So, as you
guys may have noticed, I have finally popped my Shakespeare review cherry with
my look at Henry IV parts 1 and 2. Moving up to a review of one of the greats –
or at least one of the great stories – only seems appropriate. Macbeth is
actually the kind of story I adore. You know I have a soft spot for gangster
films and the like. You know I have a soft spot for psychological films. Well
he we have a man who murders about a dozen innocent people to fulfill his own political
ambition and is driven slowly mad with remorse… In essence, the granddaddy of all the stories
I adore - I absolutely HAD to watch it – and the fact that I loved the story
is, in essence, no surprise.
Even if you
do not know the story of Macbeth per se, you will, without a doubt, recognize
it. Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) is a Scottish clan chief who is loyal to the
King of Scotland during a time of civil war. He has just won a decisive victory
in battle for his liege when he is accosted by three witches who prophecy that
he will first be made the chieftain of another clan and then King of Scotland.
Macbeth is inclined to laugh it off, but then, news arrives that the King has made him the
chieftain of the selfsame clan the witches had prophesied as a reward to his
services. From this moment on Macbeth, first egged on by his wife (Marion
Cotillard) and later on by his own crumbling sanity and insatiable ambition
will set off a string of murders Macbeth feels he absolutely must commit – or
have committed – to secure his place, his throne, his lineage, with tragic
consequences. After a while it becomes a matter of whether the Macbeths can get
a handle on the violence they have unleashed or whether Macbeths already
crumbling sanity will give way completely first…
Now there
have been more adaptations of this tale than anyone could hope to count. This,
to my way of thinking, makes every single new adaptation of the play a little
trickier. After that long of a lineage standing out is hard, seeing as a lot of
intelligent and creative people have been thinking about it a lot and have had
a lot of good ideas about it. There are some strong films out there. It’s a big
competition. And it has to be said, this particular adaptation has a lot of
good things going for it. First of all, the aesthetics. The film is
categorically one of the most visually stunning things I have recently seen. It
is a fittingly cold, bleak, unforgiving and stunning visual aesthetic that runs
through every aspect of the film from the backdrops to the scenery. I honestly
felt as if I could stop the film at a million different random points and just
hang the scene up on your wall.
It goes
without saying that this choice and aesthetic bleeds into the choice of actors.
The choice of Michael Fassbender as Macbeth created a lot of ripples and
excitement among the fans. Having seen him perform… Well I can see why he was picked
but I am not sure I have seen the best rendition of Macbeth ever performed…
Visually Fassbender fits the bill perfectly. Handsome, rugged, a sense of
lurking danger under the surface… There is a lot of good stuff in there. I just
thought that Macbeth should have been a bit more emotional than the one
Fassbender portrayed him. Until the middle of the film I found him almost
inscrutable (which is sad really because I would have liked some turmoil as
Macbeth struggles with himself before killing Duncan). When his sanity begins
to crumble it’s a bit better, there is flickers of some strong stuff there but
there was, for my way of thinking, a lot of scope to push the boat right the
way out there. This, I felt, was a stark contrast to Marion Cotillard who
absolutely glowed as Lady Macbeth – from her initial greed right down to the
bitter end when her sanity collapses as well. I have always had a bit of
girl-crush on Cotillard. And I devoutly hope her work in this film will be recognized
too. Now, before Shakespeare experts jump down my throat, yes, I am aware there
is artistic merit in all of this. Pitting the more silent and sullen (talking
about his acting style, not necessarily his role in this film) Fassbender
against the lively and absolutely electric Cotillard may have been a choice. It
is, after all, Lady Macbeth who pushes Macbeth into action and to fulfill his
true potential as a king (and, to call a spade a spade, a serial killer). And
after all at the beginning of the play Lady Macbeth prays to be unsexed (less
like a woman) and before Duncan so much as sets foot in her household she is
ready (or would be ready – were she a
man) to kill him herself, with her bare hands. This choice – these choices –
set the roles of the two characters off. Lady Macbeth must really push Macbeth
to catalyze him and get him to act. Macbeth has to drag himself and his own
convictions, as if he and they were made of lead before he can muster up the
mental strength to act. I get all that. My point is that the lid seems to have
fallen off the jar of sullen Fassbender was using. There is more subtlety there
than he is not moving – oh wait now he is. It does not come across in this performance.
So I see
why this production of Macbeth garnered so much criticism, especially from the
diehard Shakespeare fans. But then again we must be charitable. Every adaptation
between mediums (even though in this instance it is from one performance art to
the other) loses some of the initial magic by definition. And Kurzels Macbeth
has a lot of good things going for it. I would watch it if I were you. I just wouldn’t
expect it to change my world…
Kayıtlar
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder