The Tragedy of Macbeth - 2021
There are a lot of things of which I am unsure. It is not obvious to me, for instance, that this is anywhere near the best Macbeth adaptation. Likewise, I’m uncertain if this kind of sparse, soundstage captured, cloudy, light and shadow form of presentation is the one most fit for the tale. I don’t know if casting two extremely well-known, high octane sexagenarians as the titular couple adds a neat pall of “legacy” considerations to the proceedings or simply steals light away from the driving theme of ambition. Finally, I have my doubts on whether creating a work that resides halfway between a film and a stage play is wiser than shooting on location in forests and European castles.
As I said, I am a man divided. But of two things I am absolutely CERTAIN. First, that William Shakespeare is the greatest author in the history of the English language. Second, and more importantly for this picture, the way that Joel Coen and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel have staged and shot this recreation is simply breathtaking. Coen has said he was going for a world “untethered from reality,” and that is indeed what he has rendered. I have no interest in being “that guy,” but there are ten to fifteen shots in this film that are almost so beautiful they hurt. Images of black and white burned into my brain like old photographs. Even within the confines of a soundstage, they have managed to utilize different eye levels with balconies and stairs, overhead beams and open skies, and shadows cast by pillars and colonnades to give us a variegated “world.” Simply put, the last movie I saw with this kind of visual command and craftmanship was Pedro Costa’s wondrous Vitalina Varela.
This style may in fact be a defense for choosing to render the tale in this way. For whatever else it is, Macbeth is surely a tale steeped in supernatural harbingers and omens which constantly infringe upon the natural order. Weather patterns and animal behavior begin to mimic the chaos that Lord and Lady Macbeth wreak upon the kingdom. Perhaps utilizing foggy shots, dark flying crows, and swirling leaves against colorless backdrops communicates this kind of turmoil (you know, the double double toil and trouble kind) better than anything else could. Then again, some may prefer a windy thunderstorm in the outdoors.
Of course, what strikes one the most when viewing The Tragedy of Macbeth for the first time is just how relentlessly sparse and minimalist it is. In this way, Joel Coen seems to be aiming for a kind of German expressionism, whereby “reality” is more about portraying the inner emotions of the characters than any real world counterpart. Additionally, he may be borrowing a bit from the Bresson playbook (minus the professional actors and effective scoring, of course). While this does establish a certain tone for the picture and a “staginess” more at home in the theater, it also serves to foreground one thing - the dialogue.
Here I think is where the rubber ultimately meets the road for the modern viewer. Ah the language of Shakespeare, which is at once his worst curse for some and the biggest of blessings for others. Stripping away all of the other encumbrances in these stark sets puts the dialogue front and center. And I would argue, against those adaptations which seek to shroud the sometimes difficult vernacular with flashy battle sequences or overstuffed visuals, this is PRECISELY where the words of Shakespeare belong. This man (I’m not going to get into the Shakespeare authorial question here) is the very creator of modern wit, drama, and romance. Case in point, there are a handful of lines read so well here that I had goosebumps. To me, Shakespeare is king, and Joel had the foresight to shoot his picture with keen intention to get out of the way and let those words do their work.
My favorite example of really all that I have hitherto mentioned are the two witch scenes. If the world were really right and just, Kathryn Hunter would have been nominated yesterday for her remarkable work here. The first scene involves this body contortionist work which makes her raspy words all the more eerie and effective (which is, let’s face it, the point of the witches). The second involves some of the aforementioned overhead shots with beams and skylight, water on the ground and a Macbeth coming unwound. The character work outside the principals is just about uniformly solid in this film.
Speaking of the two leads, I will acknowledge that I did not LOVE the choice. I am not sure Frances and Denzel’s age bothered me so much, though I do find that the story is more tragic when it is a youthful couple coming undone. It is simply that they are, well, putting off TOO much starpower. Macbeth is probably best rendered when he is immature, paranoid, and torn about his mind’s purposes. Similarly, it is Lady Macbeth’s LACK of composure which has so enamored her to audiences for centuries. Try as she may (and she definitely gives her all here), Frannie McD could not appear distraught and anything but ahead of everyone else in the game if she tried. Moreover, yes this film is slow-moving and slight in a way that will bore some. Put another way, if the bard’s old words do not bring this version to life for you, there is probably not much onscreen that will “get you there.”
Fortunately, Macbeth’s screenplay is a scrumptious treat for those who remain patient and engaged, and Joel Coen’s eye maintains its impeccable clarity. After a shaky few minutes code-switching into this distant world, I found myself right in step with the visual wonder before me. In the course of under 100 minutes, this rendering worked on me to such a degree that my objections were largely silenced. It is for this reason that I call The Tragedy of Macbeth, though not an original work, a decided triumph.
Comments