Skip to main content

Why do you dress me in borrowed robes?

The Tragedy of Macbeth

(SPOILERS) The distinguishing title of this latest adaptation of the most (?) adapted Shakespeare play sounds like the setup of for a round of Whose Line Is it Anyway...? “The tragedy of Macbeth is…” that it’s a quite beautifully shot film, one where you can sink into each frame and luxuriate, yet its central relationship – the one that sparked the project in the first place, at least as far as the actress playing Mrs MacB is concerned – rather lacks the expected oomph.

Underplaying Hamlet, sure. That makes sense. But underplaying Macbeth and his lady wife? If there was ever a free pass to go for it, surely this was it. And absolutely: material this well serviced should be up for infinite variations of approach (albeit, it seems there are limits: “Look Tom, it shouldn’t get laughs” Baker was told when playing the Thane). The problem with both Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand is that they make their characters trajectories seem fait accompli, as if they’re so familiar with the play, there’s little point putting any extra effort into their journeys.

I rarely felt the conviction of Lady M’s determination to have her hubby become king – maybe when she returns to the scene of the murder after Macbeth refuses, maybe – and there was nary a pungent waft of her approaching mental deterioration. Likewise, I didn’t feel the doubt of Macbeth of the first part, or his growing confidence and determination as he gets deeper and deeper into his swamp of the second. Washington plays the title character in such a moderated, temperate fashion, right up until some gory locks are shook at him, that he failed to convince me of his conviction or lack thereof (that said, his performance is infinitely preferable to Fassbender’s OTT turn a few years back). One might reasonably have expected age and world-weariness to play a part in the characters – a good three or four decades older than the standard – but not in a manner that suggests borderline indifference.

In a sense, the surprise is that the inability to convey these shifts in psychology and motivation in a palpable manner – oh, so Lady M’s losing it now? I wouldn’t have notice if I hadn’t been told – isn’t more detrimental to the overall piece. That’s at least in part down to the consummate production. Coen’s Macbeth, shot on sound stages pregnant with fog, foreboding and portents, is spellbinding. The castle, rather than your usual draughty medieval dump, is a thing of striking elegance, all long shadows and divine symmetry. The compositions are frequently extraordinary, be it Lady Macbeth setting fire to her husband’s letter, which burning, takes to the starry skies, or Ross (Alex Hassell) searching for young Fleance (Lucas Barker) in a field of corn, or Macduff confronting Macbeth on pristine battlements, the latter attempting to retrieve his crown but losing his head. There’s been a surge in black-and-white prestige pictures in recent years, but often – Roma, Mank – the digital sheen has done nothing for the monochrome option. Bruno Delbonnel previously lensed Inside Llewyn Davis, and the expressionist precision of his work here is masterful.

In contrast with the spooksome atmosphere, Coen very much favours the in-the-mind madness approach to the play’s supernatural elements, such that even the three witches are shown as one (she casts two reflections in a pond); later, they appear to Macbeth above his bed, suggesting the second visitation is a fantasy on his part. The dagger he sees before him is splendidly visualised as the gleaming door handle to the king’s chamber. Banquo’s ghost is a fluttering bird transformed into a rampaging axeman.

Joel keeps his proceedings subdued and brooding for much of the time, such that, when there are eruptions, they have more impact. In that regard, he’s probably at his best and most fluid between the murder and the banquet; although he enjoys himself with Macbeth’s brief and brutal confrontation with Siward (Richard Short), you can feel he isn’t really buying into the Birnam Wood conceit. He keeps the porter (Stephen Root) scene, despite the pruning, presumably because he couldn’t bear to have no humour at all in the dour piece (the part is, it has to be said, Shakey at his most lowbrow).

The rest of the casting is variable. Brendan Gleeson is exactly as competent as you’d expect from such an obvious choice for Duncan. Corey Hawkins is exactly as unimpressive as you’d expect from the lead of 24: Legacy. But I also wondered if this nondescript quality was intentional on his director’s part, given the way he evidently and expressly inflates the non-role of Ross. Hassell – bizarrely so, on the face of it – completely steals the show as the generally functional messenger.

This is, in part, surely because he’s your bona fide RSC thesp. But it’s also clear that Coen considered there was untapped potential in the character, such that he knew he needed an actor who could not only represent the ambiguity of Ross’s allegiance, but also make a significant enough impression that the reveal of his saviour status would provide an effective twist.

Roman Polanski had Ross as the Third Murderer – I tend to the idea it was Macbeth himself, regardless of the scholarly objections to that take – and Joel, maybe nodding to his bloodthirsty cinematic forbear, takes up that baton. But then he prods it somewhere else entirely. Because the choice brings something new to the table, eking out hitherto unearthed terrain; it’s almost enough to call what is, in many respects, a staunchly trad telling “fresh” (certainly, one could picture Ross spying the lie of the land and playing the long game, surmising that the future is with the next generation and he needs to ensure he’s on the winning team, regardless of prophetic speeches. Which might be Macbeth’s QAnon, proving valid, but not in the way its staunchest believer hopes).

Despite that “freshness”, The Tragedy of Macbeth can’t get past the slightly underwhelming leads. In the end, this still seems as if it was done for “Well, why not?” reasons, rather than a genuine passion for the material, or an entirely individual take (as per Polanski). Joel’s made a very respectable version, but aside from its visual lustre, it’s hardly a remarkable one.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We could be mauled to death by an interstellar monster!

Star Trek Beyond (2016) (SPOILERS) The odd/even Star Trek failure/success rule seemed to have been cancelled out with the first reboot movie, and then trodden into ground with Into Darkness (which, yes, I quite enjoyed, for all its scandalous deficiencies). Star Trek Beyond gets us back onto more familiar ground, as it’s very identifiably a “lesser” Trek , irrespective of the big bucks and directorial nous thrown at it. This is a Star Trek movie that can happily stand shoulder to shoulder with The Search for Spock and Insurrection , content in the knowledge they make it look good.

He's not in my pyjamas, is he?

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969) (SPOILERS) By rights, Paul Mazursky’s swinging, post-flower-power-gen partner-swap movie ought to have aged terribly. So much of the era’s scene-specific fare has, particularly so when attempting to reflect its reverberations with any degree of serious intent. Perhaps it’s because Mazursky and co-writer Larry Tucker (also of The Monkees , Alex in Wonderland and I Love You, Alice B. Toklas! ) maintain a wry distance from their characters’ endeavours, much more on the wavelength of Elliott Gould’s Ted than Robert Culp’s Bob; we know any pretensions towards uninhibited expression can’t end well, but we also know Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice have to learn the hard way.

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998) An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar. Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins , and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch , in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whet

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

There is a war raging, and unless you pull your head out of the sand, you and I and about five billion other people are going to go the way of the dinosaur.

The X-Files 5.14: The Red and the Black The most noteworthy aspect of this two parter is that it almost – but not quite – causes me to reassess my previous position that the best arc episodes are those that avoid tackling the greater narrative head-on, attempting to advance the resistant behemoth. It may be less than scintillating as far as concepts go, but the alien resistance plot is set out quite clearly here, as are the responses to it from the main players.