamish. 😁
Isn't it bad luck to say the name of this play...?
@Nospater and only if you believe in such nonsense…
Agree.
Orson Welles tried a Scottish accent. Not perfect but he gave it a go. If this was Brando he would’ve done a Scottish accent no probs. Michael Fassbender did a Scottish accent. Why is it such brilliant talents such as Denzil Washington and Frances McDormand don’t bother? It is the “Scottish Play” after all
It was cool
Ralph Ineson should have played Macbeth. Denzel just wasn’t believable to me. Kathryns bits were amazing.
I really liked this a lot
I feel ur talking rubbish
Awful adaptation.
Polanski, YES!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_(1971_film)