Macbeth beyond "The Tragedy of Macbeth"
Friday, January 21, 2022 at 12:20PM 
Joel Coen's The Tragedy of Macbeth is a beautiful experiment in bringing German Expressionism to 21st-century digital cinema. I could wax rhapsodic about its minimalist set designs and symbolic costumes, the crystalline black-and-white cinematography and ominous soundscape. Hell, there's a book's worth of material to be written about Kathryn Hunter's merge of avant-garde physical theater and Elizabethan dramaturgy. All that being said, and that Scripter nomination aside, the movie's a rather lousy Shakespeare adaptation. Despite pronouncements about trying to reinvent the Macbeths as a middle-aged couple, going deep into the psychology of two creatures whose youth is long gone, Coen doesn't go deeper than the surface.
In the end, it's a standard reading of the play that serves as a foundation for all that style. The cinephile in me loved it, while the Shakespeare geek felt dispirited. However, there are enough Macbeth movies out there to please just about everyone. It all depends on what you're looking for…
If you want sex, look no further than Justin Kurzel's 2015 reimagining of Macbeth. Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard bring carnality to the text, breaking apart the two characters through the prism of modern psychology. It's visceral, sensual, a bold interpretation that finds new meanings within the centuries-old play. It's not a faithful adaptation, and it never tries to appear otherwise.
If you seek violence, Roman Polanski's The Tragedy of Macbeth, the first film he directed after Sharon Tate's death and one that is informed by the brutality with which she was taken from this world. It's a Shakespearean adaptation born out of grief and trauma, gritty and covered with dirt, rust-colored blood, sweat, and viscera. Come for the shocking realism. Stay for the hallucinatory quality of the weird sisters' prophecy.
If it's more formalism you want, then go the way of Welles and Tarr. In 1948, as his Hollywood years were drawing to an end, Orson Welles shot a low-budget take on the Scottish play amid recycled western sets. Look beyond the bad accents, and you'll find a strikingly photographed hellscape. Bela Tarr's Macbeth is even more squalid and sparse, staged as two long takes.
If you want the best adaptation of Shakespeare's story, Akira Kurosawa's your man. The first of his three Shakespearean films, Throne of Blood is a jidaigeki Macbeth, a miracle of blocking that reshapes the main characters according to the precepts of Noh theater. Played by Isuzu Yamada, this Lady Macbeth is a demon born out of the shadows, and Toshiro Mifune imbues the protagonist with a thirst for power verging on madness. The sanguinary ending alone would make this one of the greatest films ever made.
Finally, if you want the best performance of Shakespeare's text, ITV's 1979 taping of the RSC production is the one for you. While Trevor Nunn staged it for the theater, Philip Casson's direction blesses the material with filmic qualities, transcending the filmed play standards. Darkness rules over this Macbeth, the world eaten by the void of the black box, sets non-existing, costumes out of time. The framing is a masterclass in the power of blocking, while the cast is a masterclass in the art of performing Shakespeare. Ian McKellen and Judi Dench's takes on the leads remain unsurpassed, especially the latter. Her scream during Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking mania is the sort of thing one never forgets. It will haunt you until your dying day.
Beyond these many Macbeths, there are many more to enjoy. Scotland, PA rethinks the play as a tragedy set in 1970s Pennsylvania, while Shakespeare Re-Told sets Macbeth in a modern kitchen nightmare. Maqbool makes it into an Indian crime picture, and Joe Macbeth into a noir. There are those and more, Macbeths for every taste. What's your favorite of the lot?
Reader Comments (9)
Throne of Blood, by a wide margin. It's one of the most visually compelling movies that ever existed (and it's not even Kurosawa's best, which is High and Low). I love everything about it. Jesus, the others can't even come close, and I really like Polanski's version (Welles's best Shakespeare is Othello, magnificent).
Scotland, PA. It’s the only film Billy Morrissette (Maura Tierney’s ex) ever directed.
And I pretty much agree with everything in this article.
So far...
1. Throne of Blood
2. The Tragedy of Macbeth by Roman Polanski
3. Macbeth by Orson Welles.
I really want THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH to win Production Design and Cinematography Oscars, but yes I think you're right in that it doesn't reach whatever dramatic level it was potentially aiming for. I am so glad I saw it theatrically though.
Can't comment on the rest as I've only seen the Polanski and that was so long ago.
In high school, our English teacher had us watch a version of Macbeth that was produced by Playboy. He was very captivated by Lady Macbeth's "out out damn spot" speech, which was done as her sleepwalking. Nude. He kept pointing out that this would be historically accurate, since they would have slept nude back then. Even in the early '90s, this seemed like iffy viewing material.
Just looked it up, and apparently this is Polanski's film!
Throne of Blood is the best adaptation of Macbeth in cinema.
I really like McDormand's version of LM. Her ambition is palpable.
Does anyone remember the animated series Gargoyles? This show explored the Macbeth lore and stayed closer to actual history than the play. LM had a name- Gruoch, and Macbeth was splendidly voiced by John Rhys-Davies.
Lousy adaptation of Shakespeare? For starters, every actor -- with the exception only of the little boy who played Macduff's son -- sticks the landing most crucial to any performance of Shakespeare: they knew what their lines are communicating. The deliveries reveal the consciousnesses of the characters. And this is not something to be taken for granted. Not even all great actors know what they're doing with Shakespeare. Paddy Considine in Kurzel's adaptation, for instance, knew his lines, but never seemed to know what his lines meant. This was even true, in moments, of Fassbender and Cotillard, and I say that as a huge fan of that film. Nearly every cast member in Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet seemed not know what the hell they were saying. And without the clarity of meaning in an actor's delivery, it's all lost on the audience. But every significant role in Coen's version was filled out by actors who had burrowed so deeply into the strata of their lines, the meaning, at every turn, leapt off the screen as starkly and cleanly as the shadows cut by the lights and sets. That, by itself, qualifies this as a fine Shakespeare adaptation. But then even some of Coen's choices create vast wrinkles of wonderful complication. In merely giving us a Lady Macbeth well past child-bearing age, the promises made to Banquo by the Weird Sisters, in the presence of Macbeth, amplify the paranoia at the center of the narrative, lending a frantic urgency to Macbeth's attempts to get ahead of whatever threats might await him. It's a brilliant adaptation, for my money, at least as good as, if not better than, Kurzel's.
Favorite: Scotland, PA, no question. But sure, I get arguments for Throne of Blood being the best.
claudio, the film's visuals to me more conjured Ingmar Bergman and that Calvinist guilt framing in Carl Theodore Dreyer's movies than German Expressionism. interesting!
i thought Coen completely delivers on his conception of the piece, but to me, it was a conception that lowered the stakes of the text. in the Kurzel version, set across those huge Scottish landscapes, you were always aware of the high stakes: they were jockeying over the power of a country. in Coen's version, everything seems very small. i get that that's purposeful, but i thought it hurt the piece more than helped it. plus, fassbender and cotillard are far more interesting actors than washington and macdormand. but this version sure looks smashing!