Tuesday, 6 October 2015

Film: 'Macbeth'

If you're one who considers the audibility of the play's text to be relatively unimportant, and is subservient to the looks and atmosphere of this film, then you'll have a higher regard for it than I did. I was in a state of virtually constant frustration at being unable to decipher what most of the cast were saying (apart from title lead Michael Fassbender) that I would have welcomed subtitles. The worst offender by far was Marion Cotillard as Lady M, who was 90% indecipherable, totally unable to deliver lines in prescribed iambic rhythm when verse-speaking - and in single words of more than one syllable she'd frequently fade her voice out to a practically soundless whisper,  gasp or sigh, surely leaving most of the audience not one iota wiser as to what she'd just said. Sad to say, Paddy Considine as Banquo and David Thewlis as Duncan also had their faults for inaudibility some of the time. I can only imagine that the entire cast was instructed not to be too worried about articulation because, other than Fassbender, they weren't. Oh, and I ought to say that I'm more familiar with the text of this play than any other in the playwright's canon.

With exterior shots filmed mainly on the Isle of Skye, it's all lowering, threatening clouds and heavy mists, beginning and ending with bloody battles - with plenty of gore in between too, including, of course, at least two key murders.
Visually raw in tooth and claw, it shifts texts around - or at least what's left of it after a severe pruning of what is already Shakespeare's second-shortest play - and liberties are taken with the action and motivations, which is fair enough, though I personally found at least one change quite jaw-dropping. But if one doesn't know the play then it will hardly matter.

Australian director Justin Kurzel has created an 'entertainment' which uses the original text as little more than a pretext to film an 'interesting', action-packed story. As a vehicle with which to get to know the original play there are major shortcomings, not least of which is the lack of clear enunciation. I felt let down, If it wasn't for Michael Fassbender's central performance I'd be rating it significantly lower than....................4.

16 comments:

  1. I detest shakepeare..so I wont be bothering

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You DETEST one of the (very few) loves of my life? Oh fie, J.G.! How am I going to come to terms with knowing that about you? :-(

      Delete
  2. I'm admittedly a little shaken by John's comment. I know people who are not smitten with Shakespeare, but I've never known anyone who outright detests him......

    If a film adaptation of "Macbeth" is largely inaudible, I wouldn't want to see it - - and if liberties are taken to make it more action-packed (modernized) it would annoy the hell out of me. Contrary to what some people think, I'm a purist at heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I'm not taking J.G.'s comment to heart, Jon. Despite appearances my reaction recognises that he's a playful cove, being one who can say what he likes (and he usually does) and it doesn't upset me.

      In my post above I make reference to the fact that some changes have been made to the story, some of which would bother many a purist e.g. the 'Sleepwalking Scene' here becomes nothing more than a conscious, unwitnessed soliloquy - and the greater part of it indecipherable to boot.
      Anyone who sees this film without knowing the play will get a totally skewed view of the writer's intention.

      Delete
  3. Blast, I'd really wanted to see this, mainly because of Fassbinder. Dialogue mumbling is my bete noire (or one of them. I'm seeing this on Saturday, I hope I don't get too annoyed by the liberties taken, and the articulation (or lack thereof.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judith, as I indicate above, Michael Fassbender is the sole member of this cast not given to incoherent mumblings, so for that reason alone I think you ought to see it, and just put up with the rest.
      Critics generally have been far kinder than I have - and even on IMDb the current average rating is well over 7, so yet again my view is distinctly minority. It could be that having a profound respect of Shakespeare - though I'm no purist like Jon, above - is a disadvantage. But this is one screen version I shan't be wanting to see again - and I repeat it would have been far more effective with subtitles. Perhaps I should have searched out such a screening, which they do have occasionally for the hard-of-hearing, which I am not.

      Delete
  4. Just back from the cinema, and I agree that this is one version I won't be wanting to see again. I liked it, the visuals were stunning. The battle scenes, the scenery, some of it was stunning. Plus we got to see Fassbender with his shirt off! (briefly.) But yes it was damnably hard to hear, especially Cotillard. And the Scots accents were baffling to these Kiwi ears. Subtitles would have made it far more enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pleased you went, Judith. I'd always feel guilty if my opinion had made someone not bother to see a film that they otherwise would have seen. Not many reviews I've seen even bother to mention the poor speech delivery (or the capture of it on mike). Perhaps those same ears are not too worried with hearing the Bard spoken poorly, preferring to rely on the visuals which were, as you rightly say, pretty impressive. I don't know why they take so much trouble in giving everyone Scottish accents, which made the audience's work even harder. It's surely not because they want to make it sound authentic when, we all know that the story itself, is historically dubious to say the least.
      If you haven't seen it I thought the (also bloody) Polanski version of 1972 with Jon Fitch in the title role far preferable, and standing up to more than one watch, which this doesn't.

      Delete
  5. Finally! A movie I plan to see!
    (otherwise I read'em but don't leave comment; I do drop by regularly).
    I was hoping for a 'good' production but it does not sound so. Still I will go, but not with high expectations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suggest you keep your hopes firmly grounded, Dr Spo. That way it ought to lessen any disappointment you may experience. Perhaps you may come out full of praise for the venture, though I'd be surprised if that were to be so.

      Delete
    2. you will be the first to know!

      Delete
    3. I rather hope that you WILL like it and show me where I'm wrong. I await your hot-off-the press bulletin.

      Delete
    4. meaning it is not anywhere in town - yet. Maybe.

      Delete
    5. Oh, I see. Well it OUGHT to come to your local 'art-house' venue. If it doesn't I'll be very surprised. Let's wait a little, then.

      Delete