“It Is A Bloody Business”
Macbeth
(2010) Dir. Rupert Goold
Now that that's out of the way, this is a wonderful rendition of Macbeth. It is compelling, brutal, and creepy. I think that many productions overlook the creepy aspect to their detriment. The witches should disturb you. And these witches do. Macbeth is portrayed masterfully by Patrick Stewart, as you would expect, and Kate Fleetwood gives a wonderfully strong and then insane Lady Macbeth.
This is a very impressionistic film. There is a lot of recurring imagery, much if not all textually supported. For instance, hands come up quite regularly. The opening image is of a bloody hand wracked with pain, and obviously there is Lady Macbeth's obsession with her hands later in the play. There are also a lot of rapid jump cuts[2], presenting perhaps a second or two of a scene, then cutting elsewhere, but all to paint a single coherent picture. For instance, after Banquo's murder, we see several short scenes indicating that Banquo's death is part of a larger purge of those whose loyalty is in question or who may be powerful enough to pose a threat to Macbeth[3] (Did I mention this appears to be set in the Soviet Union? It is). Even this finds at least some support, as Malcolm states that Macbeth has sent agents to him trying to trick him back into Scotland.
The lighting is also done well. There are scenes in which the lighting suggests that the characters are not quite human: see, for instance, Lady Macbeth at the beginning of 2.2: her face is lit in such a way that it appears slightly green or sallow. The effect is quite striking. And Macbeth, in 2.1, stands and is lit in such a way that the stage-left half of his face seems to fade into the black behind it. And after the last lines – ! We see the lights go out sequentially down a hallway, with darkness encroaching. Then we see the Macbeths riding an elevator together, only half awake, with bloody hands (this shot is identical to the one at 48:08, at the end of 2.2). There is a clear implication that the elevator is conducting them to hell. It is a nice little period at the end of the play.
The witches appear to be the Fates, a reasonable choice. They are ubiquitous, showing up as nurses in the opening scene, serving staff at Dunsinane, morticians, and also as themselves. As nurses, they euthanize the Sergeant who reports to Duncan in the opening scene, then rip his heart out and reanimate it (by the by, scenes 1.1 and 1.2 are transposed. I have no objections to this). If they're not magic, they clearly operate outside the normal bounds of nature: they walk straight through Macbeth when leaving him in 1.3. And of course there is their appearance at the end. Do they make Macbeth lose? Does their appearance there lead to Macbeth recognizing what they are, and then this recognition leads to him yielding to Macduff? I would tend to go with the latter, but I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. The fact that they are present during events that they are not directing seems again to point towards them as the Fates.
The Porter (Christopher Patrick Nolan) deserves some mention. He is by far the creepiest Porter I've ever seen. Also, he does some doubling, serving (quite well) as the “Old Man” in scene 2.4, and as Seyton at the end. The pleasure he takes in describing hell as the Porter actually fits quite nicely with him playing Seyton as well. In a similar vein, Lennox is the Third Murderer (and also kills the Second Murderer), and also is present for the murder of Macduff's family, about which more will be said soon. This, to me, presents quite the problem, because he seems violently pro-Macbeth, until his next appearance (5.2), in which he is joining the forces opposing Macbeth. Not only do we not see the change he must have undergone, but we are left to wonder why in the world Malcolm would want him on his side. He has clearly been acting as one of Macbeth's chief enforcers, and surely that reputation would have made its way to England and Malcolm. Certainly Macduff would not stand for it if he knew Lennox had a hand in his family's murder. The text gives him an out, by having his last appearance be when Macbeth declares his intent to kill Macduff's family, allowing him to silently object and desert immediately (For instance, as all leave, Macbeth et al. could exit one way, while Lennox hesitates, then exits the opposite way). In the world of Shakespeare, you can't be both a baby killer and a good person[4].
The Macduff murders are not shown on-screen, which I think most people will agree is a good thing, but they are troubling nonetheless. Four people enter the room to kill Lady Macduff and her children: the First Murderer, Lennox, the Porter/Seyton, and finally Macbeth himself. While the point is obvious, that Macbeth has finally lost all of his humanity, I still find it troubling. Not only is there no reason for Macbeth to be there, so far he has been quite content to let his lackeys carry out his commands. In fact, none of them should be there: the next we see of First Murderer and Lennox, they are defecting to Malcolm's side; before murdering innocent women and children would have been a much better time to defect, especially because it appears that this was the final straw for them. And when we next see Macbeth, he is weary of life: “I have lived long enough: my way of life / Is fallen into the sear.” [5.3.22-23] I find this inconsistent with personal involvement in the murders. I also want to mention again how creepy the Porter is: when he enters, he is carrying a hacksaw, and smiling in a truly malicious way. Certainly consistent with Seyton and the Porter being one and the same.
Unfortunately for fans of modernization, updating to guns just feels a bit awkward. Not in the use of guns per se, but in the fact that enough of the dialogue makes references to blades and swords that they try to keep some in by converting them to knives. It just looks silly. As mentioned above, Macduff deliberately avoids shooting Macbeth with his rifle, because otherwise we miss a ton of fun dialogue, and instead jumps across a room wielding a knife. Macbeth shoots him with a pistol. The same thing happens with Young Seward, which again makes him look not brave, for challenging Macbeth, but stupid, for challenging Macbeth with a knife. But I am aware that this is a real problem in updating Shakespeare[5].
I'm being too nit-picky; this is a very good adaptation that I thoroughly enjoyed. The acting is great (and it grows on you with repeated viewings), and so is the ambiance. Macbeth's world is not happy or bright or cheerful. It is dark and empty and sterile, which the interior of Dunsinane embodies perfectly. As I said before, I'm a big fan of the lighting of this play, and with the impressionist manner (to the extent the text allows) in which it conveys information.
[1]In
chess notation, ?! indicates a dubious move that probably weakens one's
position. ?!?!, while not recognized, follows the system of repeating marks for
emphasis (e.g. a !! is a brilliant move whereas a ! is a very good move).
[2]Director
of Photography: Sam McCurdy
[3]Highly
reminiscent of the 1937 Soviet purge, and with similar consequences: Macbeth
does not have a competent army to repel Malcolm's forces.
[4]This
may apply to more than the Shakespearean world.
[5]See
for instance the inane way it was handled in Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet,
with guns named “Longsword” and “Rapier.”
No comments:
Post a Comment