ALL HAIL MACBETH THAT SHALT BE KING HEREAFTER...

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… 

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY IV (part 1 and 2) (RSC performance) - OR A STORY OF CONVERSION...

I have always been slightly cautious about writing about “the big guns”. Many reasons for this, not the least the fact that I am not, in this particular case, exactly an expert on Shakespeare. Whatever else I have learned (I grew up in French institutions so it was largely French literature) I had to work my way over to The Immortal Bard myself. I must say, I did not do a god job. Until I watched these two plays I had a healthy appreciation of Shakespeare. I could even say (heck, I SHOULD say) I respected him. But this time… This was different.

I don’t quite know what changed. Beginning to train as an actor has undoubtedly changed my perspective on such things. It has made me undoubtedly more sensitive to any performance I approach. Having seen it at a mature age would have contributed (the first of the two previous actual theatre performances of Shakespeare I have seen was age 14). Seeing it performed in its original blank verse would also have added (the second, age twenty-something, was in Turkish. An admirable performance –but not blank verse). Seeing it performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company was undoubtedly one of the deciding factors – it is after all their area of expertise – and even though I have seen the RSC perform other plays before (Death of a Salesman was one that still sticks in my mind) I had never see them “do” Shakespeare. And, of course, Shakespeare has many different kinds of plays, you may not particularly adore the comedies for example but might fall head over heels for the historical plays like me. It was probably a combination of a lot of factors. But this performance just hit me like a freight train. I’m hooked. Kudos to the RSC, you have probably gained a disciple for life!

This is how I want you to approach the review. I am not some hoity-toity expert who is going to correct your pronunciation or disapprove of your lack of love for quinoa. I am just  a very average person who has just started on the path to actor training and who thought it was high time she figured out “what the whole deal was” about Shakespeare. I expected to learn something from the performance I went to. I never expected to adore it the way I did. The aim of this review is to explain how and why this happened – and maybe encourage you uninitiated to take a second look at The Bard. I kid you not, you might actually be surprised.

So, ok, down to business. What the heck am I actually talking about? Well, Henry the IV is basically made up of two plays. Imaginatively named part 1 and part 2, the play is based on the reign of King Henry IV. It is part of a tetralogy – a series of four plays in this particular case Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2 and Henry V – and serves not only as a history of the actual events of this period but is also a sometimes heart-stopping tale of some of the larger than life characters and their very human lives. It is, in effect, a precursor to television series like Game of Thrones. Only differences are there is a lot less sex and nudity and it is a lot easier to pick up in the middle. That’s a good point actually – I hadn’t seen Richard II but was able to follow the story with a lot of ease, so don’t let not knowing what came before put you off going. Anyway, so at the beginning of Henry IV we have King Henry IV on the throne. He has just overthrown his cousin Richard II and taken over the throne so feelings of guilt combine with accusations from around him to create an uneasy atmosphere. Henry would like more than anything to set out to the Holy Lands to in part redeem himself. But rebellions on various fronts within the country keep him in England and will culminate with the battle of Shrewsbury (a real life battle that took place in 1403). On the other hand we have Henry Jr (let’s call him Hal for the purposes of differentiation, the play is absolutely lousy with Henrys) who is the eldest of the princes and the heir to the throne. Hal is, by and large, slumming it. He spends time with drunkards and thieves (in particularly a dastardly old knight by the name of Falstaff) and shows absolutely no promise at all of becoming the kind of person a monarch should be. The play follows these two strands, the historical battles and the rebellion led by the hotheaded Henry Hotspur (I did warn you), Hal’s personal journey becoming a monarch (and preparing him for his title part in the last part of the tetralogy, Henry V) and the comic relief, a band of dastardly villains (and Hal’s entourage) led by Falstaff. For those history buffs among you, we start with the events leading to the battle of Shrewsbury and end with Hal’s coronation as king Henry V.   

Now, I have likened these historical plays to Game of Thrones earlier in the review – here’s where it begins to differ. As you may or may not know (funnily enough I did) Elizabethan theatre does not use décor and uses very little in the way of props. This production of the RSC has opted for a striking and minimal décor with light effects to give the allusion of different spaces and atmosphere. Thus there is nothing for the actors to hide behind – the entire emotion of the play has to come from their performance… And oh what a performance it is. Anthony Sher is absolutely wonderful as Falstaff – the main comic character counterbalancing the war and sadness in the other strands of the play and practically got a laugh a minute from the audience. Alex Hassel was engaging and fun to watch as Hal . So much so I nearly (not quite but nearly) impulse bought the last remaining rather highly priced stalls ticket for the last standalone performance the next day. Had it not been just after Christmas and the end of the month, I would almost certainly have bought it, and this purely because I was so attached to the character I was desperate to find out what happens to him next, and could not imagine ANY other actor portraying him. (I ultimately went for a more moderately priced version of Henry V, the 1989 film starring Kenneth Branagh. He was great too of course but that’s another discussion and he wasn’t Alex Hassel ehm ). Another favourite of mine was Matthew Needham whose Hotspur is as hot-headed as his name with almost manic energy that of course in the course of the story goes completely misdirected and ends up ruining him. I heard older members of the audience muttering about him being OTT but I honestly do not think that was the case. I think it sets off Hotspurs almost manic pursuit of a “job” against the attitude of Hal who is a shoo-in for but does not really care about the job. This in turn is the reason the old king Henry IV is worried – being a heir apparent is well and good but as King Henry knows only too well thrones can be easily lost, even when one is virtually sitting on them.

And this, of course is one of the reasons Shakespeare’s plays have such timeless appeal. The way the themes – even though the circumstances change – echo down the ages. That and, in this particular case, the fact that multiple genres – an almost vaudeville type comedy, a war epic and a tragedy are so skilfully mixed.  It’s just wonderful storytelling. It’s what we love in films when they come off right – blending genre conventions, creating larger than life characters (and yes the characters were actually real but the skill of the writer and actor combined is in making them look real in a performance) and above all telling a compelling story. Sound familiar? I bet we could apply that one to every single one of your favourite films. Well folks, this is where it began. This is why you need to learn more about Shakespeare. And this is why I am watching Shakespeare screen adaptations at a practically obsessive rate. 

So put aside your preconceptions. If you think you’ll struggle with the blank verse do what I did and read up on the topic first (and by that I mean I checked the synopsis on my phone on the way to the theatre). Just pick a decent performance and see what the fuss is about. Believe you me; I first got the tickets purely because my Middle Eastern side can’t resist a decent bargain on Timeout Offers. I ended up having my life changed for ever…

Curious ? Then head on over to www.kingandcountry.org.uk to find out more! There isn't much in the way of indiviual performances left I am afraid but you can actually see the whole tetralogy over a few days and get "the whole deal!

AN ADAPTATION - THOUGH NOT THE SORT YOU MIGHT EXPECT... "THRONE OF BLOOD / SPIDERWEB CASTLE"

Ok, so, this blog is a blog by a cinephile for other (potential) cinephiles. Not that you need any depth of knowledge concerning the cinema to read this blog, I have done my best to make sure of that… However, I do assume things sometimes. And I assume we have all heard of Shakespeare, right? Right. Phew. Now, the play I have in mind is Macbeth. But what, I hear you enquire, has that got to do with a week where the apparent theme has been the works of Akira Kurosawa? Well, the thing is I am not thinking of an exact replica of Macbeth, but an adaptation. By Akira Kurosawa. Into Japanese. There, that got your attention, didn’t it? =)
Ok, so I believe we all know the story of Macbeth, the story of Throne of Blood is exactly the same. Behold, long, long ago in medieval Japan, a good natured and valiant lord, Wachi, who fights for an overlord. He and his best friend are summoned to the castle one day to receive awards for outstanding bravery in battle and they are accosted by an evil woodland spirit. The spirit informs Wachi?? That he will one day rule the land. He tells Miki that his son and posterity will, among other predictions of promotion. The two friends are startled but are also determined not to take the spirit too seriously. Until its predictions start coming true that is. When Wachi goes home and tells his wife of what has happened, she takes the news rather differently. If he is destined to be overlord he must secure his position as soon as possible and by any means possible. Murder included…
Now I will not go on to the end on the off chance that some of us are not acquainted with the story of the play. But I am sure that those of us who are can see the similarities already. And the differences. The use of an evil spirit – commonplace in Japanese mythology I am told – instead of witches (nonexistent in Japanese mythology) is one small instance. The entire story, while kept the same (sometimes verbatim from the play – in Japanese of course) is tweaked and adapted to medieval Japan. It was interesting to see that the focus of the story had changed slightly in the adaptation too. Throne of blood is less the story of personal tragedy we see in Macbeth and more a warning against disloyalty and blind ambition. I’m not quite sure why this is the case, maybe having a profound personal story on screen would clash with Japanese formality of the ‘50s and ‘60s? Maybe Kurosawa was imitating some form of Japanese theatre? I say this because we notice a Greek chorus-like song at the beginning and end of the film spelling out the moral of the story for us. Maybe this kind of theatre would have to have a moral dimension to it? Maybe it was just Kurosawa’s personal decision. I’m not sure. All I know is, to give another example whereas Lady Macbeth is just a woman ambitious for her husband and for whom we feel sorry for at the end when she goes mad; Asaji, her equivalent in Throne of blood borders on being a monster. The way Kurosawa chooses to portray her – not just psychologically but the way she is physically shot in some of the scenes – is spooky, underlining the difference between her and her husband. She almost seems like the prolongation of the evil spirit egging him on. There are other, some quite major differences with the play too, but I have to warn you that you really shouldn’t expect %100 Shakespeare. As I told Mom repeatedly all through the film, it is an ADAPTATION. To JAPAN. Just sit back and enjoy the experience. If you are able to shed your prejudices you will enjoy it. At worst, you will find it interesting and that in itself is NOT a bad thing at all…