The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Films / (The Tragedy of) Macbeth

(The Tragedy of) Macbeth

by 26 Comments

Year: 2021
Director: Joel Coen

I’m having a bit of a Macbeth week and have watched two film versions.

First up I watched The Tragedy Of Macbeth directed by Joel Coen (2021). Loved it.
To be honest, there are very few Shakespeare screen adaptations I don’t think are worth watching. He’s a decent writer, that Shakespeare chap, and his works translate to screen even better than stage, imho. (His prologue to Henry V calls the stage “an unworthy scaffold”. Well, I call big bucks screen adaptations “a worthy scaffold”.) I didn’t get into him via dull, reluctant reading-round-the-class at school or going to the theatre (as if!), but by watching the films. I like watching his plays performed with subtitles activated and sometimes with the original text to compare with.
I’m not so keen on the “old school” screen adaptations, Olivier, Welles, Gielgud, Burton etc. The old black and whites. Funnily enough though, The Tragedy of Macbeth is in black and white, and boy is it beautiful to watch. The combination of lighting and shadows, the crisp clear cinematography and the austere, timeless sets (it was shot entirely on a soundstage) make it a visual treat. That’s its main selling point. As to the actual performance, Denzel Washington’s Oscar nominated performance as Macbeth lacks the guilt-fueled anxiety of some Macbeths and instead he seems more wearied by his evil deeds than anything. I liked his portrayal of the character a lot. The fact that both he and Mrs Macbeth (played by Mrs Coen – Frances McDormand) are clearly past middle age adds to his growing general air of resigned, depressed exhaustion as the guilt weighs increasingly on him. The cast includes Brendan Gleeson being very Brendan Gleeson as King Duncan. Most especially, among an all-round excellent cast, Kathryn Hunter (Harry Potter, Poor Things) as the witches is actually pretty astonishing (see clip below).
Secondly, I watched Macbeth by Justin Kerzel (2015) with Michael Fassbinder as Macbeth and Marion Cottilard as his wife. Same story as above, obvs, and also beautiful to watch, yet couldn’t be more different, quickly diving into an epic battle scene (mud ‘n’ blood action interspersed with some extremely slow slow-motion shots, a technique I’ve never seen quite like that before, and I thought worked very well). It’s less faithful to the text than The Tragedy of Macbeth, dialogue having been heavily cut in favour of visual storytelling or moved around to suit the flow of the film. Takes a few too many liberties for my liking. Again, a superb all-round cast, including Paddy Considine as Banquo and David Thewlis as King Duncan. The Scottish accents suit it well, natch, but the loud, droning soundtrack occasionally got on my nerves.
Overall, while I’d be hard pushed to say which supporting cast I prefer overall, I think Fassbinder’s portrayal of Macbeth just edges it over Washington’s, while I prefer McDormand’s Lady M to Cottilard’s. But they’re all good.
Macbeth is the more “commercial” film, The Tragedy of Macbeth more “arthouse” (and in my opinion the more interesting). I’d say both are definite must-sees for any fans of the play and/or previous versions.

Might appeal to people who enjoyed:

Macbeth

1

Comments

    • The Justin Kerzel film is the one that’s more similar to Polanski’s. Not sure which of the two I prefer, Kerzel’s or Polanski’s. Kerzel’s benefits greatly from modern filmaking production values and techniques and the superb acting of Fassbinder, but I agree Polanski’s is very good.

      Coen’s is the one I’d be most interested to watch again though.

  3. My favourite screen adaptation of Macbeth is the Patrick Stewart one – almost purely for the central performances of Stewart and Kate Fleetwood. (Michael Feast as Macduff is a great actor but too old for the part and looks jarringly out of place in camo fatigues.) The production is slightly odd in parts – the design, set in a nameless Central European mid-century dictatorship, works well, and the witches are superbly nasty, but the dance in the Banquo’s ghost scene is utterly mental. But overall it’s outstanding, and lets the words shine.

    And that’s my thing with film Shakespeare – the make or break: whether or not they know enough to get out of the way and make the language the star. Stewart, obviously, can hardly help doing that incredibly well: he *understands* what he’s saying, on every level, and *communicates*. Only Branagh does that better. My beef with Fassbender is that he manifestly doesn’t: he mumbles, doesn’t hit the emotional notes or even seem to know where they are, doesn’t make sense of them, doesn’t convince in the least. Cotillard similar. And the production was showing off, refusing to get out of the way of the words.

    I enjoyed the Coen version fine. It was filmically gorgeous, but a bit pedestrian as Shakespeare.

    I’m fussy about Macbeth in particular – it’s the play I know very best, by dint of having taught it almost every year for 20 years, and having found something new and exciting in it each time. I more or less have the thing by heart. The Stewart is my favourite.

  4. Welles’s Macbeth has some striking visuals but is hampered by some absolutely extraordinary attempts at Scottish accents. Making Scrooge McDuck sound like Rab C Nesbitt.

    Roman Pedo’s film is obvious catnip to the AW, featuring as it does a psych-folk throwdown with Keith Chegwin and the Third Ear Band…. in 1971.

    If you like this Gary you might like Peter Brook’s King Lear (1970). He films it in the style of Bergman – or rather the popular version of what Bergman is like – and the result is, as you might expect, a non-stop slap-a-my-thighs chortle-fest (citation needed)

  5. I sent to see Ralph Fiennes as Macbeth in Liverpool with Indira Varma as his good lady. The setting was updated to a more modern war setting but they were faithful to the text. The two leads were astonishingly good. The support was really good until the smaller parts.

    Sadly, there was a medical emergency in the audience just at the point Banquo exits the banquet. It took so long to sort, we had to leave (it was a school night). The victim was right in front of a stair well. Even if she’d had heart attack or stroke, she could have been discreetly spirited away. No sign of an ambulance after a good hour. No doubt, she was categorised as being in good hands.

    I love Macbeth. I’d watch any stage version. Not so keen on movie versions but I may give Stewart a go.

    • I saw the Fiennes Macbeth in Liverpool as well and thought it was terrific. Sorry you missed so much of it; in truth I thought the second half was even better than the first. Agree about the two leads, and generally I thought it was the best spoken Shakespeare I have seen in an age. Also saw a really enjoyable production by English Touring Theatre at Shakespeare North Playhouse earlier in the year. Macbeth is always on the stocks, always popular, always relevant, but it certainly seems a play for our time right now. Haven’t seen the two films in the OP but they sound great – will check them out.

  6. Since posting this much lauded thread, I’ve watched two more Macbeths as freebies on YouTube. The one with Patrick Stewart that Hedgepig recommended (2010) and a National Theatre Live broadcast one with Kenneth Branagh and Riversong out of Doctor Who as Mrs M. I preferred the Patrick Stewart one (especially Kate Fleetwood as a particularly excellent nasty Mrs M). The Coen film remains my favourite for the moment though. Not only is it beautiful to watch but there’s something strangely gentle about it. Washington’s mellifluous voice, perhaps, or his age.

    I’ve also noticed that Ralph Fiennes’s Richard III National Theatre Live is on Youtube. I saw that at the cinema and it’s very good. Not as good as McKellen’s stupendous film, but still very worth watching. It begins with the discovery of King Richard’s bones in a Leicester car park.

Leave a Reply