RSC Live: Macbeth

Christopher Eccleston gives a rugged macho portrayal of Macbeth in this RSC production.

Once he wears the crown and attends a banquet, he is gripped with madness and paranoia. He knows he has blood in his hands. Someone is also keeping count of his death toll.

Niamh Cusack's Lady Macbeth is more sympathetic, she shines as someone who is more neurotic and less bloodthirsty.

The setting of this Macbeth is modernist. The three witches are girls in pyjamas. A digital clock is displayed after Duncan's murder and counts down to Macbeth's demise. It then resets again.

Certain phrases of the text are projected on a screen. One ubiquitous actor turns up in several roles more prominent as a creepy off kilter cleaner.

This is a gruff earthy and bloody production. Talks of brains being bashed. I did think the visual gimmicks was meant to give the play some accessibility. It did not always succeed. The countdown clock also tells you how long there is still to go.

I have a lot of time for Eccers, a committed actor from my part of the world who can be very good on his own ground. But somehow when he speaks the lines of Macbeth they seem completely random, as if they have nothing to do with him. It's like listening to an audiobook read by a bot, and probably for the same reason: that he doesn't understand what he is saying. And what's true of him is also true of Lady Macbeth (who jitters about all over the place, as if she is nervous before the Prom) and doubly and trebly true of the supporting cast. It seems like we are just not producing the actors with the intellect and verbal skills to handle these roles any more. If we are, they are certainly not getting on telly.

This production should have been, and had potential to be, much better than it turned out. 'Macbeth' is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays and one of his most accessible, evidenced by it being one of the few plays of his taught and studied in schools. Royal Shakespeare Company have done so many great productions in recent years and are a great company. The cast is a truly talented one and this review is coming from someone who has no problem with non-traditional productions, as long as they are in good taste.

Something that this production of 'Macbeth' failed to do. It manages to be even more less tasteful than the Rory Kinnear National Theatre production, which was sad for me as someone who admires Kinnear and the National Theatre live simulcasts that are always seen without fail. Have liked Christopher Eccleston in other things, including his scene-stealing work in 'The A Word' (one of not many shows in recent years to resonate with me). Likewise with Niamh Cusack ( do prefer Sinead out of the Cusack sisters though, think highly of them all but Sinead is special), ever since seeing her as Beatrix Potter in the sublime 'The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends'. This production of 'Macbeth' had a lot of potential, but doesn't live up to it at all.

Admittedly though it does have moments. Some of the supporting cast are good, Edward Bennett is a very poignant Macduff and Raphael Sowole's Banquo is suitably noble and loyal. Faring best is Michael Hodgson, here omnispresent as not just as the Porter but in multiiple roles and absolutely loved the ambiguity. The only staging touch pretty much that works.

It is a pretty decent looking production, not as ugly thankfully as the Kinnear production. Very horror-based but not schlocky. The music has some atmosphere.

Both Eccleston and Cusack disappoint on the other hand. Eccleston does give a robustness to his interpretation in the title role, but it is an interpretation that badly lacks nuance and he tends to rush through his lines (not like Eccleston usually). Cusack has some bloodthirsty moments but for my tastes she is too neurotic to the point of unstability as Lady Macbeth. Even for Lady Macbeth's state of mind at this point of the play, the staging of the sleepwalking scene goes well overboard on the unbalance (have never seen a Lady Macbeth this deranged at this point). Their chemistry doesn't convince, too distant and too aggresive.

Yes subtlety is not a strong suit at all in this production of 'Macbeth', don't think Polly Findlay even knew that this word exists. Although there is a spookiness in the play, there is too much of a horror aspect and it is done in a way in this aspect as too gimmicky and cheap as well as over-reliant. The staging really cheapens and badly undoes the production. Some good ideas, but all of them are half-baked and everything felt incredibly muddled. Couldn't even tell what the time period was or what country or century it was meant to be. The witches were not spooky enough and actually came over as unintentionally silly. The rest of the supporting cast don't stand out and some are quite odd, especially the murderers.

Concluding, weak. 3/10.

Though I can't claim to have been exhaustive (yet), to date I've watched many and a variety of interpretations of 'Macbeth' rendered for the screen. Professionally filmed stagings have been modest, artistic, and/or made shrewd use of the medium in which they operated; cinematic adaptations have been phenomenal, grandiose, middling, or in some cases questionable. Whether an iteration keeps the medieval Scottish setting or changes it, keeps period costuming or takes a different tack, or remains resolutely faithful to William Shakespeare's verses or takes artistic liberties, there is potential in all. After all, the dark tale of the play is ripe for telling with its swirl of supernatural prophecy, ambition, conspiracy, murder, and madness, all of which readily invites fiery, passionate performances and a violent energy. With the esteemed Royal Shakespeare Company putting on this 2018 production, starring renowned Christopher Eccleston and Niamh Cusack, it's reasonable to say that all things considered, I had high expectations. However, while I did enjoy this in some fair measure, in all honesty I feel it's a letdown, and I don't expect I'll think on it hereafter.

In one manner or another, creative choices were made throughout that diminish the wholesale excellence this might have otherwise claimed. Some of the costume design is sharp and vibrant in its modern sensibilities, but maybe sometimes too much so - so crisp and impeccable, and angular, as to betray the artificiality since the outfits don't look lived in, and appear almost plastic. Other instances of the sartorial arrangements are unremarkable street clothes or sleepwear, or simply assembled from the local military surplus store. There are facets of the production design and art direction that I do indeed appreciate, such as the second floor, the door that is directly upstage, and some use of lighting or environmental effects. Mostly, though, the set pieces are unimpressive and bland, at best doing nothing to catch our eyes, and some inclusions raise a skeptical eyebrow: the projected text above the stage; the timer counting down (but not from the very start); the water cooler, which makes one think we're seeing a performance by a community college. The audio is terribly imbalanced, too, with some dialogue being curiously soft, and some noise being jarring and deafening beyond reason; even the music of Rupert Cross feeds into that difficulty.

None of these matters fully preclude the production's potential in and of themselves; all, together, are burdensome. And that's not all, for I am less than entirely convinced by the stage direction of Polly Findlay. I don't fault the cast at all, and I'm certain that under ideal circumstances all would shine; I trust that were I to see more examples of Findlay's work she would impress elsewhere. Unfortunately, here it comes across that the exquisite vibrancy that we commonly anticipate of 'Macbeth' is for the most part just not mustered. The acting ranges from inappropriately casual and ineffective, to overcharged and forced, and all too rarely does the acting strike a chord that perfectly captures the sinister mood and the increasingly harrowing urgency of the scenario. In scattered bits and pieces Findlay's interpretation of a scene may hold a spark of brilliance, such as the Lord's second visit to the weird sisters, but even these tend to be fleeting and in the next instant come off more dubiously, as other scenes do outright. Sometimes, even when Eccleston, Cusack, and their costars are hitting all the right proverbial notes, owing to Findlay's uneven direction and/or the broadly dull staging, it's as if they need to work extra hard to light the imagination - but they don't know it, and so they do not and cannot.

Sadly, too often those scenes that should be vivid and striking - even the most famous ones, like the Lady's quintessential moment at the beginning of Act V - come and go without leaving much of a mark, if any at all. This 'Macbeth' becomes something that we can "watch" without actively engaging, for it neither requires nor inspires our investment. Personally, I found the single most grabbing piece in these two hours to have been Edward Bennett's acting at the very end of Act IV, after Macduff receives awful news; one tidbit that routinely delights, the porter's speech in Act II, passes with just as much vexing insouciance as so much else here; occasionally a beat is so limp, or possibly embellished, as to almost inspire mocking laughter. To cap it all off, in filming the production for the screen, Robin Lough's direction, and the subsequent camerawork and editing, are in my opinion variable in quality. The visualization from a limited perspective of what we would be seeing much more freely in person receives better treatment than we've gotten in other cases (see, for example, the 1961 TV movie starring Sean Connery), but too often we as an audience plainly recognize the limitations of the presentation as the camera's focus is limited.

I don't altogether dislike this. I did have a good time, to some extent. It's just regrettable that the entertainment Findlay's 'Macbeth' has to offer is no greater than what we can derive from any average movie or TV show that we may view in passing. For what is done well I want to like the whole more than I do; for what is done poorly, or unexceptionally, or which is rendered with no specific import or weight, maybe I'm being too kind. I'm glad for those who get more out of this staging than I do, but whatever one's impetus may be for watching, there are other titles and productions that are much more noteworthy and deserving of one's time, and I find it difficult to give an especial recommendation for this particular vision of Shakespeare's classic.