Customer Reviews

Macbeth

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I have taught this play 3xs a day for 15 years. It is no exaggeration to say that I consider it perfect. It contains Shakespeare's concisest expression of his insight into ambition, greed, remorse, emasculation, inevitability,and self-deception. The title character really does know better but he cannot help himself. Unlike many of the Bard's other great plays, this one achieves much of its tremendous power through its focus and economy, which brings me to Worthington's version. Naturally I went to see it in the theater, not knowing what to expect. I was blown away. For years I had pondered writing a contemporary version of the Scottish play but this movie beat me to it. I think everything about it works really well. My only criticism is that the famous "Tomorrow" speech is relegated to the end of the movie and it is shortened. This is the only choice I did not appreciate. Otherwise, this version may attract converts to what I think is the greatest play ever written. Finally, I am clear about one thing: this is a movie of a play. I don't expect the same things on the screen that I do in the theater.

It is refreshing to rest assured that Shakespeare remains a viable writer and no matter how his plays are manipulated or 'updated' or altered or interpreted, his majesty of the English language remains intact and the impact of his ideas and words sustain even the most bizarre reconsiderations. Such, for this viewer, is the case of MACBETH as condensed for the screen by writer/actress Victoria Hill and directed with intensity and sensitivity of communication by Geoffrey Wright. The result may seem to be a bloody mad feud suggesting a majority of the teen driven films of today, but consider the source: imagining Shakespeare's MACBETH without the gore would mean the meat had been removed.

Transferred from Scotland to Melbourne, Australia, the well-known fight for kingship among the Scots is transposed to be the turf struggle for supremacy in the underworld gangland of Melbourne. The script and the direction make this transposition work, using the original dialog from the play, placing it in the voices and bodies of an all-Australian cast, to the point that the allegiance of the actors as to place is far less important than the telling of a powerful tale of ambition. Sam Worthington makes an enigmatic yet strong Macbeth, well paired by Victoria Hill as his conniving and ultimately mad wife Lady Macbeth: the two form a chemistry that serves the original intent of the author well. The many characters who rise and fall in the wake of the ambition of Macbeth tend to blend a bit because of the condensation of the script, but Gary Sweet as the doomed Duncan, Steve Batoni as Banquo, and Lachy Hulme as Macduff are particularly fine. The three witches whose predictions drive the play here become nude seductresses and are well interpreted by Miranda Nation, Chloe Armstrong, and Kate Bell.

The battle scenes are appropriately gruesome and the musical score that accompanies this film is an odd mixture of rock and piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphony movements. With the bracing cinematography by Will Gibson it all works well. Unfortunately the Shakespearean language can become lost with the heavy Aussie accents and subtitles would have been helpful. But if your television set has that subtitle option available, this small defect can be overcome. Yes, it helps to know the original play well in order to fully appreciate the transposition, but the script and cast and director make a fine case for involving even the uninitiated into the power of MACBETH. Worth your time, this. Grady Harp, October 07

I bought this thinking that I could show it to my high school students--maybe a new twist on the text. However, not only was it poorly done, it was completely inappropriate for high school students. It seemed as if every time Lady Macbeth spoke, she needed to do a line of cocaine. In addition, Macbeth receives the witches' prophecies while having an orgy with them. So ridiculous. It was overacted and had tons of gratuitous violence. Yes, Macbeth is a violent play, but did they need to make the murder of Lady MacDuff sexually gratifying to her murderer? It just seemed way too over the top.

I am an English teacher, and I have always found Macbeth a tough sell with high school students. This modern take on the classic is the only film version available that appeals to a younger generation, and it uses the original text fairly effectively (albeit with many cuts). Think of this as the Macbeth equivalent of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, but without Luhrmann's visual sense of humor.

Yes, this Macbeth has its drawbacks, namely gratuitous nudity and an inexplicable orgy with Macbeth and the witches (I skip over these parts with my students). Overall, though, this film captures the violence of the play in a more contemporary context and, through visual cues, actually provides plausible motivations for the characters (e.g. Lady Macbeth is a suicidal drug user after the death of a son). Worth a look, but not for purists.

WARNING

******************* THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS ****************

I like "Macbeth" the best of Shakespeare's plays, partially because at least I can understand it. I'm college educated but not an academic, and unfortunately, with Shakespeare I usually only get about half of what's being said. (I'm sorry; I'm not so up on my 17th Century allusions.) But the play "Macbeth" is swift, clear, comparatively short, and the piece's themes are within grasp. Also, if properly done, its scary...which is involving.

I like when Shakespeare's plays are transported into non-traditional settings...THAT WORK. Moving this particular play to a modern-day, drug cartel environment -- as this version does -- doesn't quite snap into place, however.

The main problem with this adaptation is its actors, all of who, I am sure, have been or will be effective in other roles. But if this play is about Macbeth, then it seems to me you should have a very strong personality playing that role. Sam Worthington is handsome-ish, which is always nice, but seems too placid and withdrawn. Even if this king needs prodding from his wife to seize the day, he's still supposed to be a hungry and driven type. Worthington is neither of those things. The characterization of Lady M laid out here doesn't serve Victoria Hill any better. First she's shown weeping at her dead son's grave, which is an interesting touch...but then how does that merge with her later (famous) claim that she's sooner dash that baby's brains out than break a promise to her husband? There is simply no dynamic between this couple that conveys a deep partnership or shared destiny. Or even a mutual, morbid greed.

Just about the only addition to this version I liked was that King Duncan is put up in a separate guest house on the Macbeth's property when he visits, which allows for some sneaking around in the dark, and explains why the other guests don't hear anything. But in an example of how this setting doesn't serve the text, since everyone else is killed with guns, why would Macbeth and his wife choose to stab their guest to death??? It just seems awkward. (And why does everyone think it's natural for Banquo's sons to turn into a long line of drug "kings"; aren't most cartels wiped out before they become multi-generational?) Similarly, how can Macbeth repeatedly call the three witches "hags" when they're nubile centerfolds rolling around in bed with him? And how did all the gross ingredients get into Macbeth's kitchen for the "Double double / Toil and trouble" scene? It makes more sense if Macbeth travels to meet them on their own turf for that, as originally written. (There's also something more sinister and isolated about his having to travel into an otherworldly wasteland to see them.)

The final problem (which also crops up in Roman Polanski's FAR FAR superior version) is that many of the monologues are superimposed in voice-over while we watch closeups of the actors. There's something transporting and glorious about watching really well-trained actors dive into these speeches...but to watch a solemn face as the lines are recited on a separate track? Why bother?

As an English teacher, I am always looking for new things to spark my students' interests. I purchased this movie thinking that it could be a new twist on the play to watch after finishing the play. While watching this movie, I was horrified. It was sick, twisted, and poorly done. Is there a particular reason why Macbeth has to receive his predictions from the witches during an orgy? There is just no point. If you are a teacher, this is definitely not a school appropriate video! Just a heads up!

This version of Macbeth provides a modern take on the Shakespearean tragedy while maintaining a majority of the original script. While I would still prefer the Polanski version, I found that this version works well at introducing newcomers to Shakespeare. With the proper juggling of permission slips and/or editing (a few scenes containing nudity), this modern Macbeth can become a useful tool in a senior English classes.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The characters use the actual lines from the play, which takes a little getting used to while they're racing around in range rovers and wielding automatic machine guns. The acting was really well played.

I think to really appreciate this movie you have to like the story of Macbeth, like violent movies, and think that it's fun to tell the story in the context of modern day gang warfare. If you are unwilling to give the director the artistic freedom required to explore this setting in *re-telling* Macbeth, I recommend passing on it, or risk being frustrated.

I think it's a terrific movie, all the action scenes are well shot, the dream/hallucinating scenes are sexy yet strange, and the blending between modern day and Shakespeare's era is believable (after a while).

Robbed of all it's innate majesty and poetic vision,set in contemporary times among the Melbourne underworld and boiled down by writer Victoria Hill (who also plays Lady Macbeth) into a series of "Kill Bill" like bloody scenes, Sam Wright's "Macbeth" manages to turn Shakespeare's play into an Iambic Pentameter spoken episode of the "Night Stalker."
Sam Worthington gives us 100 ways to glower as Macbeth and the scene with the three witches (in this case not old, wizened hags but three bodacious young women) is laughable and audacious in its sheer lunacy.
"Macbeth" is shot like a BMW commercial: all bright and shiny with glistening surfaces and most of the players are saddled with dyed black hair and tight leather clothing.
All of this would not matter one whit if director Wright had infused the mise en scene with some humor or more importantly some insight into what Shakespeare was after in his play.
By all means check this version out if only to compare it to the gorgeous Welles version or even the straightforward though poetic Polanski one. Just be forewarned: a huge amount of Scotch is required to get you through this particularly difficult experience.

THE GOOD NEWS: If you have been wanting to see a modern-dress Macbeth or you're a rabid fan of Sam Worthington, then this is the version for you!

THE BAD NEWS: Those are the ONLY reasons for buying this particular version of one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies. Here's why I think so:

1) Shakespeare's plays are one of the glories of the English language. While it's logical that, having taken a "modernizing" approach, this production has the actor's deliver their lines naturalistically -- that is, as prose -- most of them (in my view, Worthington included) do so badly. They rush through the speeches. (If you want to see how effective this can be when done well, check out the Broadway Theatre Archive version of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.) Making matters worse, this production's Duncan (Gary Sweet) delivers his lines as verse, destroying the illusion the production is attempting to create.

2)What helped Shakespeare's work survive during those first decades when they were no longer being performed is that he created great characters; thus his plays stayed alive in the study, if not on the stage. If your only knowledge of Lord and Lady Macbeth were from this production, you would be left with the impression that they were empty of much in the way of character and sank into their bloody ways because they were stoned all the time. Furthermore, if either actor here had any idea of creating an arc for their character, I can't detect it. Worthington seemed to be playing Macbeth as a simple-minded lunkhead and Victoria Hill seemed to view his Lady as a hysteric on coke. Their downward course came across as not only meaningless but utterly random.

3)On top of these problems, the whole production seems (to me) inconsistent and poorly worked out. Okay, having the three wierd sisters playes by girls in school uniforms is a nice touch; but then Macbeth addressing three nude and nubile women as "hags" seems just silly -- on the level of an SNL skit. And bringing Duncan's murder on-screen and turning it into a prolonged (literally) bloodbath puts the whole scene on the level of a grade Z slasher flick. Yes, I know Macbeth is steeped in horrors. But if you want to see this approach done well, try the supremely better DVD put out by the Folger Shakespeare Library. (And -- previous reviewers take note! -- you can even show it to your English classes.)