I found it a beautifully shot film with some strong performances and some interesting liberties taken by the script. But it's too heavy handed for Shakespeare. We must remember that Macbeth has one of the funnies dialogues in the entire bard's body of work: when the old man tells the three things alcohol does to men. None of that is seen at the 2015 film, all the characters have this mournful expression all the time (Malcolm looks like he's about to cry when he is chosen prince). Also, there's this unnecessary crypt quality to everything. For today standards, Shakespeare's language is difficult and sophisticated but you can bring some light to modern audiences with compelling imagery to accompany the words. At times, the images obscure even more the meaning of the dialogues, making some very obscurantist juxtapositions. Also, the beautiful photography and the art direction are a double-edged knife: while they are marvelous to behold, sometimes they lose completely the atmosphere of the original play, trying to make every piece of action too damn serious and dark for its own good.
Polanski's, for me, captures much better the essence not only of the play but Shakespeare's way of pacing the stories. He takes liberties and it's pretty violent but there's a sardonic quality to it that the 2015 film completely misses; this mixture of the most beautiful dialogue in history, the seriousness of the subjects (predicting psychology in many aspects) and this ironic/sardonic quality that never let the play take itself obnoxiously. The last one if, for me, what completely lacks in the 2015 version.
Your mother cook socks in hell!
reply
share
dbeane
8 years ago
Also, there's this unnecessary crypt quality to everything.
Yes, even at his darkest Shakespeare was witty - this was so mopey and "trying to be bad-ass" it was kind of painful to watch, especially with the obviously low budget.
Also, the beautiful photography and the art direction are a double-edged knife: while they are marvelous to behold, sometimes they lose completely the atmosphere of the original play, trying to make every piece of action too damn serious and dark for its own good.
I'm not sure they were so marvelous, but I think they did OK with the limited budget. Did you notice the silly scene before the "siege" where it showed about 20 soldiers outside the castle? If you can't approximate the 10,000 you just mentioned the script, then perhaps don't try! The "dark, brooding" exteriors were the worst part - how would that have ever been Shakespeare's intention when he wrote it as a stage play?
reply
share
petey0707
8 years ago
Well of course, this movie was meant to be gritty, stark and realistic. I don't look at it as "trying to be bad-ass", but trying to set a grim tone that resonates with the darkness of humanity. I think keeping the witty japes would have been silly. I'm assuming you dislike shows like Game of Thrones?
As for the low budget, I think they did a fantastic job with it, despite the fact you could see through it in some cases. Sometimes you have to make due, rather than completely avoid the story altogether.
It's an adaptation, one that's trying to capture a realistic and gritty feeling with intense symbolism and style where budget production lacks. This should go without saying. And of course the figure of Shakespeare couldn't imagine the idea of movies in our generation. Should we just not create adaptions because of this? Are you dense?
reply
share