210west

Because "Macbeth" is Shakespeare's most exciting play (as well as the shortest), it's been filmed a lot, and there are consequently a lot of bad versions. This 2015 Michael Fassbender version is one of the worst. I'd hate to think what someone coming to the play for the first time would make of it.

Its director, an Australian named Justin Kurzel, is a proponent of the unnecessarily quivering camera, even for static scenes in which a bunch of soldiers just stand around. It's distracting; it reminds you that there's a technician with a hand-held camera filming 11th-century Scots in a manner meant to evoke contemporary TV news coverage. Kurzel also relies -- just as distractingly -- on slow motion and freeze frames.

In contrast to the quivering camera, the actors deliver their lines in a subdued, almost lifeless near-whisper. Basically, it's the opposite of the histrionic, old-fashioned, bombastic style in which Shakespearean actors once declaimed their lines; but this mannered style of acting, at the other extreme, is just as unnatural. You can't make out what they're saying without subtitles, just as, in the darkened interiors, it's hard to see who's talking. (And why, for heaven's sake, is David Thewlis playing Duncan? Thewlis can be a very interesting actor, but he is NOT regal.)

This Fassbender "Macbeth" is even more annoying than the recent stage-bound Denzel Washington version cooked up by Joel Coen. (At least this Fassbender version has atmosphere.)

For my money, the best "Macbeth" by far is the 1971 Roman Polanski version, starring Jon Finch and Francesca Annis. Kurosawa's Japanese version, "Throne of Blood," is loony but also kind of fun.

Ninety percent of the dialogue in this series is given over to exposition -- characters conveniently explaining things to one another, describing events we never get to see, or summarizing various plot developments -- and this strictly functional dialogue (along with Nancy Mitford's voice-over narration) has to do a great deal of work, since the series is filled with all manner of events, comings and goings, whirlwind romances, debutante balls, weddings, break-ups, divorces, financial crises, political allegiances, trips abroad, spats between siblings, reconciliations, etc. -- so the whole busy story with its multiple points of view, though handsomely mounted, feels somewhat artificial and contrived.

However, the acting is so good, by virtually all concerned, that the series is quite likable and a pleasure to watch. I particularly admired Bessie Carter as Nancy and Shannon Watson as Unity, but all the cast was excellent, including the actors (though the men in the series tend to be a fairly caddish and inadequate bunch).