Skip to main content

Macbeth Month: 2015 -the Kurzel One


 “Macbeth shall never vanquish’d be until
        Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane hill
        Shall come against him.”
                                                    -Act IV, scene i, lines 92-94
 
Justin Kurzel’s 2015 adaptation of Macbeth is at this point pretty obscure. It came and went very fast, was a box office flop, and though it garnered some positive critical notice it wasn’t nearly enough for the movie to last in much public memory. The fact that the director and lead actors immediately went on to make the Assassins’ Creed movie you’ve also forgotten about probably doesn’t help matters. But I quite liked it when I saw it six years ago, to the point it made one of my first top ten lists. I don’t think I would agree with that assessment now, if only because I’ve seen more movies from that year that are better, but it’s still pretty good as a modern Macbeth goes -if cut down and simplified a touch.
This movie certainly owes something to Polanski’s version, namely in its’ high commitment to historical realism and violence. This Macbeth though has something that one lacked: style. It is bathed in strong aesthetic choices of a kind not really seen since Welles’ version. And these don’t always work, the slow motion in some of the battle scenes feels a bit trite for example, and the ambiguous nature of the witches has the effect of making their scenes dull -but more often Kurzel’s approach heightens the moodiness of the story -this being another version that links the tragedy of Macbeth to a kind of ancient natural order as in Throne of Blood. As you can see, there are bits of each of the other movie Macbeths I’ve seen embedded in this one, yet Kurzel still gives it a distinct style –for sure it’s a colourful one. His obsession with red certainly gives the film a richer look than just about any Macbeth up to this point, and I’m glad he’s not so concerned with realism as to avoid choices like creating a blood-red fog for the climactic battle. It makes no logistical sense but is probably the films’ greatest visual sequence, up to perhaps the final confrontation where the bloodiness of Macbeth and Macduff is an overdone distraction -Sean Harris spitting blood with his “untimely ripp’d” line.
Michael Fassbender plays his Macbeth as a stoic warrior, in some scenes almost Viking-like. This film doesn’t adapt the play strictly –in fact it omits several swaths of dialogue for either scenes of action or solemn pacing, so Fassbender’s Macbeth seems more introverted and internal, but all the same more dangerous. Fassbender is great at playing villains, he’s got that devilish twinkle in his eye and a duplicitous smirk. His physical performance is tremendous if his dialogue choices are occasionally underwhelming. Particularly that final soliloquy is disappointing, as he performs it over his wife’s dead body, face away from camera and in a muted tone. However, the Banquo’s ghost scene he recites better, with a rapt disbelief turning to fury. Marion Cotillard, the only performer not using a Scottish accent (wisely), is likewise a great Lady Macbeth, and certainly underrated as far as the character on film has been represented -she might be my favourite thus far. She’s believably conniving, commands authority through quiet influence, and does the madness with a restraint that suits the tone of this film. Her death scene on the moors is also inspired. A great supporting cast fills out the production, with Paddy Considine as Banquo, Sean Harris as Macduff, Jack Reynor as Malcolm, Elizabeth Debicki as Lady Macduff, and David Thewlis as Duncan -all of whom do well, with Harris and Reynor perhaps standing out most -I’ve never seen a Malcolm with that much screen presence before.
This is the only version of Macbeth I’ve covered to actually shoot in Scotland and it makes gorgeous use of the highland scenery. In spite of an opening text giving historical context, it’s a choice that effectively consigns the story to the realm of myth better than any version since Throne of Blood. The gravity of the tale is accentuated in this. It should also be noted, the cinematography by Adam Arkapaw is excellent, gritty yet textured. My complaints with the film mostly stem in stuff that is left out, elements that are truncated, and a few artistic and production choices that I feel could have been better. But ultimately it’s a pretty good version of Macbeth, and a great stylistic counterpart to what this next Joel Coen-helmed adaptation looks to be. I’m excited!

This last Macbeth was shot largely outdoors and on a large scale. The adaptations have come a long way from the cheap interior Macbeth that Welles made back in 1948. We began with a Macbeth full of fake Scottish accents and have ended on one also full of fake Scottish accents -but slightly better ones this time. It’s always thrilling to see new spins on Shakespeare, new interpretations on the classic stories and characters. Macbeth through film has evolved and stayed the same, each new director and performers finding the aspects of the story they connect with most creatively. Welles, Finch, McKellen, Stewart, Fassbender, even Mifune are all playing the same character but in different ways -and I look forward to Washington joining the line-up.  This was a strange theme month; it went from Japan, to the annals of a problematic filmmaker, and even to the stage, but I liked the journey. I like seeing the versatility of this material. It’s a good reminder of just why the Bard is so immortal. 

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

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

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more