Skip to main content

Joel Coen’s Haunting, Stunning Macbeth Revivifies the Age-Old Tragedy


“By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.”
                                                    -Act IV, scene I, lines 44-45

In the last month, we’ve seen two movies come out written and directed by one half of an acclaimed filmmaking partnership. The first of course was Lana Wachowski’s The Matrix Resurrections, made without the input of her sister Lilly. And now similarly, a new adaptation of Macbeth has arrived courtesy of Apple TV+ by Joel Coen, for the first time without Ethan. And the Coen Brothers are so particularly established as a unit, having been one for nearly forty years now, that the idea of them working separately is jarring. What is a Joel Coen movie on his own?
Well on one hand, he’s not really on his own. He’s got Shakespeare to work with. And in a sense you can maybe see why this didn’t interest Ethan. There have been a million adaptations of Macbeth, the last noteworthy version a mere six years ago –it’s not the most original idea for a movie project. And yet there is something exciting about new Shakespeare adaptations, especially when they’re coming from filmmakers with a certain auteur flare. Whatever else you have to say about Ian McKellen’s Richard III or Julie Taymor’s Titus or Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet or Joss Whedon’s Much Ado or Taymor’s The Tempest (which I actually quite liked), they are interesting to see. Joel Coen certainly leaves an impression on The Tragedy of Macbeth that is unique and compelling.
His film is rather minimalist in design, more evocative perhaps of the Orson Welles version of the 1940s, than the more popular elaborately realist interpretations that have followed. There are contradictions all over the place between the situational context and the expressionist aesthetic. Dunsinane Castle does not look like it belongs in the Middle Ages and even the exteriors are palpably artificial. It feels thus like an abstract theatre presentation, and I’m sure it is the intent. 
But make no mistake, this movie’s visuals are not by any means dull in this capacity. Limitations are strengths in Joel Coen’s Macbeth, and the imagery crafted here is some of the most evocative in Shakespeare since Kurosawa started adapting the Bard. The sets feel unmistakably Weimar German at times, brick-like and blank and with harsh edges in the interiors, while the exteriors are coloured in a dreamlike aura of pretty artifice. This choice in art design really sets the film apart, even Welles’ wasn’t this interesting to look at. And the cinematography and lighting is even more astounding. Bruno Delbonnel exceeds himself here with some of the most exquisite shots and imagery he’s composed for the Coens in their long partnership. The meeting with the witches for instance, where we only actually see one witch (Kathryn Hunter), but with two reflections in the pool of water on the foggy battlefield. Or there’s the wooded grove where Macduff (Corey Hawkins) meets with Malcolm (Harry Melling) that seems to run endless into bright light. The lighting is intense, the excellent heavy contrasts beautiful, this film even topping Passing for the best-looking black and white movie of the year -in fact one of the best looking, period. Coen and Delbonnel pay close attention to the frame at all times too, highlighting the characters in relation to their world and the themes, as well as the mystifying, eerie mood.
This is a Macbeth that dips its’ toe into horror, of a kind based in creeping  powers, nightmare illusions, and fatalism that you might expect to see from Robert Eggers or even David Lowery. It’s the first time a Coen has penetrated the genre, certainly to this unambiguous a degree. There’s a graveness to every action, which is in keeping with the play, though the film exacerbates it with its’ slow dissolves, deathly imagery (the witches are interpreted as transmogrified crows), and lingering shots in vacant spaces. Moreover, some very clever manipulation of the script and casting changes the meaning to emphasize some of these horror ideas that Coen gets out of the play. There is of course that notion of fate to the story, Macbeth fulfilling one part of a prophecy but desiring to change the rest of it and being cosmically punished for it by supernatural forces. One of Coen’s choices is to expand the part of Ross (Alex Hassell), a minor supporting character of the play who has been granted a larger role seemingly in each subsequent adaptation. But apart from adhering to the theory of Ross being the mysterious third murderer of Banquo (Bertie Carvel), Coen doesn’t add any text that wasn’t there originally, he merely moves it around, re-contextualizing it, and gives Ross more focal attention and curious insinuations about his role in the story.
Hassell is very good in this part, as is Carvel and Melling and Hawkins. Brendan Gleeson makes for a great, if very obvious Duncan, and Hunter is the most creepy witch I think I’ve seen in one of these movies. But we’ve got to talk about our stars of the piece, and Coens’ fantastic casting of his wife Frances McDormand, and especially Denzel Washington in the title role. It seems expected that great actors of a certain calibre will play Macbeth at some point in their career, whether for stage or screen -as much as they would also play Hamlet or Lear. And Washington has earned his right to play this figure, his first Shakespearean role on film since Kenneth Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing (though he’s played the likes of Othello and Richard III on stage). Washington’s Macbeth is cunning and calculating, a man late in his career tempted by power and one last chance to have it. There’s a weariness, but also an exuberance there -and the ultimate madness is played with captivating force. It’s also just really cool seeing Washington incorporate his own performance persona into the part -and they marry wonderfully. McDormand is likewise strong as his Lady, playing sharply that influence over Macbeth in his hesitancy, and her own deep convictions. She’d played the part on stage and is still tangibly comfortable in it. I like too how Coen hones in a bit more on her reticence after Macbeth has achieved the crown, subtly having her contend with the gravity of what they have done. In contrast, Macbeth grows only more determined and fanatical.
There’s a noteworthy bluntness with how the ending is dispatched, but then it’s also quite intriguing. In the final scene, one characters’ lines are given to another, which casts suspicion over the narrative ultimately -a very shrewd way of rewriting this classic without ever changing a word. The Tragedy of Macbeth doesn’t have any garish to it the way some other versions have -the attack on Dunsinane in fact happens almost entirely off-screen, as it does in the play. And yet, it might be the most visual movie version of this story we’ve yet seen, purely off of its’ compelling artistry. It may even demonstrate a sliver of Joel Coen’s independent cinematic voice. It is sublime imagery, stellar acting, and as riveting a take as any great reworking of Shakespeare. It makes me eager for more.

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