As a theater student, I found this film to be quite a treat. Its witty dialogue and hilarious characters brilliantly satirize the theater world. It's a fun-filled story, appropriate for all ages. The plot follows Danny, the lovable nerd who knows far more about science than Shakespeare. He's introduced to the idiosyncrasies of superstitious theater people when he follows his ex-girlfriend to a Macbeth audition. Hilarity ensues when Danny is cast in the play, and accidentally curses the show by uttering the word "Macbeth" during rehearsal. Along the way, there's plenty of romance, slapstick comedy, and special effects to keep the audience on its toes. Give it a look, even if you're not a theater buff. Never Say Macbeth has something to offer everyone!
Add a Review
-
tarjnsn19 February 2010
-
NOTE TO THOSE NEVER INVOLVED IN THEATRE: The term "community theatre" is simply the worst adjective that can be applied to anything theatrical.
OK. I got snookered.
I am I HS theatre teacher, and I received an unsolicited ad for this film through my school email. We do a Shakespeare every other year, so I regularly have a unit on the Bard in my advanced acting class. Reading all the "rave reviews" at their website - and being sympathetic to the plight of independent film producers - I broke down a bought a copy. (Actually, I bought it through Amazon which was cheaper than on the film's dedicated website....) I thought it might be instructive or at least a bit of "fun" for my class.
Hmmm.... Worst mistake of my life: A. buying stock in Chrysler, or B. buying this film. (gotta think about that one....)
This was without a doubt the most amateurish "professional" film I've seen in decades. Bar none. How it got made is a mystery to me - no doubt there are some maxed out credit cards and former friends and relatives who are now screening their phone calls.
Let's forget for a moment that the script is dreadful: full of clichés, wooden dialogue and contrived contrivances! (I actually could go to town on the lumberingly inept script - but as bad as it was, it wasn't the worst aspect of the production. There are millions of bad scripts out there. Serendipity or tenacity got this one produced. We'll spare Mr. Gold the drubbing he deserves. I'm limited to 1K words.)
Let's also forget the less than stellar production values: better production design, properties, makeup artists, lighting, etc. can be purchased when the $$$ is there. It obviously wasn't.
I prefer to focus on the Acting/Directing. As a failed actor myself, I never review the "quality" of an actor's performance. Sure, some actors are more talented than others, but a good director can get a decent performance out of almost ANY actor. So let's assume that the cast as a whole is at the very least capable - if not even outright talented. Then the utter atrociousness of these performances is entirely the fault of the incipient "director", Christopher J. Prouty (please God - for the sake of his future career, let that be a pseudonym).
To be kind, I'll assume Mr. Prouty has risen to his lofty position from the "other" side of the camera. I've seen far weaker "tech" in other indie films. But he has no idea how to handle an actor. It's difficult enough to get believable performances in a naturalistic small cast film. But in this bit of labored schtick? Prouty wouldn't know a farce if it bit him on the arse! Of all comedic forms, it's the hardest to pull off - and harder on film than on stage. FAIL!
Let me immediately shoot down the weak excuse: "But, they were playing bad actors!" How can we tell the difference when there's no truth in "either" performance? No doubt, each actor was left to his or her own devices to develop these "thespians" - and they certainly brought a cornucopia to the table. But Prouty obviously never worked to trim and polish those performances - to fit them together. What we get is a ratatouille of clashing flavors: bitter, sweet, savory and dry at the same time. Those characters didn't belong in the same world together, let alone the same room. Underplayed, overplayed, arch, naturalistic, puerile, campy, and just plain "wrong" - what could have been an endearing look at a kooky bunch of insecure but genuine theater-folk turned into a melee of actors trying to "out-outlandish" each other. And all that can be said of Mr. Gold's leading performance is "crawl before running". He was not quite yet equal to the task at hand.
(Dear Lord, save me from the excruciating urge to quote Hamlet's advice to the players. Prouty should have it tattooed on the inside of his eyelids.)
There were a few moments in the film that were engaging - but very few. As bad as it was, I began to wonder why I even kept watching. Then it hit me. Viewing this debacle was rather like watching a particularly untalented community theatre actor struggle through material that is way over his head. Favoring the underdog as I do, I keep hoping for a miracle to happen. But, of course, it never did.
On the plus side: The ghostly special effects were surprisingly not too bad. (When compared with the dismal script and acting.) Really, if the film had been made a decade or two earlier we might even have called them "good". Certainly the advent of computer technology has made those heretofore "too costly" effects a bit more accessible to the low budget indie. While Prouty has no idea what to do with an actor, at least he knows how to use his equipment.
I have an old VHS copy of "Plan 9 From Outer Space". This DVD is going on the shelf right next to it. I've never purposely collected dreadfully bad films. But now, with two of them, I guess I've started. -
No, unfortunately, the film isn't very good despite a bright core idea and a better than average cast (oh, for a first tier script, director and cinematographer!), but it is a fair goof for a Saturday afternoon - not the SLINGS AND ARROWS that it badly wanted to be, but undemanding (VERY undemanding) fun in a few of its best moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was that the film makers simply started with a little knowledge and proved how dangerous that could be. They knew of the "curse" but had only a high school freshman's impression of that the curse was all about and didn't bother going any deeper.
The Curse of the Scottish Play *actually* started when Shakespeare's acting company put on the Bard's script in honor of their new monarch, James Stuart (the Ist of England, the VIth of Scotland), a man who BELIEVED in witches and ghosts (he'd even written a respected text on the subject) and spent a fortune on the lavish tartans and other costumes for the new production. Shakespeare, in covering the well known bit of Scottish history *did* include a bevy of witches and curses, but that was not the problem - the problem was the scene showing the WITCHES prophesying Banquo's heirs (James traced his lineage to Banquo) reigning on in Scotland - essentially demonic involvement in the founding of James' house! THAT was a problem for a man who believed in witches. James *hated* the production which seemed to him to be a direct attack on his legitimacy, and in no small part as a result, the production flopped. With the fortune spent on the lavish new costumes lost, OF COURSE the acting company viewed the play as under a curse and took to not speaking of it or quoting from it in the playhouse. In fact, it would be 150 years before the play would enter the regular canon of Shakespeare's performed work with James long gone and the merits of an actually very good play rising to the surface.
Why the play is STILL considered cursed is another story entirely (if just as easy to understand): so many actors keep getting injured during performances. MANY of Shakespeare's plays have fencing and/or sword fights in them - but only The Scottish Play uses big 26lb., hard to choreograph broad swords rather than light rapiers. One slip and an actor loses a finger or two. Then there the other "special effects" that usually accompany the witches' entrances - I'll never forget when Alan Minnie overloaded the "flashpots" in the college production I was in and we blew Julia Lover's eyebrows off as the elevator raised the witches behind them. Any wonder actors still like to think of the play as cursed?
What a movie - comic farce or horror story - someone could make out of all that without this film's passionate cast of three play repertory ghosts (lost in a supposed theatre fire while rotating in The Scottish Play, Oscar Wilde's IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST and Gilbert & Sullivan's PIRATES OF PENZANCE) which this little Independent (ego production?) tries to hang much of its "entertainment" on. Yes, the silly juxtaposition of lines from all three productions in the film's production of the Scottish Play is good for a few cheap laughs, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the concept the film tries to sell.
If you go with it, stick around for the sing-along lyrics for G&S's "Modern Major General" during the final credits and the "ghost" telling the audience to "go home" as if he lost the part in FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF to Matthew Broderick and never got over that either. They are as much fun as anything else in the film. -
LadySylvester20 February 2010I gave this "film" a 2/10 instead of a 1/10 because I was mildly entertained by Jenni and the guy who played the Porter. Kudos to both of you; despite the rancidness of this little movie, I'd probably watch a sequel where you two were the focus.
Other than that? The writing appeared to have been done by ten monkeys who'd never actually settled on one plot, the "cinematography" likely consisted of one tiny video-camera and the editing software that came with it, and the acting is (for the most part) pitiful at best. The characters are mostly bad stereotypes of what an outsider thinks theatre people are supposed to be.
Allow me to clear up any misunderstandings: Not all men involved in theatre are gay. The ones that happen to be gay are typically not "fabulous", overblown, lisping pansies.
Not all directors are psychopaths. In fact, I've never worked with a director who believed in horoscopes or any of the ridiculous BS that guy practiced. (Also, a continuity problem: his fake facial hair was distractingly bad. Next time, even though I hope to God there is no next time, get your actor to grow an actual beard.) Not all techies are genuinely nuts (although Jenni the stage-manager was kinda cool). The ones that look nuts are only pretending to be because they think they're being original.
Now I'll continue. The costuming, for both the actual "story" and the "production" of Macbeth, was rancid. There was no concept for the setting of Macbeth; the witches were wearing synthetic neon wigs, and whichever characters the gay guys played (Malcolm and... ???) appeared to be male strippers. And Ruth, the actress playing Lady Macbeth, wasn't wearing a bra in several scenes. Some women's statures can get away with that; Ruth's definitely did not.
There. Those are most of my strong opinions on this little, um, cinematic adventure. It's nice that so many struggling actors who have only ever gotten bit parts and walk-ons have had this opportunity, but now that "Never Say Macbeth" is a finished product, if any future employers are familiar with it, it's frankly an embarrassment to have on your resume. -
felix-skelton30 August 2008I had a great time watching this film. It's thoroughly energetic and funny with a cast of gifted unknowns. The ghost effects come off great, despite the indie budget limitations. My wife caught this at a festival and loved it. Finally, it made its way to DVD, so I picked up a copy and saw for myself and loved it. I haven't really been a part of many theatrical productions but the clever writing keeps you so engaged that you can get as much out of it as an insider. But I imagine anyone with a theater background will get even more of a kick out of it. It really makes me want to check out Hamlet 2. Hopefully it will be as fun as this one.