Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH (Joel Coen, 2021)
#1
A24 just dropped the mic with this teaser. 

https://youtu.be/HM3hsVrBMA4

With Brian Thompson as "Young Murderer!"
Reply
#2
They remade Throne of Blood in English?
Reply
#3
looks nice!
Reply
#4
What's up with siblings no longer collaborating? The Wachowskis! The Coen Brothers! Kane and Abel!
Reply
#5
THE MACBETH RESURRECTIONS
Reply
#6
Shakespeare is going to be the next Cinematic Universe.
Reply
#7
(09-21-2021, 03:57 PM)doc phibes Wrote: With Brian Thompson as "Young Murderer!"

Hey, guy!  Spoilers!
Reply
#8
Even the damn title is a spoiler.
Reply
#9
I really thought I was going to love the Fassbender Macbeth.

I did not end up loving the Fassbender Macbeth.

**Cribbing from a paper I wrote waaaaaay back in my undergraduate days, Macbeth, probably uniquely amongst Shakespeare's plays, might actually work better on the page because it gives us some distance from the monstrous nature of the titular protagonist's actions; this distance somewhat allows us to muster a meaningful measure of sympathy. When you see the play acted, and real people are being viscerally harmed onstage by Macbeth's monstrous deeds, it's really tough to muster the necessary "tragic sympathy." Instead, the "tragedy" of a protagonist becoming a despotic, power-mad warlord overwhelmingly starts to feel more like a tragedy for everyone else who has to live in the same world, but not necessarily for the actual protagonist, himself.

Said another way (again, cribbing from myself 25ish years ago), it's tough to write a tragedy about Stalin in which you feel sorry for Stalin by the end of it, and even harder to convincingly act such a portrayal.

****My favorite Macbeth adaptations are those that, candidly, minimize the elements that are supposed to engender empathy towards Macbeth and simply make him a relatable, but villainous, powermongering lunatic.

Reply
#10
Nothing will ever top the Polanski version for me, but I love the ultra-stylized look they're going for with this one.
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply
#11
I’m of the opinion Macbeth is possibly the most indestructible play in the canon; and pretty much every adaptation has some merit. The story and characterizations are just that good, and the fleet pace and clear, visual dialogue is as idiot proof as Shakespeare gets. The Welles one is my personal favorite, aside from Throne of Blood, I suppose, but I’ve liked every one I’ve seen.

That does not include the Fassbender one, which I never got around to.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
#12
This looks amazing, and I am with Arjen Rudd. The play just works.
"Wilford Brimley can't be bothered to accept praise. He doesn't act because he thinks people will enjoy his work. He acts because it's his goddamned job." --Will Harris, AV Club
Reply
#13
I couldn't finish the Fassbender one. I went into it very amped for the adaptation and it was very drab and boring. Way too in love with its own outre style.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
#14
Also it would've been nice if a single person had been allowed to give a line reading that wasn't delivered as a harsh whisper.
Reply
#15
The Fassbender one is currently streaming. Despite its rep, I may try and brave it.

Years ago, I was lucky enough to catch Lieb Schreiber as Macbeth in NYC's Shakespeare In The Park. Pretty intense. A friend of mine got to see the same production when it started pouring rain and the actors refused to give up, increasing the strength of their performances to fight the weather. He said it was incredible, a once in a lifetime experience for any audience members who didn't chicken out.
Reply
#16
That sounds amazing

I saw the Fassbender Macbeth at a weekly movie night years ago

I fell asleep pretty soundly
Reply
#17
The main problems Macbender had to deal with were dirt, mist, and staying awake in slow motion.
Reply
#18
(09-22-2021, 01:21 AM)arjen rudd Wrote: I’m of the opinion Macbeth is possibly the most indestructible play in the canon; and pretty much every adaptation has some merit. 

Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare play to read (Othello and Merchant of Venice are the runners up) and in many ways it comes across as the most "cinematic" (the "Henrys" are the most noteworthy contenders on that front).  However, along with King Lear it has a notorious reputation of being difficult to adapt and perform well, and I would completely agree with that.

Does anyone agree with me that the titular character is simply a difficult role to perform in such a way that we actually feel sympathy for him?

**The Covid19 cancellation of the Nikolaj Costner-Waldo version of Macbeth, directed by Shakman, that I had amazing tickets for at the Geffen Playhouse really fucking sticks in my craw.  From my reading of how they were setting up the stage (basically, the audience surrounded the actors) and Shakman's philosophy on how Macbeth should be directed it was going to be incredible.

Reply
#19
I can't agree or disagree since it's been so long since I read it. I remember loving it when first reading it, though.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
#20
The Fassbender one pissed me off something fierce by a) adding a fourth, child witch and b) having Macbeth tell Macduff to 'lay on' after he's already been fucking run through. It's not much of a (mildy) redemptive decision to go down fighting if he's already impaled.
Reply
#21
(09-22-2021, 04:42 PM)rexbanner Wrote: The Fassbender one pissed me off something fierce by a) adding a fourth, child witch and b) having Macbeth tell Macduff to 'lay on' after he's already been fucking run through. It's not much of a (mildy) redemptive decision to go down fighting if he's already impaled.

Oh boy, I don't know how you suck all the verve and excitement out of the final Macbeth/Macduff confrontation, but they somehow managed.

Reply
#22
Punching "Macbeth" into IMDB reveals some tv productions and stage versions adapted for video that might not work... but the casting intrigues.

1960: Maurice Evans, Judith Anderson
1961: Sean Connery
1979: Ian McKellen, Judi Dench
1981: Jeremy Brett, Piper Laurie
1998: Sean Pertwee, Greta Scacchi
2005: James McAvoy
Reply
#23
Disappointed not to see William Shatner in there somewhere.
Reply
#24
(09-22-2021, 03:47 PM)Overlord Wrote: Does anyone agree with me that the titular character is simply a difficult role to perform in such a way that we actually feel sympathy for him?

Yes that is a big obstacle to deal with  However it is possible - the film MR. BROOKS actually managed to do it with Kevin Costner.  I saw Macbeth done by some very good performers in a park many years ago, but I can't remember the details of how Macbeth is tormented all that well.
There are weapons in my hands, my hands are weapons.
Reply
#25
(09-22-2021, 06:34 PM)Jones Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 03:47 PM)Overlord Wrote: Does anyone agree with me that the titular character is simply a difficult role to perform in such a way that we actually feel sympathy for him?

Yes that is a big obstacle to deal with  However it is possible - the film MR. BROOKS actually managed to do it with Kevin Costner.  I saw Macbeth done by some very good performers in a park many years ago, but I can't remember the details of how Macbeth is tormented all that well.

Thank you for validating me!

Reply
#26
(09-22-2021, 03:47 PM)Overlord Wrote: Does anyone agree with me that the titular character is simply a difficult role to perform in such a way that we actually feel sympathy for him?

I'm willfully stretching what it means to be a take on Macbeth, but Karl Urban manages it in Chronicles of Riddick. I think it helps that he's frustrated in the end by the real main character killing the king before he can work up the nerve.
Reply
#27
(09-22-2021, 06:01 PM)kyle reese 2 Wrote: Disappointed not to see William Shatner in there somewhere.

There's still time. While you wait, didn't Patrick Stewart play Macbeth?
Reply
#28
(09-23-2021, 10:20 AM)doc phibes Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 06:01 PM)kyle reese 2 Wrote: Disappointed not to see William Shatner in there somewhere.

There's still time. While you wait, didn't Patrick Stewart play Macbeth?

Yes, I added the TV version to my Prime watch list at some point. Don't know if it's still there.
Reply
#29
It has been a while since I last watched the Sir Stewart version. I can recall images, but not much of the movie itself, which is probably not a good sign.

Was it staged in a bomb shelter in a quasi fascist 1930s?
"Wilford Brimley can't be bothered to accept praise. He doesn't act because he thinks people will enjoy his work. He acts because it's his goddamned job." --Will Harris, AV Club
Reply
#30
I vaguely remember my dad telling me that Stewart was awful in it. And to him, a bad Patrick Stewart performance just about defies the laws of physics.
Reply
#31
I always feel MacBeth is a younger man's role. It requires that hunger and strength of not necessarily youth, but a dash of reality and cynicism and a belief you can outlast, outrun, outfight. Stewart, for all his greatness, has just always seemed to old for the part.

Reply
#32
(09-23-2021, 06:17 PM)doc happenin Wrote: I always feel MacBeth is a younger man's role. It requires that hunger and strength of not necessarily youth, but a dash of reality and cynicism and a belief you can outlast, outrun, outfight. Stewart, for all his greatness, has just always seemed to old for the part.

Patrick Stewart was born in his late 40s.

**I feel like Macbeth, despite it being a "tragic hero" role, is best played moreso as a villain. While his masterfully presented descent into evil (arguably the most compelling villainy setup in the entire canon of English literature) has a waffling note to the portrayal, once he commits ... he REALLY fucking commits.

****Dead on: https://owlcation.com/humanities/macbeth-villain-victim

Reply
#33
(09-23-2021, 12:39 PM)MrTyres Wrote: It has been a while since I last watched the Sir Stewart version. I can recall images, but not much of the movie itself, which is probably not a good sign.

Was it staged in a bomb shelter in a quasi fascist 1930s?

I believe you're thinking of RICHARD III.
Reply
#34
Is the Stewart version the one with a nearly blank stage yet everyone is in full costume?

It's terrible.

Reply
#35
I also like ‘villain’ portrayals of the character, in that I don’t need to like him to find him compelling. It’s a story of how ambition destroys a person, and he’s written so well that everything he does is emotionally understandable, even relatable, even when he’s in full mania, in for a penny, in for pound mode in Act Five.

But really, I feel like you can do a lot of different takes on Macbeth. A good man undone by a shallow moral compass or a monster who only truly became himself when stopped pretending to be civil are both textually valid. He can be anywhere between twenty and sixty.

I don’t agree that it’s one of the tougher ones to stage though. Lear is a goddamn nightmare in comparison. Speaking of, apparently Christopher Lloyd just finished playing Lear and kicked some serious ass at it. That’s kinda cool.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)