Macbeth

Ah, 'Macbeth.' One of the most well known and oft performed of William Shakespeare's plays, and among the most frequently seen on either the small or silver screens. Whether professionally filmed footage of theatrical productions, or full-length films that cross the countryside and/or massive soundstages, many have been the renditions to greet us for posterity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. And here's another, less well-known, from filmmaker Jeremy Freeston. The production values feel a tad dated, coming across more as a television production than the cinematic release that it was, and we see this even very early on in facets like the special effects, the haziness in the basic image itself, the opening battle sequence that heavily recalls 'Braveheart' of several years before, and even the camerawork and slightly tinny music. These matters aren't too significant, though, and the more substantial question is of how the director will put his own stamp on the Scottish play when the story, characters, dialogue, and scene writing are already established, and when the costume design, hair, makeup, and sets and/or filming locations are already effectively conceptualized for a period piece. The familiarity that the world already has with the material presents a double-edged sword, for while such aforementioned elements are already laid in to some degree for the director, for we viewers we're more likely to draw comparisons, to recognize flaws or discrepancies, and to need some major stroke of brilliance in a new iteration to bestow especial favor. With all this firmly in mind, I don't think this version is super special, nor one of the foremost examples - but it's suitably well made generally, and enjoyable on its own merits, and sometimes that's all a flick needs to be.

Between Freeston's direction and the screenplay he adapted with Bob Carruthers there are various odds and ends to come to our attention. Though none that are utterly essential to the telling, there are some noteworthy omissions from among The Bard's verses (e.g., the porter's cheeky soliloquy prior to opening the gate), and other instances that are shuffled around a little (Duncan hearing the news of victory in battle). As we've seen in other interpretations, some large blocks of text are realized as voiceovers, expressing a character's inner thoughts; it seems to me there are some small moments where the pacing is very slightly rushed, with perhaps too little of a pause for effect between lines or movements. I would also suggest that there are times when the passion is missing from or diminished in a scene, coming across chiefly in the actors' performances though I believe informed by Freeston's oversight - this this is an issue seen primarily in early scenes, and as the plot picks up with the first foul deed such concerns are ameliorated. Lastly, in terms strictly of criticism, or at least observation, there's one particular music cue that's emphatically overused; employed for dramatic effect, it's so profuse in its administration as threaten parody. Yet while all these aspects are worth mentioning, gratifyingly, none are so severe as to majorly detract or distract from the viewing experience; however much one may disagree with some specific choices, the core remains intact. And the core, moreover, remains admirable and entertaining.

In no manner is this 1997 'Macbeth' the superlative, but just as there are some notions herein that have been better explored in other such movies, there are some that are better than what we've gotten elsewhere. The play is nothing if not a dark, bloody, compelling spectacle of ambition, prophecy, conspiracy, violence, madness, and death, and though the very word "spectacle" may bear too robust a connotation in this case, by and large we get exactly what we hope out of it. The utmost fire and heightened emotions are somewhat reduced, but are generally just more nuanced and careful rather than absent. This applies across the board, and while other portrayals of these figures may have been more immediately striking, I wouldn't dare say that anyone here is markedly lesser in what they offer. Jock Ferguson's presence as the porter is far smaller here, for example, but he makes the most of it; Tess Dignan's wide-eyed state of confusion as Lady Macduff makes a minor impression. Jason Connery isn't my favorite Lord Macbeth (that distinction goes to Sir Patrick Stewart), but he very capably brings to bear the tyrant's increasingly scattered and troubled mindset. Most notable of all in my mind is Helen Baxendale, whose interpretation as we see it of Lady Macbeth is highly variable in its strength. There are moments where she completely shines, realizing the terrible malice and growing disquiet with wonderful finesse (Baxendale's acting in Act III is, unquestionably in my mind, superior to those of other actors and adaptations); there are moments where her delivery feels bizarrely, inappropriately casual, beyond what may be portended by a deteriorating mentality; Lady Macbeth's big scene in Act V flits between both these opposite ends of the spectrum. And so on, and so on.

And so it is broadly, perhaps, with the overall tone across the narrative under Freeston's direction. I think more than not this is a fine picture, and a credit to all involved. It is also simply not the ideal - not with regards to bringing Shakespeare's verses to life, not with regards to the sordid but dazzling pageantry that we have gotten with other renditions, and not with regards to the potent feelings that the play should carry or inspire. There are points where this 'Macbeth' is arguably a tad richer than some others; it may well be said, however, even with its discrete visualization of violence, it doesn't necessarily capture the full weight and grim splendor of the tale. I believe the end result is much better than not, with solid writing, direction, and acting, not to mention all those contributions from those behind the scenes: stunts, effects, art direction, costume design, and more. If all told the outcome is not an exemplar, and less impressive than some of its kin, then it's no badge of dishonor for Freeston, Carruthers, Connery, Baxendale, or anyone else - only a reflection of how outstanding other iterations have been. When all is said and done this feature is no must-see, and especially considering some of the other stellar versions one can watch, it's no priority in my judgment even for ardent bibliophiles. Still, if one has the opportunity to watch, and is keen on the play, then it's a splendid way to spend one's time just as it is. This 1997 'Macbeth' isn't the cream of the crop, but there's no rule that says it has to be, and it's worth checking out just as it is.

Excellent performance. There still are good actors around! Also great directing and photography. Very true to Shakespear, and a 'must' for all Shakespear fans. Macbeth (Jason Connery) moved me to tears with his final monolog (out brief candle, out)He gave the sphere of moral decay and dark forces a human face, which makes it the more interesting. Helen Baxendale is a very credible lady Macbeth who can be very cheerfull at times and sometimes she just looks like a naughty girl, but deadly in her taste for blood and evil. If you love death and decay, and Shakespears lyrics... this is the one.

This is for "mcjadt", who wrote:

"Within a few minutes of Connery's mumbling, the viewer is struck the urge to see the roles reversed and MacTavish in the title role. No wonder MacBeth felt he needed to kill him."

Funny, I felt the same way about the two actors who played those parts in Polanski's version -- and again when I saw the play live with Richard Jordan as Macbeth.

It may be -- and I said MAY be -- that Shakespeare fully intended the audience to grasp immediately that Duncan is putting his trust in the wrong guy, and wrote their respective speeches accordingly: Banquo bluff, open, and truly self-assured, Macbeth a different breed of cat altogether despite his undoubted military skill and courage.

I believe you are supposed to think: "Huh. Something wrong with that guy ... Banquo's the cool dude, here ... "

And all three actors in the versions I've mentioned have let Shakespeare have his way.

That's just one of the things that makes Macbeth such a tough role to play -- I tried it once in workshop form (the scene where Lady M is trying to talk him out of his scruples, such as they are) and just about turned myself inside out trying to reconcile the sensitive, brooding, poetic philosopher with the ruthless, merciless murderer -- the two sometimes showing up in successive speeches.

Connery could have done better, I guess. So could Finch. So could Jordan. But since Bernard Shaw considered the role to be so unbelievable as a single human person as to be almost impossible to fully portray in a credible fashion, and since Shakespeare sets Banquo up from the beginning to be the better man, well ... best to focus on what any actor foolish enough to risk playing it does RIGHT, instead of wrong.

In terms of look and feel this is faithful to the period and Jason Connery and Helen Baxendale are excellent as the Macbeths, with the supporting cast in fine form. The film suffers from poor production values, cheesy music and some dialogue editing that is strange. However, and on balance, this is a good version of the Scottish play, and well worth a viewing. It compares favourably with most other versions and I await he new Fassbender version with trepidation, as the trailer shows totally inappropriate backgrounds. This Jason Connery version is a film interpretation of the play rather than a a film of the play as performed on the stage so allowances have to be made. The use of the Scottish accent is authentic and the costumes seem as accurate as they can be. Baxendales interpretation of Lady Macbeth is excellent, and Jason Connery makes a good fist of a difficult role.

I have said elsewhere that only people who really know what they are doing should attempt to do Shakespeare. This also goes for the reviewers: only those who really know Shakespeare should attempt to review a Shakespeare production. Otherwise ignorance will make you say things that reflect as poorly on you as a poor Shakespeare production reflects on its creators.

Why are many people saying bad things about the Jason Connery Macbeth? Well, one reason is that the technical side of things is not in order. The available versions do not have a crisp picture or sound quality, and the movie is kept in a torch-light mood which under these conditions tend to smudge the colors and the light somewhat. Which is a shame, because if the technical things were in order, this would be a very good movie. The direction is good, the acting is impressive, and the overall style is effectively atmospheric. It is not as good as it might have been, but it is almost as good as the Polanski version, and has its own characteristic style. It is colorful rather than dark, but an effect similar to darkness is achieved by the production being dominated by reds, oranges and earth-tone colors, enhancing the torch-light mood. The milieu and costumes are realistic and convincing, and the Scottish accents are great. Macbeth with the proper accents is the only appropriate way to experience this play!

As I am a bit of an idealist, who tends to see a film in its (imagined) ideal version, I choose to look beyond the technical deficiencies of this movie, and judge it as if I had access to a crisp and perfect version. It is a worthy Macbeth in any case, all the more admirable for being a well-produced movie rather than a filmed stage play. It's really too bad about the technical defects; hopefully a more polished version will be available one day. But an enjoyable Macbeth in any case, and one that merits a good rating.

8 out of 10.