"...They say blood will have blood."
Macbeth
 |
| Macbeth... Surprisingly light on laughs. |
SYNOPSIS:
Justin Kurzel, the serious-minded director of Snowtown, helms this latest adaption of the bleak Shakespeare play. Macbeth, a loyal captain (or "Thain") to the King of Scotland, presently locked in a bloody war against traitorous factions. It is during the heat of one of these viscous battles that Macbeth is visited by three witches, who reveal a prophesy to Macbeth that he will seize the crown of Scotland. Driven by this eerie revelation, and further goaded by his ambitious wife, Macbeth descends into a perilous spiral of greed, madness and ruthless betrayal.
SCRIPT: 1/2
To the best of my knowledge this adaption of Shakespeare's work is perfectly faithful while still allowing for a unique breadth of vision. While the story and it's outcome may be known to many by now, Macbeth is not necessarily a story building to an unexpected climax. Rather, even as a newcomer to the material, it is clear that Macbeth's efforts, in the best traditions of 'self-fulfilling prophesies', will eventually lead to his downfall, and as an audience we are encouraged to witness the man essentially build his own gallows. In this respect the script is as solid, and the experience will not be ruined by anyone being too familiar with the story.
Any reservations I have regarding the script probably relate more to Shakespeare's writing than with anybody involved in the film itself. Perhaps a sign of its time, I found some of the exchanges stilted and plodding. Perhaps in the arena of hyper-drama that is 'the stage' these moments are more fitting, but in the cold realism of the film's setting, and delivered in such a way by the movie's cast as to feel 'real', this only highlights the enormity of the void between 'stage art' and film. What's left is a dreamlike experience, where the unreal and the unfeasible are treated with grim-faced mundanity.
PACE: 1/2
The story of Macbeth, when all is said and done, is quite a simple and direct fable, with a very clear arc for the characters, moving towards its inevitable conclusion. While the film never felt overly long, it did at times move at what I consider to be a rather indulgent pace. The sheer number of silent and lingering shots of barren landscapes and scowling close-ups probably add to this sensation; all these shots are good for establishing character and atmosphere, but by the half-way point hardly seem necessary, and their inclusion feels more for the sake of aesthetic than any storytelling device. Art for its own sake is fair enough, but it does come at a price to the pace. Dirge-like would seem a fitting description as any to describe this pace, and put me in mind of the western classic Once Upon a Time in the West, in as much as I was more aware I'd seen a great deal of nothing only after the film had ended.
ACTING: 2/2
Michael Fassbender (who at present does seem to be in everything, right?) once again proves his acting credentials are well deserved. His role as the ill-fated Macbeth suits his somber and weathered features, and he's never less than a charismatic screen presence- much needed when his character is the villain of the story, the audience certainly won't be rooting for him. Magnetism compensates for the support a more sympathetic character would receive... Marion Cotillard is also on fine thespian form as Macbeth's wife, an opportunist manipulator who, much too late, realises she has created a monster. David Thewlis (fresh from an equally small but pivotal role in Legend) and Paddy Considine (one of Britain's unsung acting heavyweights) give excellent support as the doomed King and Macbeth's closest friend respectively. Only Sean Harris, here playing Macduff, a character who's destiny is fatefully entwined with Macbeth's own, hits what feels like a 'wrong note'- but I can only fault this subjectively; personally I found Harris' Macduff (a character who should have the audience's full support come the violent climax) strangely removed and hard to like. Still, Harris plays the part convincingly.
Like I said before, to their credit all the cast play their parts straight- camp posturing and stage theatricality are left by the wayside, lending the film an oddly engaging surrealism.
AESTHETIC: 2/2
I can't stress this enough; Macbeth is a stunningly beautiful film. You only have to watch the trailer, or view some of the stills, to get a sense of what to expect. Every single frame is lighted and arranged on the screen like a work of gallery art. It's in this respect, more than any other, that Macbeth is worthy of your consideration. Not since Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula has a film ever been so lovingly and artistically staged. Scotland has never on screen been so rugged, inhospitable or as elegant (and as Game of Thrones did for Ireland, I expect Macbeth will do for the Isle of Skye). The soundtrack is also pitch-perfect; a pulsating and foreboding thrumming which compliments the sparse and imposing visuals.
There's an argument to be made here that it's the films awe-inspiring visual vitality that makes what is otherwise a familiar tale, in a world already chock-full of remakes and reboots, worth another screen interpretation. Because, without this very striking identity, the tale of Macbeth is essentially the same as it always has been... Perhaps more present day reboots could learn a lesson from this?
While it could hardly be considered a miss-step, I do consider some of the aesthetic choices in the costume department quite strange, and found (not from a particularly well informed viewpoint, granted) that some of the outfits, as well as the style of the combat, were more reminiscent of Persian cultures rather than Scottish. For example, a distinct lack of shields are present on the battlefield, despite a couple of the bard's lines which refer to their presence. Still, the film is never less than striking...
INTENTION: 1/2
Why the director or cast felt we needed another Macbeth, I'm not sure. People are all too quick to bemoan a rebooting of a superhero franchise or other pop-culture icon (such as Robocop, John McClain or Indiana Jones), but are far more accepting of the dusting-off of a Shakespeare play. Does a classic heritage exclude this 'remake' from criticism, a tenancy to view culture with a more forgiving eye? After all, how many times has Macbeth been retold on the screen? 3 times? 5? Maybe 7? No, 17 so far... Food for thought?
What struck me most about watching the film, and the marketing for that matter, is just how "self-worthy" the film felt. I get a bad taste in the back of my mouth whenever I sense the well-educated and the well-paid are patting each other on the back, nodding and smiling, self-congratulatory, because every one of them is 'aware' they're involved in something 'important'; something that 'transcends the medium'. Well, to my mind, and to its own detriment, Macbeth reeks of that elitist critical thinking.
FINAL SCORE: 7/10
Epic visuals, haunting storytelling, and (as a cinema goer behind me aptly commented) "monumental" in its delivery, this is a worthy retelling of the Shakespeare play. If it does have a flaw, aside perhaps for being a tale too "hooey" for modern sensibilities, is that you can almost hear the crew practicing their acceptance speeches... But who knows, perhaps justly?
FINAL, FINAL WORD:
Macbeth's director Justin Kurzel, writer Michael Lesslie, and star Michael Fassbender are set to reunite for 2016's video-game-to-movie adaption Assassins Creed. On the face of it, the three would seem above such a low-brow project, but maybe I've got it all wrong. Having said that, Macbeth's costume isn't a thousand miles away from the look of the game, and Fassbender isn't without experience in the genre, having been in projects such as 300 and Centurion. Perhaps we're finally due a computer-game tie-in worthy of some attention? We'll wait and see...
