I mentioned my difficulties with older Shakespeare movies in my Othello review, and all of those apply here as well. I'll add to my points there and say that I think part of the problem is the acting, and I mean the acting in all Shakespeare films that more or less take his text directly. It's nearly impossible to sound natural when reciting Shakespeare's lines, which has the effect of making me completely aware I'm watching something (instead of me getting engrossed in the story) and making me not connect with the material on an emotional level.
Shakespeare's works are emotional. You're supposed to feel things when reading his plays, the tragedies that happen. But I've never once actually felt anything watching a movie that adapted Shakespeare, and that includes the ones I actually managed to like. And adding to the acting is that I simply spend time to try to understand what is actually being said as well. But the words tend to be spoken so fast that I might as well be watching a foreign language film with no subtitles.
And look, I'm aware of how I sound. I took a Shakespeare in film class my senior year of college, and I took that at 8 am if you're wondering how much I've tried to enjoy these films. I purposefully took that class my senior year of college, because it was the only time it was offered. And in that class, we would read the play, and then watch 3 examples of that play. And this had the effect of the material being fresh in my mind, so that even if my mind wasn't really able to catch up with what was being said, I knew what was being said.
But now I'm nearly six years removed from that class, and I haven't read any Shakespeare in the meantime, and all I have to go on is the broad strokes of what happens. Again, that helps. We didn't take Othello in that class, so I basically went into that blind. We did Macbeth in film and even watched this very movie then.
What I will say about Orson Welles' adaptations of Shakespeare, and I believe I have one to go, is that he makes sure that his version needs to be on film. It couldn't exist on the stage. Which is always a potential issue with Shakespeare adaptations - why is this a movie? But there is no question Welles takes advantage of this particular medium.
This may very well be one of the most impressive achievements of Welles' directing career, and I say that with all the caveats I have about Shakespeare above. He shot this movie in 23 days, which is inconceivable given the camera trickery, variety of shots, lighting for individual scenes, and the fact that it was made in fucking 1947 with all the technology that brought.
Like I just watched Eyes Wide Shut, and I cannot fathom how that movie took 400 days to shoot. No real break in shooting either. Then my next movie I watched is a movie that somehow was filmed and completed in 23 days despite seeming infinitely more complex to shoot than a movie made 50 years later.
Welles once again goes heavily to his use of fog to create mood, and it's obviously appropriate for the story of Macbeth. He also uses a lot of shots looking up at the characters in the scenes. I particularly liked a shot when he was about to kill Duncan, where the camera like zooms forward and then cuts to Macbeth and it does that a couple times, and it's really disorienting. His world, and what we're watching, is spinning out of control and I don't know that I've seen many movies effectively convey that feeling purely through visuals as well as here.
If you're inclined to watch this feature, you'd do so for the acting. Welles can seemingly do Shakespeare in his sleep. He's especially good when he spends most of the middle part of the movie drunk and paranoid. It's not exactly subtle - it's not supposed to be - but he doesn't overdo it either. Also good is Jeannette Nolan as Lady Macbeth in her first ever feature, although she was a veteran of the stage.
I was pretty surprised by the climactic battle sequence where Macduff and Macbeth fight to the death. It is... a lot better than hand to hand combat sequences of most movies around this time. There's no elaborate choreography, but the hits seem to actually have some force and there's no real awkward moments in the fight that look staged.
I totally understand why Macbeth, initially panned by critics, is now acclaimed. My "problems" with the movie have more to do with Shakespeare on film period than this specific production. Because I spent most of this movie really impressed by the shots. I would sort of zone out whenever someone would monologue for a while without the camera doing a whole lot, but that feels like an inevitable aspect of Shakespeare. I do think it helped that most of the monologues were thought, whereas in Othello, they are spoken, and that's really where the bad voice dubbings were noticeable, and it's just not as bad here.
Of course, he had an actual budget here and didn't shoot it over three years, and things went more or less as planned, none of which was true for Othello. If you're into Shakespeare films, this movie should be up your alley. If you're not, I don't think this is the one that is going to change your mind. But it is shot really well and that's something.
2.5/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment