MovieChat Forums > Macbeth (2015) Discussion > The heck did people see in this?

The heck did people see in this?

posted 3 years ago by Ace_Spade (9658)
6 replies | jump to latest

It's got good to great reviews and a lot of posts here (old ones, anyway) are declaring its superiority as a work of art, but my goodness I thought this was terrible.

Some good imagery, some interesting settings and sequences (like Banquo's murder and "Out, damned spot!") but the performances are flat and all played the same! It's like Prozac Shakespeare! Were they afraid to put any emotion at all into it? They didn't even change emotions for different scenes! Duncan hears of battle and greets Macbeth after the victory with the SAME STATE OF BEING. His demeanour is the EXACT SAME! WHY!? Why wouldn't he be tense listening to word of combat ("DID WE WIN!?") and glad to greet his champion? Why wouldn't he greet the Lady of the castle differently than Macbeth!?

It's not just Duncan, it's everybody. Fassbender is monotone and mumbly and flat. I'm not asking for melodrama here, naturalism can be achieved properly with the Bard, but I'm asking for character choices AT ALL.

This was really wretched, and I'm quite confused by the frequent, enthusiastic praise for the film.

[–] capuchin (3369) 10 months ago

I didn't find it terrible -- but I agree with much of what you say all the same. I felt similarly about Joel Coen's more recent take (which I liked more than this one, but certainly didn't love.)

It leans heavily into the visuals at the expense of the text. And lets the music carry the drama while the performances feel oddly muted -- and so much mumbling. You can't mumble Shakespeare.

Shakespeare is words. It's poetry. It's theatre. It's performance. You don't need to sell me the story with ultra-cinematic visuals. You need to find a proper balance between the theatrical and the cinematic, or you just lose what Shakespeare is.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 9 months ago

I continue to cite this version as a how-not-to with Shakespeare on film. I remember it as being pretty terrible, apart from some good style points.

I liked Coen's version a lot more than this one. Washington's performance is a lot better than Fassbender's, in my opinion, and while he starts out a little too quiet and mumbly, he gets better and better as the movie goes on. I remember really enjoying the witch (can't recall the actor's name) and Frances McDormand as Lady M. Coen also did really interesting things with side characters like the noble who is making his own, subtler Machiavellian power plays in the background. Coen's visual sense I also found more theatrical, more interesting. It wasn't just "gritty leather dark ages" (like the Fassbender version) but framed shots (the one by the lake!) in beautiful, interesting ways.

I'm with you 100% on Shakespeare being words and poetry. It doesn't have to be overacted or shouted (lookin' at you, Baz Luhrmann - shouted by actors who don't always seem to know what they're saying, no less!), but it should be spoken by people with a faculty for blending poetry with realism to produce real-feeling characters in an almost heightened-reality world.

[–] capuchin (3369) 9 months ago

Yeah, I think Coen's more theatrical visuals -- that German expressionism thing -- is why I liked it more. And it isn't as mumbling... but I still felt that as a reading of the play -- discounting the visual flair -- it was fairly ordinary. I agree with you that Washington was a much better Macbeth than Fassbender... but that comes as no great surprise.

it should be spoken by people with a faculty for blending poetry with realism

Yes, indeed. It needs to be treated as poetry, because that's what it is. People don't speak like this in real life. They never did. That demands a certain level of theatrical artifice. You can't treat it like it's ordinary dialogue and you're Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver or something.

But, yeah, I didn't think the Fassbender film was terrible, but I didn't feel it worked -- and I'm not quite sure what people who admire it are seeing in it. But, oh well, there's enough versions to go round.

(lookin' at you, Baz Luhrmann - shouted by actors who don't always seem to know what they're saying, no less!)

Oh, don't get me started on Luhrmann.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 9 months ago

I' think we're basically in agreement on almost everything here, saving only that I think I enjoyed Coen's Macbeth a bit more than you did. My favourite version I've seen is the Ian McKellen/Judy Dench one, as though that's a surprise. It's almost the opposite of the two we're discussing: the visuals are not emphasized and it looks like they mostly just shot the stage production without an audience present, but the performances and the text are given the spotlight every time. Plus, young Ian McDiarmid as the Porter!

There's a version done for the stage, but filmed well, that I also enjoy. The company generously put it on Youtube for free!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OU0cuGuPSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLc3w-yp3wk

You make a fair point: if people did see something in Fassbender's version, I suppose that's just personal taste. But I would like to know what the heck it was...

Your final line got a good laugh out of me; I've enjoyed some of Luhrmann's work, but his R+J was awful (Pete Postlethwaithe and John Leguizamo notwithstanding)

[–] capuchin (3369) 9 months ago

Ah. Lovely recommendation. Saved to 'Watch later'. I'll have a look at that, probably over the weekend. Cheers.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 9 months ago

Let me know what you think if/when you do watch it!