Skip to main content

Macbeth Month: 1971 -the Polanski One


“Methought I heard a voice cry ‘Sleep No More!’
Macbeth does murder sleep.”
                                        -Act II, scene ii, lines 46-47

Here goes... In 1971, a new version of Macbeth was made, by director and sex criminal Roman Polanski. It happens to be the first film version of the play I ever saw, shown in a high school English class. And as much as we’d like to ignore Polanski, his significance in the film industry and that of some of his movies can’t be. For a time, this was the most popular version of Macbeth, it’s got a Criterion edition, and it has had an impact on Shakespearean movies that have come since and even medieval movies that have come since. More curiously, it happens to have the distinction of being the first movie Polanski made after the infamous death of his wife Sharon Tate at the hands of the Manson family. And his psyche in that context does inform the movie rather curiously.
It’s more violent than the versions of Macbeth that came before it, that’s for sure, and whether or not this is connected is pure speculation -though the film does go to a couple unnecessary lengths in its’ violence -even for one of Shakespeare’s bloodiest plays. It’s also tied heavily into conventions of realism, with efforts to translate an extremely accurate image of medieval Scotland (albeit one that appears aesthetically a few centuries ahead of the historic Macbeth). It’s impressive in some regards, and occasionally makes for a thrilling sequence or compelling set-piece, though I don’t think realism terribly suits Macbeth the way it would one of Shakespeare’s History plays for example. This is a narrative that features witches, ghosts, and a supernatural sense of predestination and fate -period authenticity doesn’t much matter. And in this case I don’t think it adds a lot making the world more gray and murky or casting the witches as decrepit, naked old hags in line with medieval attitudes. In some ways, the realism even inhibits the ability to be creative with the subject matter and the filming.
But Polanski does have some clear ideas, one of which is his choice of a young Macbeth. Jon Finch was just twenty-nine at filming, Francesca Annis merely twenty-six, and their ages went remarked upon by critics when the film came out (though Orson Welles was only a few years older at thirty-two when he did his version, he doesn’t radiate youth the way these actors do). It is notable to have a Macbeth at more the age of Hamlet, his ambition linked to an angry youthful recklessness. It casts the character in a different light, and Finch plays that well enough. He gives significant weight to the important speeches and with a degree of naturalness unexpected in an actor so young. It also appears his “thoughts are bloody” from the start, and that it doesn’t take much to provoke him to kill Duncan. Annis is underwhelming though as Lady Macbeth (her famous nude sleepwalking scene is too for how big a deal was made of it), and few of the rest of the cast really leave an impression, excepting Terence Bayler’s Macduff -though that might just be for his fantastic moustache.
I think the way the film plays the episode with Banquo’s Ghost is really good, possibly better than either version I’ve seen preceding it. And the killing of Duncan is rather striking too, strangely gory though it is. Other choices by Polanski don’t entirely work though -the floating dagger being a key one, both clashing with that otherwise commitment to realism and looking kind of silly. And again some of the violence, especially in the assault on the Macduffs, seems a touch overkill . There was no reason we needed to see armed soldiers raping a servant in the background of the carnage -but I guess that is to be expected from this director.
The film is grim, but it also seems indicative of Polanski’s mood -as Temple of the Doom was for Spielberg and Lucas. There’s no bombast to the final confrontation, it’s messy and pathetic to watch. And the film ends on a pessimistic note, where a returning Donalbain, Duncans’ second son, happens upon the witches, to presumably repeat the cycle. It’s a bleak ending to a bleak film -not one I terribly like. Sometimes an abundance of detail does nothing for Shakespeare, and perhaps what it instead needs is to be stripped back, returned to its’ roots.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more