Macbeth

--Fantastical adventurous retelling. Made for the ever changing scope of cinema and the viewers of this millennium, not yesterdays. Some may call it the worst adaption; but one would have to assume that they are the type that believe theater should remain the same as thousands of years ago and never change. If Shakespeare had technology of today I would believe he would create similar shows with great sets and costumes with surreal backdrops and not consider such work as amateur or savage. In other words He would not work out of a textbook for the way that theater was eons ago. The Greater the Vision, the more people get left behind. That is exactly where they should be left, behind.

I watched this on BritBox (I'm American). It isn't bad at all. Macbeth is a female actor's dream because "she" has the best role. I didn't care for the naked sex, and it wouldn't be different no matter who acted it. I just prefer my favorite Shakespeare close to traditional. The actors were good. But good grief, why, oh why, does everyone have to use so much CGI and get "trendy to boot?!" Taking the camera view down winding stairs like the movie "Vertigo" does not add to the movie or the plot. I felt like I had vertigo watching it. The actors playing the Macbeths were as I said before, good. And so were the supporting cast. My husband and I both cracked up laughing at their feather capes. They looked like a couple of tall blackbirds! I rated it a bit below average because it was boring. How can anyone make Macbeth boring?? Unfortunately, it was. If you want to see one of the best experimental versions of Macbeth, watch Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood." It's Japanese, it's drama. This is a Lady Macbeth is chilling, especially when she slowly disappears into a dark room, and comes back with a container of tainted wine.

Mark Rowley made me cry. In the "Is this a dagger..." soliloquy, I honest to god cried it was so good. Al Weaver and Akia Henry, they rocked it. Truly amazing.

You either like the anachronistic versions or don't. If you don't like them, then this is not for you. If you are open to them, then this is truly a 10 out of 10 version of Macbeth.

The main drawback I found watching the film was in its conception of Macbeth as complete fabrication. Scenes take place underneath, within or above a transparent phantom house. The actors all have different English accents so there is really no coherent wider/national context to which we can relate unless the impression is to convey a kind of diaspora of corruption (which the king tapping globe image may suggest). It's not that the insistent visual theme of transparency up against Shakespeare's text is anachronistic, it's self negating: the entire impression of text vs. Image becomes meaningless. And although the character of Macbeth descends into nihilism by the last act the movie certainly shouldn't. What is the human recourse when the only measure of structure against insanity is itself a phantom? Fairly bleak considerations here. 3 Stars for the great visuals.

Of course Shakespear adaptions are hard to judge, but I'm a bit surprised to see such low rating on this one to be honest. The actors are top class, the cinematography is simply brilliant and the soundtrack by Jed Kurzel is out of this world.