The trouble with Macbeth, I think, is that it’s such an exciting play—full of plot and action—that people sometimes seem to forget that the greatness of the play is in the happenings in the minds of the Macbeths. The clearest example is Kurosawa’s loose adaptation Throne of Blood, enjoyable enough but stripped off the characters’ thoughts, stripped off all depth and complexity. Roman Polanski’s film also seems to focus more on the external violence—it is bloody, full of graphic violence (and nudity)—if not for Jon Finch. I have seen Jon Finch as Henry IV in the BBC Television Shakespeare and he’s so much like a Shakespearean actor, so much better than Michael Fassbender (who doesn’t know how to speak the lines) and Denzel Washington, that I didn’t realise till after watching the film that it was the first time he did Shakespeare. You see him tempted by the witches; you see him struggle before and after the deed; you see him slowly lose his soul as he's in blood stepped in so far; you see that by the end, to him life’s a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The problem with the film though is that Francesca Annis is a weak Lady Macbeth. When you see different versions of Macbeth, you might sometimes wonder if Lady Macbeth’s descent into madness could be abrupt—some people think perhaps the text is cut and we’ve lost a scene or two—but Trevor Nunn’s production demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with the pacing or structure, as Judi Dench shows from the very beginning that Lady Macbeth is more vulnerable than she thinks, that she has started to crack much earlier, so her descent into madness comes as no surprise. That abruptness is in Joel Coen’s film, as Frances McDormand is so evil, so unmoved at the beginning and doesn’t show the gradual change. Orson Welles and Kurosawa solve “the problem” by making some changes and creating a reason to explain Lady Macbeth’s shock and insanity. Francesca Annis doesn’t play Lady Macbeth as evil like Frances McDormand, but her insanity also seems abrupt because we don’t quite see her conflict, her struggle, her vulnerability.
There are also some questionable choices. Why have the Macbeths discuss killing Duncan at the party, in front of everybody? Why depict so much nudity? Why do we need to see a completely naked young boy (Macduff’s son)? Why depict Macbeth and Macduff fight in front of everybody like it’s a spectacle, like they are gladiators? Not to mention the ending?
I also wonder if the Manson Family’s murder of Polanski’s wife Sharon Tate in 1969 had any impact on his mind and his vision for Macbeth—the film came out in 1971—not only because the film is so bloody and violent, but also because Macbeth’s death is depicted in such a cynical way and doesn’t seem tragic.
Overall, it’s still worth seeing, for Jon Finch (unless you boycott Roman Polanski’s films, which is perfectly understandable). It’s also an interesting approach.
On Trevor Nunn’s production (Ian McKellen – Judi Dench).
On Joel Coen’s film.
On Throne of Blood.
Addendum on 20/5: I forgot that I saw the Ralph Fiennes version onstage, which I wrote about here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be not afraid, gentle readers! Share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).