Dame Judi and Sir Ian McKellen are unforgettable in their roles as MacBeth and Lady Macbeth. It is the best version and I plan to show this film to high school students in the future. It is amazing at how little props can mean and scenery. The actors have chewed it up to focus on the tragedy of Macbeth. Also performing is TV Cheers actor, Roger Rees in one of the supporting roles. Griffith Jones who is still kicking in his 90s plays the old King Duncan. This low budget version was first shown on British television which caused Dame Judi Dench to stop watching herself on television because she would only criticize herself for not being good enough. I don't know what that means to an accomplished actress like Dame Judi Dench. How good do you have to be to remembered in the same category as Dame Peggy Ashcroft, her mentor, Damme Ellen Terry, and Sarah Siddons?
Add a Review
-
Sylviastel5 June 2002
-
ericksonsam6021 October 2014If the production of a play is very popular or well received by critics it can sometimes be put on film. That is the case with this version of Shakespeare's Macbeth. Originally done for television from Trevor Nunn's stage production, it is a bared-down to the bone interpretation driven not by spectacle but by raw acting. It is as if you are watching first-rate theater right in front of you.
Ian McKellen is brilliant as Macbeth as he captures his gradual decent into madness very effectively and with much nuance. The twitchy, nervous nature that he gives in his performance is just right for a man full of ambition, guilt, and fear. Judi Dench's portrayal of Lady Macbeth is a performance that is as great if not more so than McKellen's. She is a manipulative, frightening, and yet very human individual. Her famous sleepwalking scene is the finest piece of acting you will ever see. Ian McDiarmid (best known as The Emperor in Star Wars) is wonderful in the dual role of both Ross and The Porter. Also, Roger Rees, John Woodvine, and Bob Peck give fine performances as well.
What is particularly remarkable is the minimalist way in which it is all done. The setting is all pitch-black. There are very little props and the costumes are relatively simple in fact they never change. It is filmed with both imaginative lighting and with many close ups. On whole, this interpretation is one that is intentionally stark and claustrophobic. This probably how theater would have been like during Elizabethan times. Much is suggested rather than being presented. Yet, this makes sense since Macbeth is a play in which Shakespeare's words can creates images for you to picture for yourself.
The Polanski film is perhaps the best cinematic version of the Bard's bloody masterpiece but if you want to watch the best one done for the stage, then this might be it. -
Shakespeare's Scottish play is a timeless piece of theater that can scarcely be done wrong. However many times one may see it, another rendition will always be worthy of our time. So it is here: What is riveting once is so again, and once more, and still again, and this 1979 TV movie of 'Macbeth' is outstanding.
The technical aspects of this production are of a curious nature. The play appears staged as though in a black box theater, a small enclosed space wherein actors approach and depart one another by a measure of steps, and all exit and entry from a scene is bathed in shadow or near-shadow. Bright spots and beams of stage lighting punctuate the darkness, illuminating one performer or a group - especially as the costume design largely nearly matches the black background in their hues - or signifying a doorway or change in setting with particular luminosity. Music is employed sparingly, and is not especially remarkable, but suits its purpose where employed.
Moreover, the camerawork for this TV record regularly focuses on a singular actor, even in scenes with multiple. For lack of scenery in the setting, truly constructing a theater of the mind, there's greater emphasis still on the players, who are typically the sole source of dynamics in this version. One may rightly question this manner or compare it with other depictions of 'Macbeth'; fit and intriguing for a genuine live theatrical experience, it is arguably less easy to engage with on a screen. Yet our attention is focused otherwise.
With all due consideration given to the performances of the cast, thankfully they are more than capable. There are some impressive, familiar names and faces appearing here, including Roger Rees as Malcolm, Bob Peck as Macduff, and Ian McDiarmid in a dual role as Ross, and the Macbeths' porter. The latter is notably delightful, as audiences are broadly unused to seeing McDiarmid in such an over the top, playful part. More than these, it's a pleasure to see Dame Judy Dench as Lady Macbeth, younger than in most of her well celebrated roles. We're accustomed to the force, ferocity, fluidity, and finesse that Dench imparts to her characters, yet with these she realizes the conspiring murderess with greater fire than I can recall of her elsewhere - and, as madness descends, greater delirious vigor.
Above all, Sir Ian McKellan is brilliant and captivating as Lord Macbeth, a man of grace, stateliness, ambition - and dread intent. Even more so than Dench, it's a strange sight to see an actor of such renown and repute at the age of 40 years, far more tender than in his most widely known roles. But it's a joy: Nevermind his countenance - we've never seen McKellan like this. In the excited steadiness marking the man's conniving resolve, and in the classic monologue at the finale, McKellan is entrancing. More than that: As Macbeth's mentation deteriorates with the commission of bloody deeds, McKellan roars with such vivid emotion and expression unlike anything we've seen of him before.
Special mention must be made too of Act IV, Scene 1: the famous ritual of the witches, and Macbeth's return to their counsel. As plain as the setting is for this production, this one moment looks and feels complete in its portrayal. Susan Dury, Judith Harte, and Marie Kean bring great life to the "weird sisters," and this scene is potent with electricity beyond just the performances of its players. Fine direction arranges the lines into a dynamism that Dury, Harte, Kean, and McKellan realize marvelously, with all due unease and disquiet - an atmosphere exceeding the more unembellished rising tension of the story generally.
The overall simplicity of the production that first greets us belies phenomenal performances, many from actors giving a part of themselves we're not used to seeing. There may yet be other renditions of the Bard's Scottish play that we each favor more greatly, but that doesn't make this any less worthwhile. While there are faults in its limitations - no matter how many others we've seen, this version of 'Macbeth' is very much worth seeking out to watch. -
Ian MacKellen is quite possibly the greatest Macbeth ever to appear on film. He is absolutely brilliant in this record of the RSC's Other Place production, which chops up the text and does magical things with it. He knows when to use the verse Shakespeare gave him, and what to do with it. Perfectly complementing him is Judi Dench (great in the sleepwalking scene), a small and fragile she-devil. John Woodvine is a majestical Banquo - you truly believe he is the head of a long line of kings - while Ian MacDiarmid is a memorable Porter/Ross. Roger Rees is good value as Malcolm (despite the awful pullover), and Bob Peck is a calm Macduff, only stirred into action by his personal tragedy.
We can get under the skin of these characters, we believe in them. Although this is sourced from a stage production, it uses film to a great advantage and adds layers of atmosphere in its simple and effective setting. Highly recommended. -
peacham27 December 1999Trevor Nunn has done somthing I never dreamed could be possible.He has staged the perfect Macbeth! Sir Ian McKellen and Dame Judi Dench, (in my opinion the world's greatest actors)have given the performances of a life time. McKellen's slow decent into Madness is so emotionally powerful that you wonder if anything can equal it,the only thing that does is Dench's own mad scene. Nunn has taken Shakespeare's text and stripped it to its bare emotions,the film is one raw nerve after another from the appearance of the witches and their well acted trances,to the image of the saintly,almost pontifical King Duncan praying after battle. Ian McDiarmid also deserves high praise for his dual role of the austere Thane of Ross and the drunken,almost effeminate Porter. This film is an experience that,once seen,you will never forget.In fact you will want to watch it over an over again. In short,this is Perfect Shakespeare.
-
Novastar20 October 1999I have seen a fair few versions of this play but this one knocks every single one out the way. There is no better way to get the full experience of this work apart from performing it yourself. Every performance is spot on, the camera work divine and all done so that no aspect of the theatrical performance is lost.
-
TheLittleSongbird19 August 2012Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's finest plays, and this is a most wonderful version of it. I know that some have disliked the sets, finding them too dark and bare, I can see why, there are more interesting sets elsewhere in regard to productions of this play. But I found that the austerity was fitting with the gloomy tone of the play. Besides despite their look, they are made somewhat interesting by the lighting, which throughout with the light and dark contrasts is very atmospheric. The Witches scenes and the sleepwalking scene are lit brilliantly, but the one that stood out was when Macbeth greeted Duncan, the greens and reds was almost like a reference to what was going to happen later. I found it very foreboding and subtle, yet never predictable either. The costumes are acceptable, and again fitting with the play's tone. There are more traditional ones out there, but also much uglier ones. The camera work is unobtrusive and skillful.
The dialogue is as ever brilliant, poetic yet haunting. The stage direction is suitably intense, the Witches scene in Act 4 is chilling as it should be, the Act 4 English scene is very strongly acted and moving and the banqueting scene doesn't fall into the danger of being misconceived. The music is very well-incorporated and quite haunting, yet it is never over-bearing. The acting is really magnificent. The Witches do give you chills(one is younger than the other two but this really did work), Bob Peck is a poignant MacDuff, John Woodvine commands with authority as Banquo-especially in the "Stop, take my sword" speech and in his ghost guise in the banqueting scene- and Ian McDiarmid brings some well-timed comedy amidst the gloom as the Porter. His Ross is also very memorable and very conflicted, more so than I remember the character being. What makes or breaks a Macbeth production(or any production in general) is the quality of the two leads.
You cannot ask for a better Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Ian McKellen has so much intensity in his line delivery- just listen to the famous "Is This a dagger I see before me" soliloquy- and his descent from loyal to indifferent, hubristic madness chills and moves. In regard to the latter, I did find his "Out, Out, brief candle" extraordinarily moving, after seeing actors sounding as though they are just reading this particular part, it was a joy to actually see and hear McKellen live it. It more than makes up for his perhaps too warm(in features) face, which is more a nitpick and hardly an issue when the actual performance was so good. Judi Dench's Lady Macbeth is both fragile and blood-curdling, while she relishes phrases like "murd'ring ministers" as she prays to lose all womanhood she is at her best in the sleepwalking scene. Her harrowing scream is truly unforgettable. The two are just as effective together in their conspiring, exuding sexual passion and increasing intensity.
Overall, a Macbeth to remember. 10/10 Bethany Cox -
klfbooks7 January 2006This TV version of Macbeth is absolutely fabulous. I was skeptical at first - thought the play couldn't be done well to a camera, but I was dead wrong. Review the story (you can google it online) before watching, to make sure you have all the characters straight, and then you'll be ready to sit back (or I should say SIT UP!) and enjoy this chilling story of what happens when ambition becomes lust.
The witch scenes are as creepy as I've ever seen them done, almost Satanic. The "Out out, damned spot" scene is frightening, pitiful, spooky...Judy Dench is the BEST!! And the most outstanding scene of all is the dining scene, when Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost - I've never seen it done this way, and it was awesome, disturbing, scary, and satisfying. Gotta love the Scottish play!!
Added bonus, if you get the DVD, is a long interview with Ian McKellen - a Shakespeare education in a nutshell from one of the great British actors of our time. That alone is worth the price. This would be great in a classroom. -
bandw11 November 2007This is about as spare a production of a Shakespeare play as you are likely to get. It is really more of a reading of the play than a performance. It is listed as being in color, but the colors are so muted that I had to check that my TV was not broken, since it looked pretty much like black and white to me.
Anyone coming to this production cold is going to be quite confused and will most likely abandon the effort.
The acting is stagy - you might say that this film sets the standard for the definition of that word. This will definitely not be for all tastes. As good an actor as McKellen is I could never connect with him in this performance, though he does do a great job on some of the soliloquies, particularly the one ending with "it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." I was much more engaged by McKellen during his talks about the performance on the DVD extras than I was by his performance in the film. Dench's Lady Macbeth was too shrill for me.
There are some interesting innovations, like "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble," being sung as a Gregorian Chant throughout most of Act IV, Scene 1. Other scenes did not work as well for me, such as the opening shot where the camera pans around the circle of actors. Having some text describing the characters that the actors were portraying would have been helpful, but I saw little significance to this as it is. And the loud organ music I found distracting and inconsistent with the production.
There are some casting problems. Roger Rees as Malcomb, dressed in his knit turtleneck sweater, looks more like he just came out of a fraternity party than being the leader of a large army.
Purists will hurl stones at me for saying it, but I much prefer Polanski's cinematic. "The Tragedy of Macbeth."
McKellen is quoted as saying that this is Shakespeare on the cheap. I think that the statement "You get what you pay for," might apply here. -
The performance by Ian McKellen proves that he is one of the best Shakesperean actors ever (and I've seen all the famous ones on the stage). Macbeth is not a complex character, just a fine man sucked into a downward spiral by his ambitious wife, but Shakespeare gives him really magnificent poetry to speak (Tomorrow, etc.), and McKellen says it all breathtakingly. Actually, some of Macbeth's lines are very difficult to understand, and McKellen is capable of the ultimate actor's magic of making the lines seem quite understandable as he speaks them (they go back to being difficult when you contemplate them on the page). His representation of the descent into madness is extremely effective, even though he goes quite far in this. Exactly how psychotic Macbeth becomes is one important question in interpreting this character, and McKellen (and Trevor Nunn, who directed) decide to go all the way. The other actors are all adequate, no problem. Judi Dench is not entirely convincing as the evil-from-the-outset Lady Macbeth, really a caricature and not a fully developed person in the play (Shakespeare's fault, not Judi's). Dame Judi is just not an evil person, and can't make us believe she is. However, at the most crucial point, the sleepwalking scene in the last act which precedes her suicide, she rises to the occasion. Her wail in unforgettable. This was originally a stage production, done in the round with few props, fine for this play, which is about words (and faces), not about setting. It's great that someone had the idea of filming the stage production, and doing it so well that it's possible to watch it. For many years this tape has only been available to educational institutions for $250, so it's great that everyone can see such a stunning performance now. And its great that Ian McKellen has become better known through X-Men and Lord of the Rings (though it takes Shakespeare to display his true talents).
-
Possible to find a "perfect" adaptation of a Shakespeare play? If this production isn't it, I don't know what is. The entire script is used to full effect, with magnificent performances all round. Shakespeare's portrait of human evil has never looked better.
-
david-wampach21 November 2008I am an English/Drama teacher, I just showed this to my seniors. I admit there are few good versions of Macbeth on film. However, this made my skin crawl. After spending five weeks in class reading the play, my students actually enjoyed it and understood it. With Ian McKellan and Judi Dench, I was certain this would be top quality, but sadly I was wrong. The costumes were nonsensical. The actors moved between hideous over-acting and don't-care-just-pay-me-already-under-acting. I almost wondered if they were on some form of hallucinogenic drug while performing. I have never been more disappointed by something I thought spark further interest for the students. As someone who has directed Shakespeare, I understand the limited use of props and background, however the whole thing looks a bad early MTV music video. I expected Gary Neumann to come out and sing "Cars." Say what you want about the bizarre Roman Polanski version, at least that one is inspired by some form of creativity.
-
Dead solid perfect handling of the Shakespeare chiller with greats McKellan and Dench giving their all in stellar performances. A brilliant scene involving Dench as Lady Macbeth in a breakdown that is so haunting, but so incredibly real. She lets out this god awful scream that frightens but also conveys to us beautifully the emotion and loss that this character has just endured. An astonishing achievement.
-
Truthfully, I am a witch (a beginner, but learning) because of "Macbeth." Against a backdrop of personal tragedy, I heard a recording of and read the play when I was 10, and dragged my mother to the Roman Polanski movie (in 1971). Mom wasn't prepared for naked witches.
The reason I wanted to be a witch then was personal power; it took me about 25 years to grow up and realize that power isn't the essence of witchcraft--wisdom is. From power comes only the abuse of power and the obliteration of the self. From wisdom comes power and the discernment to recognize that 9 of 10 instances are not worth using that power on. Okay, that's the end of the witchcraft testimonial.
This is the most minimalist, claustrophobic, monochrome, and noir-lit production of "Macbeth" I've seen, and I mean that in a good way. All the action takes place within a large circle on a dark stage, with the actors sitting on cubes around the circumference. The costumes are dark and minimalistic--they're of any (historic) period and all periods.
This filmed production's advantage over a live performance in a theatre is that the camera focuses on the actors, with master shots of two or more persons and tight head-and-shoulder closeups for soliloquies. The viewer can see the characters' emotional turmoil in the actors' eyes; and we know that the eyes are the windows into the soul. Trevor Nunn's design and direction moves this play from the realm of 'tragedy' to the heights of 'possession by the gods of drama'.
Ancient Greek actors often wore masks while acting their tragedies, and I have a theory why. To project the emotional turmoil, to subsume one's own personality to larger-than-life characters, to make the playwright's words live and breathe, in essence, to make the play an offering to the gods and Muses, the actors had to do an early form of 'method' acting. If they *had* performed without masks, I think the audience would have been taken aback by the sheer power of some of those performances--or, I may be reading too much into ancient drama.
Without prosthetics, makeup, or lighting effects, the three actresses who play the Witches bar no holds and set no limits to what they do to become their characters, startling the audience and making them cringe and squirm. It's as if their faces 'morph' and they physically *change* because they're unrecognizable in the minor roles they also play.
The same is also true of Ian McKellen and Judi Dench; from the end of Act I, Macbeth and his Lady start a slow slide from sanity to insanity, as their consciences render punishment. Ian McKellen as Macbeth is happy but cautious when he's reunited with his wife (Act I, Scene 5), he has no plans to take action until he examines his options; Lady Macbeth instigates Duncan's murder precipitously, with dire consequences. In the medieval world, not only was it a crime to kill a person, but to kill a God-anointed sovereign was a crime and a sin against God. (Elizabeth I was outraged when her Privy Council carried out Mary Queen of Scot's execution; it wasn't that Mary was Liz's cousin, but that she was a God-anointed sovereign that bothered her so much.)
In reading about witchcraft around the world, something interesting stuck that comes to mind when I watch this "Macbeth." In Haitian voudoun, congregants communicate with the loa (sing. & pl.), the gods, during a drum-propelled rite of frenzied dancing and other, ordinarily dangerous, acts; these men and women are protected from harm because the loa inhabit and control of their bodies temporarily. In "Macbeth," the actresses playing the Witches, Ian, and Judi appear at times to be "ridden by the loa," possessed by pagan gods--or the Muses, notably in A.I, Ss. 1, 3, 5, 7; A.II, S. 2; A.III, S. 4; A.IV, S. 1; A.V, Ss. 1 & 5. In A.III, S. 4, the Banquet scene, you aren't seeing Ian McKellen, the guy who played Gandalf, Magneto, and James Whale--you're seeing a man whose guilty conscience is causing a complete psychological breakdown, followed by Judi in A.V, S. 1, the sleepwalking scene; the minds of these characters are falling apart from trying to hide their knowing crime and sin.
This production has turned Shakespeare's "Macbeth" into a weapon that stabs one's eyes, ears, and mind with horrific actions and images. Don't watch it in a dark room, and don't watch it alone. I give it 10 of 10 stars. -
myturn2112 December 2018An incredible "black box theatre" production of Macbeth featuring some of the finest Shakespearean actors England had to offer. The stripped-down production involves the actors stepping out of a circle of chairs to perform their scenes in the center of the "stage". Both McKellan & Judi Dench are amazing -- in particular, watch McKellan's stunning moment when he acts out the scene where Macbeth sees his murdered friend Banquo: McKellan turns into a truly horrified, snarling, drooling animal & it's chilling! A must for any fan of Shakespeare, the play & a must see for anyone thinking of going into theatre directing or production -- shows what a great cast can do with almost nothing!
-
jwhiting-6085531 January 2020Mckellen's use of tone shift and facial expressions are the reasons he is such a renowned actor. This elite acting paired with such great directing makes for a thrilling movie. It is exemplified in the dagger scene using shadows and the dagger along with the close up into a slow pan to show McKellan's contemplativeness. Overall a great film and a great watch for fans of Shakespeare or Mckellen.
-
Red-12511 August 2020A Performance of Macbeth (1979 TV Movie) was directed by Philip Casson. The addition of "A Performance of" isn't exactly right. From that title, we would assume we'd be watching a theatrical performance before a live audience. That's not what we see. What we see is a reproduction of a very sparse production of the play that was directed, in Stratford, by Trevor Nunn.
Nunn's concept was to make a very basic production of Macbeth, suitable for a small theater in Stratford. No scenery and a mix of costumes. That's the performance we see on our TV screen. However, it's being staged in a studio, not a theater, with no audience.
Given those self-imposed limits, it's up to the actors to make the play work. I thought Ian McKellen as Macbeth was outstanding.
Dame Judi Dench is one of the great female actors of our era. However, I wasn't impressed with her portrayal of Lady Macbeth. Dench is five years older than McKellen, but she looked older than that. I think part of Lady Macbeth's actions derive from Macbeth's physical desire for her. That's not what Nunn and Casson gave us.
This is an interesting version of Macbeth, and worth watching. Because it was made for television, it will work well on the small screen. This Macbeth has to compete with about 75 (!) other film versions of the play. It has an impressive IMDb rating of 7.6. I agree, and rated it 8. -
tonstant viewer27 December 2008This is a VERY theatrical production of Macbeth, with everybody rushing the camera, gargling in their own slobber, assuming contorted poses, wandering around aimlessly and generally beating the living stuffing out of the play.
In a theater it would rivet you to your seat. It worked in "Marat/Sade" and on stage it worked here. However the television camera mercilessly reveals a procession of theatrical strokes and tricks, and there isn't a human being in sight.
Wait, there is one exception. The late, great Bob Peck is completely emotionally honest as Macduff. When the poor man hears of the death of his wife and children, for one brief shining moment there is some communication of human truth. It's the best performance in there and he steals the show.
The rest, including Judi Dench's famous scream in the sleepwalking scene, is a triumph of artifice and directorial narcissism. This is the kind of horrorshow that gives the word "theatricality" a bad name.
It's like being locked in a closet with a bunch of loony puppets. Noisy loony puppets. This traversal is not a tragedy, it's kabuki, and misunderstood kabuki at that.
People who are impressed by a bunch of great names will marvel happily at the assembled starpower, but this is a misfire on just about every level. Avoid. -
partnerfrance24 October 2004This is probably "Macbeth" as Shakespeare really saw it produced -- no fancy scenery, no elaborate sets, just stunning actors conveying everything Shakespeare intended to convey by the power of their own speech and actions.
The defining moment for me is the banquet scene, where McKellan manages to go from icily cynical schemer to stark raving maniac on seeing Banquo's ghost, and then back again to schemer and then yet back again to broken, frightened shadow of a man by the end of the scene, without for a moment over-acting and without us, the viewer, even seeing Banquo's ghost.
The only false note I think the production had was Judi Dench -- as others have said here, she is of course a splendid actress and her sleepwalking scene was wonderful. But part of what drives Macbeth in the play is Lady Macbeth's threat to withhold sexual favors and her denigration of his masculinity if Macbeth doesn't act more "like a man" and go through with the murder of Duncan (conveyed in this version by her avoiding Macbeth's attempted kiss in the "milk of human kindness" scene), and frankly in this production Dame Judi lacked the sex appeal that would make this viable.
Still, a bravura performance and certainly the best Macbeth I have seen filmed. -
roark18317 November 2006This version is set in approximately the late 19th century by costuming. There is no scenery and very few props. The characters act against a black background. Acting itself is superb. Macbeth & the Witches are appropriately frothing at the mouth at the proper times. Ian McKellen & Judi Dench perform their standard great performances. Ian McDiarmid does a great job as the Porter. That is particularly significant, as it is one of the few comical parts in a very gloomy play.
However, I miss the scenery & traditional costuming. McKellen explains in an extra on the DVD that all the costuming, scenery & props (including Macbeth's shrunken heads at the end a little much ???) were all provided for only £250. He calls the production one of "talking heads". Well, that's true, as for a very large part all you see is the characters' faces against a black background. Personally I look for something more in a Shakespeare production. I believe the scenery & costuming to be important in setting the scene. Shakespeare is difficult enough to understand when set with scenery & costumes. When scenery & costumes are taken out, then it becomes more difficult to understand. I feel too much is left to the imagination or to the guesswork of the viewer. If one has the text to follow along with, accompanied with footnotes & a Shakespeare glossary, then it's less of a problem. But then one can't just sit back & enjoy the play. One must constantly refer to the text footnotes to understand what is happening, unless one is a real Shakespeare aficionado.
If all you want is great acting full of emotion and you don't care about lack of scenery or costumes, then perhaps this version of Macbeth is for you. Occasionally the dialog is cut or changed from one character to another, presumably for no other reason than to give that actor some lines. But personally I miss the scenery, costuming and sword play. As McKellen explains, except for the acting itself, this is certainly a cheap version of Macbeth. As long as the production saved a lot of money in production, I recommend you do likewise and look for another version of Macbeth. There are lots of well acted versions out there that spent money on scenery & costumes. -
rockerchic1417 December 2006This is one of the worst adaptations of Macbeth. Ever. The acting is horribly overdone, the fading accents are reminiscent of Kevin Costner in Robin Hood, and the plot is very hard to follow, even for someone who has read the original play. The only redeeming qualities are the lighting and camera angles. The lighting, although mildly distracting, is inventive and effective. The camera angles are very good, although they sometimes make it hard to see who is talking to whom, and what about. The lack of a set makes it seem more authentic, and accents the (bad) acting. Watch if you dare...Nah, its not quite that bad. Watch only if you are interested in the technical aspect. Or you enjoy making fun of bad acting.
-
dennis-7719 April 2000I was looking forward to this, everyone was raving about it. Then there was a short documentary before it about Trevor Nunn's vision for the play and I got worried. He said that he wanted to get away from the Blasted Heath and Witches that had become linked to the play. I hate to point this out to an important director but Shakespeare wrote them in. So I watched with fear as to what would be done to the play. The witches were there in an altered form, and Macbeth himself says something about it being a blasted heath, so I'm supposing that passed through Nunn's cuts.
Other than a director who messed with the play, it was indeed quite good, the actors were very good, especially Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Macduff, Malcolm, Donalbain and Ross, but I couldn't shake off the fear of what the director would do next.
As for Lady Macbeth's famous scream, yes it conveyed the horror of what was going on but it also sounded like a kettle boiling. Judi Dench was very good though. -
enochsneed18 January 2016In the 1960's and 1970's theatre directors Peter Hall and Trevor Nunn staged what were then ground-breaking productions of Shakespeare. Stripping away the false beards, theatrical make-up and elaborate staging which had been standard in the days of Olivier, Gielgud and Richardson, they brought new approaches to the plays (setting Othello in Victorian times, for example) and went 'back to the text' with simplified productions which let the Bard's language speak for itself.
This is one of those productions. It electrified audiences in 1976, but now seems as dated as the over-dressed productions of earlier generations. With no sets whatsoever, the theatre production was staged in the round, and actors just walked into the performance space from a circle of chairs set around the stage. Unfortunately, what works on stage is not right for film or television. The camera has to move to maintain audience engagement and create drama, there have to be close-ups and two-shots. This production seems to want to have its cake and eat it by reaching a wide audience through a new medium while trying to preserve a theatrical event.
Shoot me if you like, but I have always felt Shakespeare is over-rated. His use of language is often excellent and he tackles the big themes of human experience, but his plotting often goes to pieces and continuity isn't always his strong point. This play is a good example: we have a swift, fast-moving opening with the witches, and Duncan and Banquo getting bumped off in short order and then... a lot of talk about the nature of kingship and power between Malcom and MacDuff, and reports of Macbeth's increasingly bloodthirsty tyranny. The last third of the play is particularly slow until things liven up a bit toward the end with Lady M going nuts and the climactic confrontation between Macbeth and MacDuff - which is reported rather than shown.
Interestingly, in Macbeth's second visit to the witches, Ian McKellen seems to be given given some sort of hallucinogen and then brain-washed into believing the witches prophecies, rather than deluding himself, which sort of shifts the weight of responsibility for his actions.
The best performance in the piece comes from Bob Peck as MacDuff - no frills, no 'acting', but a real-life portrayal of a real man you can believe in. Otherwise the acting is in the best RADA theatrical style, far too broad for the camera and all but screaming "Look at me, I'm *acting*!" and using silly drooling and over-emphasised facial expression for shock value.
This may have set Stratford on fire 40 years ago, but now looks dated and uncinematic (or untelevisual, if you insist, as it was recorded for television). And if you want to hear how beautifully Shakespeare can be spoken, without theatrical overemphasis, listen to Gielgud's recordings of Macbeth's speeches. (Even better, watch him as Henry IV in Welles's 'Chimes at Midnight'). -
jacobjohntaylor15 June 2016I have seen some great version of Macbeth. The from 1948 with Orson Welles is a great movie. This has a actors standing in a black back round describing what they have done. This is very boring way to do. It has good actor and a good story. But they did it in a way so that is seems boring. See Thorn of Blood that is a Japanese version of Macbeth. Do not waste time. And do not waste money. Do not see this boring movie. Macbeth from 1971 with Jon Finch is a great movie. See that movie do not bother with this boring remake. The 2006 version of Macbeth Sam Worthington is great. But this is just boring. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say.
-
This (wonderful) production highlights the Christian v. pagan elements of the play, and in other ways deals in opposites (men's v. women's perceptions of political alliances, the solid v. spirit worlds, etc.), but without beating you over the head with it. The Weird Sisters' scenes are amazing--the production borrows from Irish "bog people" imagery with the witches' stick puppets representing Macbeth's visions. The production recalls the minimal "circle" staging of Equus, with the actors seated around the circle when not "on." Minimal props and furniture; the actors carry it all the way, brilliantly. I can't imagine anyone doing a better, more visceral and committed job with Macbeth and Lady Macbeth than Ian McKellen and Judi Dench. It could sell huge-for a Shakespeare film-if only it weren't obviously a taped stage production (it doesn't try to be otherwise, and is very well lit and photographed). Look for the red-and-green light cues when Macbeth greets the king-a subtle, chilling reference to Macbeth's later musings on his hands stained with the king's blood. A couple of turtlenecks among the costumes betray the 70's-era staging, but otherwise the costuming is great and doesn't date the production. If you a) are a McKellen or Dench fan and b) appreciate great Shakespeare performances and want to be "in the know" on what's considered the definitive Macbeth staging of the past couple decades, this is the one.