Of all the scenes from the movie, this one struck me the most. Director Justin Kurzel admitted that he wanted to show these characters not in the same light as other adaptations had done (as completely heathen) but that they were human beings who made poor decisions under their circumstances. Having Lady Macbeth talking to a vision of her dead child just added a new layer of analysis to this scene that I never considered. She not only regrets in killing the king; she also laments on what goodness she has lost, from losing her child to the pox to bearing the guilt of killing Macduff's family. She knows what she has done, and knows she will never be redeemed for her wrongs.
Hello, I found your comment very interesting. Mainly because there is an appreciation of the characters’ point of view. But I read the work and was surprised by the film because I imagined Lady Macbeth in a different way, I felt the character was more intense, more dramatic in the book. However, I thought that the interpretation given by the actress, although acclaimed by critics, left something to be desired, as it did not reflect the dramas of a murderer in an intense and dramatic way. For example, that hand scene where Lady sees her hands covered in blood, is a scene where the character is going crazy and I didn't see the actress reflecting this in her performance.
I was absolutely blown away by this scene when I first saw it and every time since, it's simply heartbreaking. I have always been impressed by Cotillard, but this is a whole new level. Across the board this movie had phenomenal acting, cinematography and music. Amazing.
When you see her departed child, you can feel her longing to hold her child and once again experience the humanity, warmth, and comfort of motherhood. It's like her separation from this sacred experience is her hell on earth. I wasn't moved by this scene; I was devastated.
While I can't say Kurzel's film is the best film version of Macbeth, I can proudly stand by the opinion that Cotillard is the best Lady Macbeth ever put on film and this is the best film adaptation of the scene.
Saudin Crnovrshanin Because "Macbeth" was a film the Weinsteins basically threw under the bus to "whore out" "Carol" and "The Hateful Eight". And ironically, they basically failed miserably to get major nominations.
Haven't seen all the cinematic versions of Lady MacBeth but have seen a lot of them and Cotillard's is the most haunting/best of the lot, particularly this scene. Imagine how terrifying/horrifying it would be to possess the knowledge she now does - to know your soul is damned for eternity and there's nothing you can do about it - no chance of salvation/no 'Scrooge' redemption moment.
This 4:01 scene is my all-time favourite performance by a woman in any film, ever made in history. The line delivery, her emotions she goes through and shows, the sheer number of facial expression changes and anguish, pain, calmness, slight happiness at times is nothing short of remarkable.
The physical aspect of this scene are instrumental to Lady Macbeth's character. Scrubbing her hands and looking at the imaginary blood are physiological symptoms of her crushing guilt. The play constantly refers to "the deed" and to 'action' and to 'doing'. After the deed has been committed, Lady Macbeth tries to use the same physical action to rid herself of the shame and guilt but is unable to. So to exclude that physical dimension from this scene takes away from her character and from the play overall.
+Squirzee Plays aren't movies, and movies aren't plays. The point of the scene isn't for Lady Macbeth to sleepwalk and fidget with her hands, those are just symptoms of her breakdown. The point is that she's guilt-ridden and having said breakdown about her role in Duncan's murder. You see the deed done, you know what deed was done and what role she played in it if you watch. There's power in restraint.
There's a difference between "restraint" and just doing the bare minimum. The script of Macbeth, play OR movie, focuses heavily on 'action' and 'deeds' and the physical effort required to commit the deed. It's a motif that runs throughout the whole text, play OR movie. The scrubbing of the hands may have become a somewhat overused convention but it hasn't lost its meaning. Lady Macbeth is trying to UNDO the unnatural deed that she helped commit. It's a lot more effective than just having her sit there acting miserable.
This is a film though, not a play. In a film we can get close to Lady Macbeth’s face and see the expression in her eyes, which something new being brought to the character. The shot is one take and a close up so any breaking up of the takes or constant movement would’ve broken the intimacy. The image of her fidgeting her hands and rocking back and forth is what people expect with this scene so it’s refreshing to see it in a new light, I think.
This to me is such a much more optimistic and forgiving version because she does not play it angrily. It’s not overdone either. She actually plays it sorrowfully. She begs for a solution and when she can’t find one she takes accountability for her roll in what she did and accepts her self inflicted punishment.
Cotillard killed it in this movie. Her acting is masterpiece and by her act and her speechs she gives life to the character. Moreover her capacity to cry impress me
You have to imagine that, in France, everyone has been bitching about Marion Cotillard for ten years now because of her death scene in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises. We, french people, have one of the most outstanding actresses in the world, able to play Lady Macbeth’s monologue as no actress ever has, and we’re not even proud of her.
That same year, she had "Rust and Bone", where any criticisms of the "DKR" death scene should have been wiped away by her acting when her character realized she was a double amputee.
In next 25 years there will be another remake of MacBeth but no one and I mean no one can top this performance, this is stellar acting at its finest. Hats off!!!
this monologue was breathtaking ! unfortunately I found the music that was played every time she was walking a little disturbing. it might have taken a bit of the possible extent of intensity.
Through raw emotional styling and full physical embodiment down to the finest gestures and details, Cotillard plunges viewers into the abyss with her, crafting an utterly haunting cinematic rendition of one of theater's most powerfulscenes achieving a new level of disturbing verisimilitude.
Marion Cotillard's portrayal of Lady Macbeth in this cinematic rendition is unparalleled. The director's focus on the haunting, flawed, yet authentically human aspects of the characters brings a unique depth. This scene, marked by devastating guilt, echoes the sentiment that this is the most genuine depiction of Shakespeare's play.
This adaptation was, in my opinion, as masterpiece regarding the lightening and the aspect of MacBeth and his wife. And I wanted to make a small tribute of this film by including this scene to my thematic editing, right there : ruclips.net/video/vL-KGS6RGpE/видео.html Thanks Mrs. Cotillard for this great performance that gives me chills everytime.
Hello, I found your comment very interesting. Mainly because there is an appreciation of the characters’ point of view. But I read the work and was surprised by the film because I imagined Lady Macbeth in a different way, I felt the character was more intense, more dramatic in the book. However, I thought that the interpretation given by the actress, although acclaimed by critics, left something to be desired, as it did not reflect the dramas of a murderer in an intense and dramatic way. For example, that hand scene where Lady sees her hands covered in blood, is a scene where the character is going crazy and I didn't see the actress reflecting this in her performance.
This is a very liberal adaptation of Macbeth. But it does have some great merits. I appreciated this scene, even though I prefer Lady Macbeth to be played not so sympathetically. This is what does happen to us when we commit evil, it rips us up in the end. I like to think that there is a balance between the play version and the film version of Lady Macbeth, that she is somewhere in between being a complete monster and a tragic character. My idea of her is this: She was once human, but like her husband dangerously overdosed on ambition, so much so that she invited wicked forces to drown out all compassion in her so that she might set an example for her husband to follow. Now, after the deed is done, and her husband now surpasses even her wickedness, and she has lost all control over him, and he kills others endlessly, her humanity has returned to some extent and she knows to what extent that she helped him get started and so bears some of his guilt. I think she did have a child, but not by Macbeth, but by a previous husband, and so that is a very small motivating factor in why she was so woefully ambitious. At that time, women were taught from birth that they were only good for one of two things: to have children who would outlive them, or if they were fortunate, to be wives to powerful men. Having not succeeded in the former, she proceeded to do all she could to be successful in the latter. Otherwise, according to the harsh standards of the time, her life would be considered waste. To be Queen of Scotland would’ve been worth anything, to be wife to the most powerful man in the country. Here, as she sleepwalks and is deeply grieved by what cost she became Queen, she is obviously reliving multiple events of her life, all of them tragic in one way or another. Sometimes she is addressing her dead child as though he were alive, sometimes she is addressing her husband as she fails to try and control his own guilt and hallucinations, and sometimes she is addressing no one in particular, merely stating sad facts to herself that she has learnt the hard way. Her revived conscience is now pointing at herself and reminding her of her crimes, which soon after drives her to suicide. She cannot do anything to reverse the damage, and yet she knows that is her only hope. With that hope gone, all she feels she can do is silence her conscience (and herself with it) forever, so that the constant torture of her mind might have some conclusion. She is both a villain and a tragic figure, a lost soul that can never be saved, because she has caused as much suffering to others as her own suffering.
I've never seen this particular adaptation, but I can say it's not at all as powerful for me as Judi Dench and Kate Fleetwood. As someone who has done both stage and film I know that they are two entirely different beasts. That being said, the minimalism for this scene didn't work got me. I've always been an advocate for switching things up but this piece either needed more or needed to stay traditional.
The alternative would have been to have it edited very quickly, with the next cut having a second or two before the first tear drop feel down her face. A long single shot scene like this feels much more powerful/natural, because its not like the tears are the single means by which emotion is given. The fear/guilt in her voice, her face contorted in the realization of her sinful behavior - She could have effectively done this entire scene with only that, but hey, if you can make yourself cry, its the icing on the cake.
Michael Lehman Oh shit you right. Also, I saw a featurette where Cotillard explained that it was the director that decided for her to do this entire monologue while watching this little kid only a few feet away. In her own words, "It was the most fucken brilliant idea..". I'm not sure if shes a mother or not, but by the results above, it worked.
I found this version to be very quiet and bland. It didn’t show the darkness of the tale of Macbeth. To name a few points, the witches were not sinister enough, Lady Macbeth was shown to be too weak in my eyes and Macbeth went in the opposite direction personality wise. I thought he showed more compassion towards the end than the start. I personally didn’t like it and I thought it was very boring...
THANK YOU. The entire movie was just people whispering. I could have worked with mundane witches, but there barely seemed to be anything supernatural about them at all. The ending actually changes around lines--so the lines that are usually spoken in praise of Siward's dead son are instead spoken of the murderous tyrant who killed women and children. Macbeth essentially commits suicide, when the specific point of his lines in the play are that he is determined to "try the last" and fight to the bitter end. This play did incredible violence to the narrative in order to come up with something new, and it's just terrible.
Okay, I'm going to say this: This scene is trash. I get that the director wanted something to set it apart from the millions of other Shakespeare adaptations. But this is the handwashing scene with no handwashing. There's no connection with the "My hands are of your color" or the "a little water clears us of this deed" lines. You can't even tell what "here's a spot" is supposed to refer to. "Will these hands ne'er be clean" has no hands that she's looking at. She's just sitting there. She could be a narrator or a line-reader. By this point in the movie I was already somewhat dubious, but this scene broke it entirely for me. It's one of the most chilling moments in the play and they turned it into a woman sitting on the floor whispering.
@John Kloosterman The "damn spot" in this scene is the one you can see, at the end, on the sick body of her dead child, who she is looking at during the whole monologue. The hands that will never be clean, simply refer to her conscience. They always did so anyway, in any version of this monologue. The fact that Lady Macbeth would wash her hands on scene / on screen simply gave the meaning of guilt by making the hand-washing literal; but it doesn’t need, actually, to be literal. Still, at the end of the monologue, it becomes obvious that the "little hand" not "sweetened" by "all the perfumes of Arabia" is her dead child's hand, and that the: "wash your hands, put on your nightgown, to bed" is no longer something she addresses to herself, but words she addresses to her child, out of love. She basically is surrounded by death: its smell, its cold. Still, clearly, yes: Kurzel knowingly betrayed Shakespeare’s intentions! He kept the lines but totally changed their meaning by what he chose to show on screen. He made Lady Macbeth’s guilt lucid, instead of making her sleepwalk. He had her haunted by the thought of her dead child and of the many children her husband had killed. He had her beg for the life of the thane’s wife and child. He even made Macbeth’s death a suicide, and his : «Damned be him that first cries, “Hold, enough !”» a curse that Macbeth throws, not upon Macduff, but upon himself! And yes, he decided that Lady Macbeth’s monologue wouldn’t be a nocturnal fever or delirium (anyway, what is there left to be made in that direction after Judi Dench’s performance?), but that, instead, he would make it a supplication out of sorrow. Marion Cotillard simply grabbed his intention, and she offered the best possible most chilling acting according to this intention. As far as I’m concerned, I’m grateful he did betray Shakespeare in every possible way. He took Macbeth, and he made it his. I actually think that every great adaptation is about knowing how to betray the source material.
It’s called having psychological guilt. Not physically but emotionally and mentally guilty of leading husband to darkness. Not to mention earlier she mentioned she would take her newborn babe and bash it to sides of the wall- now that’s another load of guilt of a woman as a possible mother.
You do not understand my love. Only through your thighs. Between your legs. Feeling each thrust and the hardness of your hands on my back. That I may learn love. Your love is infinite. The sweatiness of your arms caressing me at night. As the coldness of the room feels my lungs and mouth. How could I show mercy to myself. The sweat of your inner lips dripping on my phalux breaks my comfort as a man. I become a slave to you as I only wait for that sweet release.
I Know this kind of art normally doesnt need to be explained and it should not be explained. But i am really curious about what she said because i didnt fully understand, so maybe someone could help me?
+DasAlena it's from the novel "Macbeth", I've red the novel and watched the 2 "Macbeth" movies, I noticed that their pronunciation of the words are hard to understand because the movie set to 16th century in Scotland. FUN FACT: lot of people died by playing the whole original script of the play "Macbeth" because of the curse from the witches, Shakespeare was hired by the King to write a play for the king's brother's birthday, which is the play "Macbeth". on the play, the King IN the play "Macbeth" died so the ACTUAL King called the witches to curse the play *so basically he don't like the play, whoever play this play again someone will die. The last victim of this curse is played in early 1900's (yea it's hard to believe, the witches are alive on that time) since then the directors of each of the "Macbeth" movies, decided to change the original scripts, but they did not change the whole plot. In my school we played the play but there's a twist, it became musical. lol, because majority of us don't wanna die lol. sorry for my bad english btw.
Seriously. I do not get the people exulting over her acting. She's sitting there, whispering. That's the whole scene. There's no energy, no madness. This scene is just boring.
🤣🤣🤣 Either you’ve been living under a rock or hopefully you’re just being sarcastic, cause’ his empire completely crumbled including his film company that was a front for other nefarious 💩, just like Epstein’s empire! O’ how the mighty have fallen! 😁
Of all the scenes from the movie, this one struck me the most. Director Justin Kurzel admitted that he wanted to show these characters not in the same light as other adaptations had done (as completely heathen) but that they were human beings who made poor decisions under their circumstances. Having Lady Macbeth talking to a vision of her dead child just added a new layer of analysis to this scene that I never considered. She not only regrets in killing the king; she also laments on what goodness she has lost, from losing her child to the pox to bearing the guilt of killing Macduff's family. She knows what she has done, and knows she will never be redeemed for her wrongs.
This movie is boring and bad, the MCU movies is how every film should be. Jokes all over the place with paper thin plots.
@@reginaldwaye8423 You've got to be kidding.
@@scholachu something tells me he was being sarcastic asf. I have never seen this movie or even heard of it. But it seems so deep.
@@Chiiyaam But you have heard of Shakespeare's MACBETH, at least?
Hello, I found your comment very interesting. Mainly because there is an appreciation of the characters’ point of view.
But I read the work and was surprised by the film because I imagined Lady Macbeth in a different way, I felt the character was more intense, more dramatic in the book.
However, I thought that the interpretation given by the actress, although acclaimed by critics, left something to be desired, as it did not reflect the dramas of a murderer in an intense and dramatic way.
For example, that hand scene where Lady sees her hands covered in blood, is a scene where the character is going crazy and I didn't see the actress reflecting this in her performance.
The way her face crumbles at "the thane of fife had a wife/where is she now?"
This really helped me with my essay, her acting made it easier for me to analyse this scene, amazing.
I was absolutely blown away by this scene when I first saw it and every time since, it's simply heartbreaking. I have always been impressed by Cotillard, but this is a whole new level.
Across the board this movie had phenomenal acting, cinematography and music. Amazing.
When you see her departed child, you can feel her longing to hold her child and once again experience the humanity, warmth, and comfort of motherhood. It's like her separation from this sacred experience is her hell on earth. I wasn't moved by this scene; I was devastated.
Marion Cotillard was born to play Lady Macbeth. Her performance is timelessly beautiful. William Shakespeare would be honoured. 👏🏻
While I can't say Kurzel's film is the best film version of Macbeth, I can proudly stand by the opinion that Cotillard is the best Lady Macbeth ever put on film and this is the best film adaptation of the scene.
Where was her Oscar nomination please
Ted Marriott Taken by Rachel McAdams and Alicia Vikander through the power of category fraud.
It shocks me as to why this woman not only didn't get nominated for an Oscar, but didn't win it......
Saudin Crnovrshanin Because "Macbeth" was a film the Weinsteins basically threw under the bus to "whore out" "Carol" and "The Hateful Eight". And ironically, they basically failed miserably to get major nominations.
Do you have kids? I say this every night with much more sweetness
Hateful eight was a great movie
Accents... No handwashing.... Wtf?
@@theresashaw5027 I guess you have completely missed the point here... This scene is not a night time lullaby, darling
Most moving scene of the movie.
Haven't seen all the cinematic versions of Lady MacBeth but have seen a lot of them and Cotillard's is the most haunting/best of the lot, particularly this scene. Imagine how terrifying/horrifying it would be to possess the knowledge she now does - to know your soul is damned for eternity and there's nothing you can do about it - no chance of salvation/no 'Scrooge' redemption moment.
This 4:01 scene is my all-time favourite performance by a woman in any film, ever made in history. The line delivery, her emotions she goes through and shows, the sheer number of facial expression changes and anguish, pain, calmness, slight happiness at times is nothing short of remarkable.
The physical aspect of this scene are instrumental to Lady Macbeth's character. Scrubbing her hands and looking at the imaginary blood are physiological symptoms of her crushing guilt. The play constantly refers to "the deed" and to 'action' and to 'doing'. After the deed has been committed, Lady Macbeth tries to use the same physical action to rid herself of the shame and guilt but is unable to. So to exclude that physical dimension from this scene takes away from her character and from the play overall.
+Squirzee Plays aren't movies, and movies aren't plays. The point of the scene isn't for Lady Macbeth to sleepwalk and fidget with her hands, those are just symptoms of her breakdown. The point is that she's guilt-ridden and having said breakdown about her role in Duncan's murder. You see the deed done, you know what deed was done and what role she played in it if you watch. There's power in restraint.
There's a difference between "restraint" and just doing the bare minimum. The script of Macbeth, play OR movie, focuses heavily on 'action' and 'deeds' and the physical effort required to commit the deed. It's a motif that runs throughout the whole text, play OR movie. The scrubbing of the hands may have become a somewhat overused convention but it hasn't lost its meaning. Lady Macbeth is trying to UNDO the unnatural deed that she helped commit. It's a lot more effective than just having her sit there acting miserable.
This is a film though, not a play. In a film we can get close to Lady Macbeth’s face and see the expression in her eyes, which something new being brought to the character. The shot is one take and a close up so any breaking up of the takes or constant movement would’ve broken the intimacy. The image of her fidgeting her hands and rocking back and forth is what people expect with this scene so it’s refreshing to see it in a new light, I think.
We’ve seen the obsessive handwringing 1000 times. Let’s try something new.
This to me is such a much more optimistic and forgiving version because she does not play it angrily. It’s not overdone either. She actually plays it sorrowfully. She begs for a solution and when she can’t find one she takes accountability for her roll in what she did and accepts her self inflicted punishment.
Cotillard killed it in this movie. Her acting is masterpiece and by her act and her speechs she gives life to the character. Moreover her capacity to cry impress me
You have to imagine that, in France, everyone has been bitching about Marion Cotillard for ten years now because of her death scene in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises.
We, french people, have one of the most outstanding actresses in the world, able to play Lady Macbeth’s monologue as no actress ever has, and we’re not even proud of her.
That same year, she had "Rust and Bone", where any criticisms of the "DKR" death scene should have been wiped away by her acting when her character realized she was a double amputee.
@@AngelofMusic04 Her incredulity and terror in that scene were gut-wrenching.
This scene is a masterpiece.
In next 25 years there will be another remake of MacBeth but no one and I mean no one can top this performance, this is stellar acting at its finest. Hats off!!!
This is astonishing in it's complexity, just as it was written. BRAVO, I say. To one so great a ghost as to summon the Bard himself.
this is the finest bit of acting I've seen in recent times. stellar.
Fascinating, eerie delivery, but this does not strike me as a sleepwalking scene at all.
this monologue was breathtaking !
unfortunately I found the music that was played every time she was walking a little disturbing. it might have taken a bit of the possible extent of intensity.
+Ra Hel I like it personally as it ads to the sense of her, and her mind and her life unraveling
the best Lady Macbeth so far! BRAVO!
Marion Cotillard killed it in this film.
A perfect adaptation of Macbeth all round. Marion was stunning.
Through raw emotional styling and full physical embodiment down to the finest gestures and details, Cotillard plunges viewers into the abyss with her, crafting an utterly haunting cinematic rendition of one of theater's most powerfulscenes achieving a new level of disturbing verisimilitude.
Marion Cotillard's portrayal of Lady Macbeth in this cinematic rendition is unparalleled. The director's focus on the haunting, flawed, yet authentically human aspects of the characters brings a unique depth. This scene, marked by devastating guilt, echoes the sentiment that this is the most genuine depiction of Shakespeare's play.
This was definitely unexpected version for me but it's still fitting.
I thought this was the best scene. Marion Cotillard is the most talented actress/actor I have ever watched..
I love to see world class actors playing classic plays!
God when it cuts to the child... that hit me like a truck
God knees- all heaven knows
This adaptation was, in my opinion, as masterpiece regarding the lightening and the aspect of MacBeth and his wife. And I wanted to make a small tribute of this film by including this scene to my thematic editing, right there : ruclips.net/video/vL-KGS6RGpE/видео.html
Thanks Mrs. Cotillard for this great performance that gives me chills everytime.
Superb! best scene in Macbeth movie
Marion Cotillard was BORN to play Lady Macbeth and she is so beautiful.
Oh my god
Hello, I found your comment very interesting. Mainly because there is an appreciation of the characters’ point of view.
But I read the work and was surprised by the film because I imagined Lady Macbeth in a different way, I felt the character was more intense, more dramatic in the book.
However, I thought that the interpretation given by the actress, although acclaimed by critics, left something to be desired, as it did not reflect the dramas of a murderer in an intense and dramatic way.
For example, that hand scene where Lady sees her hands covered in blood, is a scene where the character is going crazy and I didn't see the actress reflecting this in her performance.
Greatest actress of her generation. Should have got the Oscar for Two Days One Night. Too grim for the Academy though.
It's all fine but she doesn't come across as raving mad which seems to me to be the whole point of it.
agreed
Was she supposed to be mad?
I knoooooow. I mean, for me, this scene shows how shattered Lady Macbeth is. A wreck of the woman she used to be.
Then, luckily for you, you’ve never known true madness.
Kish Jugo
Well, no. If it were as blunt and as shallow as that we wouldn't be watching it after all this time.
Who is the producer of the movie?
Magistral
This is a very liberal adaptation of Macbeth. But it does have some great merits. I appreciated this scene, even though I prefer Lady Macbeth to be played not so sympathetically. This is what does happen to us when we commit evil, it rips us up in the end. I like to think that there is a balance between the play version and the film version of Lady Macbeth, that she is somewhere in between being a complete monster and a tragic character. My idea of her is this: She was once human, but like her husband dangerously overdosed on ambition, so much so that she invited wicked forces to drown out all compassion in her so that she might set an example for her husband to follow. Now, after the deed is done, and her husband now surpasses even her wickedness, and she has lost all control over him, and he kills others endlessly, her humanity has returned to some extent and she knows to what extent that she helped him get started and so bears some of his guilt. I think she did have a child, but not by Macbeth, but by a previous husband, and so that is a very small motivating factor in why she was so woefully ambitious. At that time, women were taught from birth that they were only good for one of two things: to have children who would outlive them, or if they were fortunate, to be wives to powerful men. Having not succeeded in the former, she proceeded to do all she could to be successful in the latter. Otherwise, according to the harsh standards of the time, her life would be considered waste. To be Queen of Scotland would’ve been worth anything, to be wife to the most powerful man in the country. Here, as she sleepwalks and is deeply grieved by what cost she became Queen, she is obviously reliving multiple events of her life, all of them tragic in one way or another. Sometimes she is addressing her dead child as though he were alive, sometimes she is addressing her husband as she fails to try and control his own guilt and hallucinations, and sometimes she is addressing no one in particular, merely stating sad facts to herself that she has learnt the hard way. Her revived conscience is now pointing at herself and reminding her of her crimes, which soon after drives her to suicide. She cannot do anything to reverse the damage, and yet she knows that is her only hope. With that hope gone, all she feels she can do is silence her conscience (and herself with it) forever, so that the constant torture of her mind might have some conclusion. She is both a villain and a tragic figure, a lost soul that can never be saved, because she has caused as much suffering to others as her own suffering.
Good analysis
Impresionante, Marion!!!!!
I've never seen this particular adaptation, but I can say it's not at all as powerful for me as Judi Dench and Kate Fleetwood. As someone who has done both stage and film I know that they are two entirely different beasts. That being said, the minimalism for this scene didn't work got me. I've always been an advocate for switching things up but this piece either needed more or needed to stay traditional.
Unbelievable acting.
It's so beautiful
The most perfectly showcased sleepwalking scene , amongst the other videos here on youtube
I have a essay question on this and the question is “What was lady Macbeth doing?” Can someone help me pls 🥺🥺
She was sleep walking, shes slightly gone insane.
@@ollie1828 Thanks!
Goddamn, Cotillard is good in this. Talented, prolific, and beautiful. She has it all.
there were better lady Macbeth than Cotillard.
But she really got let her imprint here, her sensivity, a strong one.
Quite nice. Did you notice she was almost not blinking at all? this facilitates the tears ;-)
Well, it is acting after all.
that was my point ;-)
The alternative would have been to have it edited very quickly, with the next cut having a second or two before the first tear drop feel down her face. A long single shot scene like this feels much more powerful/natural, because its not like the tears are the single means by which emotion is given. The fear/guilt in her voice, her face contorted in the realization of her sinful behavior - She could have effectively done this entire scene with only that, but hey, if you can make yourself cry, its the icing on the cake.
If you go back and carefully review the video, you will find that she does actually blink several times before shedding tears.
Michael Lehman Oh shit you right. Also, I saw a featurette where Cotillard explained that it was the director that decided for her to do this entire monologue while watching this little kid only a few feet away. In her own words, "It was the most fucken brilliant idea..". I'm not sure if shes a mother or not, but by the results above, it worked.
brilliant. that's the only word I can mange off my awestruck brain
omfg who is that child?? there's no child in this scene!! is it lady Macbeth's child?? oh my God who is that child?!?
+i love disney She had a vision of her own child. At the beginning of the movie she made a miscarring
She will be great as Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ !!!
Was this whole film recorded in a library? Everyone sure likes to whisper. . .
lol
It’s a film.
And people said/still say she was miscast
Smh
so sad😓
Music near the end?
I found this version to be very quiet and bland. It didn’t show the darkness of the tale of Macbeth. To name a few points, the witches were not sinister enough, Lady Macbeth was shown to be too weak in my eyes and Macbeth went in the opposite direction personality wise. I thought he showed more compassion towards the end than the start. I personally didn’t like it and I thought it was very boring...
I specifically hated what's done cannot be undone
THANK YOU. The entire movie was just people whispering. I could have worked with mundane witches, but there barely seemed to be anything supernatural about them at all. The ending actually changes around lines--so the lines that are usually spoken in praise of Siward's dead son are instead spoken of the murderous tyrant who killed women and children. Macbeth essentially commits suicide, when the specific point of his lines in the play are that he is determined to "try the last" and fight to the bitter end. This play did incredible violence to the narrative in order to come up with something new, and it's just terrible.
Ren and stimpy did it better 😂
Yes epic
Okay, I'm going to say this: This scene is trash. I get that the director wanted something to set it apart from the millions of other Shakespeare adaptations. But this is the handwashing scene with no handwashing. There's no connection with the "My hands are of your color" or the "a little water clears us of this deed" lines. You can't even tell what "here's a spot" is supposed to refer to. "Will these hands ne'er be clean" has no hands that she's looking at. She's just sitting there. She could be a narrator or a line-reader.
By this point in the movie I was already somewhat dubious, but this scene broke it entirely for me. It's one of the most chilling moments in the play and they turned it into a woman sitting on the floor whispering.
@John Kloosterman
The "damn spot" in this scene is the one you can see, at the end, on the sick body of her dead child, who she is looking at during the whole monologue.
The hands that will never be clean, simply refer to her conscience. They always did so anyway, in any version of this monologue. The fact that Lady Macbeth would wash her hands on scene / on screen simply gave the meaning of guilt by making the hand-washing literal; but it doesn’t need, actually, to be literal. Still, at the end of the monologue, it becomes obvious that the "little hand" not "sweetened" by "all the perfumes of Arabia" is her dead child's hand, and that the: "wash your hands, put on your nightgown, to bed" is no longer something she addresses to herself, but words she addresses to her child, out of love.
She basically is surrounded by death: its smell, its cold.
Still, clearly, yes: Kurzel knowingly betrayed Shakespeare’s intentions! He kept the lines but totally changed their meaning by what he chose to show on screen. He made Lady Macbeth’s guilt lucid, instead of making her sleepwalk. He had her haunted by the thought of her dead child and of the many children her husband had killed. He had her beg for the life of the thane’s wife and child. He even made Macbeth’s death a suicide, and his : «Damned be him that first cries, “Hold, enough !”» a curse that Macbeth throws, not upon Macduff, but upon himself!
And yes, he decided that Lady Macbeth’s monologue wouldn’t be a nocturnal fever or delirium (anyway, what is there left to be made in that direction after Judi Dench’s performance?), but that, instead, he would make it a supplication out of sorrow. Marion Cotillard simply grabbed his intention, and she offered the best possible most chilling acting according to this intention.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m grateful he did betray Shakespeare in every possible way. He took Macbeth, and he made it his. I actually think that every great adaptation is about knowing how to betray the source material.
This scene dosen't make sense at all. Shes supposed to be sleepwalking after succumbing to madness, not just having a cry.
It’s called having psychological guilt. Not physically but emotionally and mentally guilty of leading husband to darkness. Not to mention earlier she mentioned she would take her newborn babe and bash it to sides of the wall- now that’s another load of guilt of a woman as a possible mother.
You do not understand my love.
Only through your thighs.
Between your legs.
Feeling each thrust and the hardness of your hands on my back.
That I may learn love.
Your love is infinite.
The sweatiness of your arms caressing me at night.
As the coldness of the room feels my lungs and mouth.
How could I show mercy to myself.
The sweat of your inner lips dripping on my phalux breaks my comfort as a man.
I become a slave to you as I only wait for that sweet release.
I Know this kind of art normally doesnt need to be explained and it should not be explained. But i am really curious about what she said because i didnt fully understand, so maybe someone could help me?
+DasAlena it's from the novel "Macbeth", I've red the novel and watched the 2 "Macbeth" movies, I noticed that their pronunciation of the words are hard to understand because the movie set to 16th century in Scotland. FUN FACT: lot of people died by playing the whole original script of the play "Macbeth" because of the curse from the witches, Shakespeare was hired by the King to write a play for the king's brother's birthday, which is the play "Macbeth". on the play, the King IN the play "Macbeth" died so the ACTUAL King called the witches to curse the play *so basically he don't like the play, whoever play this play again someone will die. The last victim of this curse is played in early 1900's (yea it's hard to believe, the witches are alive on that time) since then the directors of each of the "Macbeth" movies, decided to change the original scripts, but they did not change the whole plot. In my school we played the play but there's a twist, it became musical. lol, because majority of us don't wanna die lol. sorry for my bad english btw.
+Kidd Lorenz Thank you really much for your Time and effort :) i really appreciate it
+DasAlena You have a "CC" box at the bottom of your screen. That's for captions (in English on mine).
DasAlena no problem :)
Am I the only one who's thinks she looks like smeagol?
❤
She was the only good performance in this sorry movie. What a disaster it was, as bad as the Coen version later.
👏🏽👸🏻🤴🏻🌟
good but extremely common acting... not a genuine Tragedienne
Serously??? zzzzz.......
i love her lack of energy, go girl give us nothing!
Seriously. I do not get the people exulting over her acting. She's sitting there, whispering. That's the whole scene. There's no energy, no madness. This scene is just boring.
Thank God Harvey Weinstein exist so we can enjoy such beautiful movies.
🤣🤣🤣 Either you’ve been living under a rock or hopefully you’re just being sarcastic, cause’ his empire completely crumbled including his film company that was a front for other nefarious 💩, just like Epstein’s empire! O’ how the mighty have fallen! 😁