"Macbeth" (2015)

Director:  Justin Kurzel

The art direction is amazing.  Things have been done in previous productions with light and dark (set, costumes, lights, etc.).  This does the same but adds fire.  Light.  Dark.  and Fire.  It also looks to have worked to weave a thoroughly Scotland feel through the whole thing (definitely in scenery; twinge of Scottish accent, but still keeping it understandable for those of us who are outsiders--made it feel more Shakespearean that way too--at least for me).  Intriguing things are done with stopping and starting (fast and slow) action and with music (open chord drones on violins/strings), especially at the beginning and end.

The weird sisters also had repeated appearances in this version as with previous ones, but putting it together with the fire theme against the uses of the cross and light through crosses brought more "just whom do you serve?" belief questions into the story without necessarily addressing the question directly.  (Note [with the weird sisters nearby] Macduff's "let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd" near the end)

The text is moved around and different lines juxtaposed in a way that works.  The Birnum wood coming to Dunsinane is via fire burning a forest and the smoke and fire heading up to Dunsinane castle, providing both a screen of fire and smoke for the military force there and another way to work the theme of fire in.  This fire screen besides providing an ongoing thematic element and dramatic set piece also provides a way for the audience to watch the violent showdown between Macduff and Macbeth with a little less gore while still getting the action of a "good" fight.

Other than an occasional yell--okay rare yell--I think the entire movie was whispered.  It was thus with relief that I found some scenes cut--some of the "talking someone else into something" scenes such as the lengthy discourse when Macbeth hires the murders and when Macduff searches out Malcolm.  I found this a relief this time because while Goold's 3-hour version flew by, this version seemed to crawl through its two hours.  I suppose if you looked at all the whispering as sitting around a fire (note theme) and telling a tale full of sound and fury, then perhaps you wouldn't worry about how fast you told the story while you waited for the fire to burn itself out.  I couldn't tell you why it dragged, but it did.  A well-done tightly woven text of a two hour movie drags on more than an include every line and go for three hour movie.  Go figure the mysteries of movie making.

The ghost in this banquet hall scene was shown in this version--well done with subtle appearance instead of in-your-face.  There is no double, double toil and trouble speech.  No Siward and son scene.  No Lady Macduff lamenting about hubby leaving, though you see her and her kids captured and burned at the stake (note again the fire theme).

This Macbeth seemed to be played as a soldier from beginning to end, not having gone crazy but perhaps not knowing how to stop being a soldier.  Through Lady Macbeth, a story thread was woven of her having had kids--one for sure, maybe two?--and then lost them, perhaps not able to have more, and then having to watch Lady Macduff's kids burn at the stake; the thread of the loss of children as a significant theme/story thread.

Recapping:  I liked the art direction--light, dark, fire, violin drones.  I liked the text changes.  It's nice to have a different interpretation of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to compare to and with.  But it sure did drag.

"Great Performances: Macbeth" (2010)

Director:  Rupert Goold
Patrick Stewart

This version of Macbeth is not for those who are squeamish at the sight of blood.  In fact, should you consider showing even a scene of this to a classroom, it would be wise to carefully consider twice-over what you would show.

That said, the interpretation of this Macbeth is the closest interpretation yet to how I read Macbeth's transformation:  unsure and hesitant some (while still a soldier) at the beginning, moving through the middle where he has power and "enjoys" being in charge at the top, and ending with a crazy man who let power go to his head from too much war/violence without it seeming only "psycho".  Unlike the 1983 interpretation of Lady Macbeth (who one could be sympathetic with for her plight regarding her changing husband), this Lady Macbeth is much less soft, but just as real a portrayal.  The repeated physical gesture [hand in hand we go in/out together] was noted and effective.

This version works more women characters in well (good!).  We see Macduff's family more than once.  Hear from them lines in more than one scene.  This version also has the three witches/weird sisters repeating appearances in different ways throughout the play.  The Siward and Young Siward scenes/moments are kept.  You have an invisible dagger (first vision), but a visibly demonstrated Banquo Ghost.  The last set of visions is a mix of invisible and visible representations.

Most lines are heard plainly, but the very first soldier's report and many of the weird sisters incantations are not understandable.  However, the sense of all these hard to "hear" lines are not lost.  The effect of the first soldier's report was clear enough.  The sense of the "double, double toil and trouble" song is clever; so was an effective delivery.  (The incantation hints of rap in style.)

The set and costume are reminiscent of 1940s war, though done well to keep the "country" of that of the world of the play, and none other (or none other as far as I'm concerned).  I saw a documentary not too long back about one of England's castles that during WWII had underground headquarters where much war time council and action was done.  This Macbeth set reminds me of that documentary--an underground "bunker" where most of the action takes place.

The play "takes its time" in that it does everything and it is a 3 hour movie; yet, it hooks so well that the time is not long, and I did not wish to hit "pause" at all (except to re-watch a scene or two here and there).

The warning at the beginning of this movie/play was well needed.  It is a bloody play, then it again it's a bloody story.  It was told very well.

Now I want to go watch something light and fluffy so that I'll actually fall asleep tonight.

"Macbeth" (1983)

Director:  Jack Gold [BBC]

This is staged on a set with basic spare scenery, and costumes set in the period of when the story takes place.

This Macbeth is a smidge more power-hungry.  Lady Macbeth shows more the fear of what her husband has become (a tyrant--as opposed to mad/crazy).  [In the scene where Macbeth turns a corner, he mimes his thoughts by absent-mindedly coming close to choking her.]  

This Macduff is wrought with grief and tears when he hears the news of his wife and kids.  Silent silhouettes of the witches/weird sisters repeat through the later parts of the play.
The ending leaves a visual cliff-hanger of the future tension between Fleance and Malcolm.


The scene where Siward hears of his son's death is included.

"A Performance of Macbeth" (1979)

Conception (and sometimes version attributed to) Trevor Nunn
Director:  Philip Casson [The Royal Shakespeare Company Production]
Starring Ian McKellen and Dame Judi Dench


Performed with no set, dark/minimal lighting, minimal props, and in current/modern dress of the day (when it was filmed).  Even the costumes used are limited to the spectrum of white to black.  Almost done as theater-in-the-round.  Almost.

It is a performance that focuses on the acting of the lines, on the actor, as opposed to a grand staging of the story.  It strips the story to the core of the story itself--the words, and with this ensemble engages a group as a story teller of old would sit around the proverbial fire and spin a yarn to capture the ears of the listeners solely on the words of the story, the story itself, and the art of the storytelling.

This version captures well the growing crazy, increasing guilt, the change in character, and the change in relationship especially to each other of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.  This Macbeth is played as truly gone mad (crazy).

This Macduff seems to despair more for his country.
Cut from the production:  The scene at the end where Siward hears of his son's death.

"Shakespeare's Globe: Henry IV, Part 1" (2010)

Director:  Dominic Dromgoole

This is a live stage play that was filmed, but is filmed very, very well.

This version is very good at showing the verbal banter that exists between Falstaff and Hal.  The play within a play is played highly humorous up to the "I do.  I will" line which smacks Falstaff unexpectedly.

This version also includes some physical humor.  This includes some of the crass that Shakespeare has buried inside the play.  As a theatre play it shows well the feeding off the audience and demonstrates the need to wait for laugh lines, comic timing, and the value of what an interactive audience will do.

It does work better to enjoy this version if you are already familiar with the story and jist of the lines.

This Hal definitely does not want to grow up.  He goes kicking and screaming.  I question that this interpretation shows Hal growing up at all.  His battle valor is more as a response to his father's challenge, much in the style that he answered the bar challenges earlier in the play.  He answers the challenge, and things are made up with his father when Hal saves his life, but has he grown up?  This version doesn't answer that question; therefore, it shows the latitude that the text gives in not answering this question as a given "yes."  It shows Hal as ethical in battle, but is he ready to rule?  This interpretation leaves that question unanswered.

With that food for thought in the background, the forefront shows a thoughtful, irreverent Falstaff who sits at the top of humor as the main thrust of this version.

This is the version of the silent but visible husband of Mistress Quickly who sat up above in the balcony and smiled.