this is an excellent review, not only of the movie, but the play itself. it's been half a century since i read it, and i want to go back to it now. it seemed too dark to appeal to me then, but affairs being as they are today, perhaps i'll find it more relevant.
Dec 30, 2021·edited Dec 30, 2021Liked by Roy Edroso
“…Macbeth without the poetry is just sound and fury.”
That said, maybe the poetry hides the feral ambition driving the MacBeths. Then again, I lack the ability to engage with the poetry so rely on everything. Not judging here, just noting my limitation. Saw a Hamlet a few years ago that I loved that, again, put staging ahead of poetry so again, what do I know?
Anyway, I expect to watch this when it streams next month so I’ll, uh, see, maybe even listen as best I can.
Awesome, Roy — I must check this out! I get your points about lack of poetry in the movie.
I've often wondered recently that the point of these "ambition tragedies" such as "Macbeth" or "Duchess of Malfi" was to showcase the birth of a new kind of political player and that is the kind of bourgeois, mercantile, colonialist capitalist "savage" — the dark side of the carefully-self-curated "Renaissance man." The structures of Aristolean genre don't easily allow these creatures to be represented as anything but aristocratic (at least in tragedy [see Ben Jonson, Volpone], and the ubiquity & growing power of the capitalists force dramatists to locate them elsewhere (hence, so many plays set in Venice) — you tag it well here, sir.
"MacBeth" lingers in a medieval Scotland [pointedly given as "pre-Xtn" but the real MacBeth reigned around 1040, those Scots were most likely Xtn by then] as a way to amp up the "untimely" nature of the ambition & the scenario. It's not "Xtn" nor is it "English" — but of course it totally was.
Love these reviews this week so far — the news has been dark. But it shall be tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow as well...
Dec 30, 2021·edited Dec 30, 2021Liked by Roy Edroso
Among the theatrical superstitions I've encountered (like "no peacock feathers on stage: they are bad luck'') was those about "the Scots Play": you don't say Macbeth. If you are doing it, avoid talking about the guy.
Perhaps it's because it looks like a terribly rough play to mount. Even college departments tend to avoid it: It takes two great actors, and as you not, the other characters are mere shadows compared to the loving couple...And of course wonderful bits must be cut for the modern pacing.
Thanks for this Roy: I'm not much of a movie guy, but if the or a Coen(s) did it, I will see it.
Excellent review to which I have nothing substantial to add, so I’ll just mention a lovely book, “A Charmed Life: growing up in Macbeth’s castle” by Liza Campbell. The real Thane of Cawdor was a piece of work. BTW, you can visit the castle. Watch your back.
I can't wait to see this. The Welles, Throne of Blood and the Polanski are three of my favorite films. It would be great to have another version of the play to love. Of course. I've never seen it as a play.
Ross isn't a character in the Welles version btw-his lines mostly went to Holy Man. He was written clear out of Throne of Blood too. I think Polanski agrees with you, though.
Ross is ever present' lurking at the edges of scenes.
Thanks for an excellent review. I've read Shakespeare since I knew how to read, and I taught Shakespeare for more than 30 years, and for me, Macbeth the play has always been his supreme poetic achievement.
I’ve seen the other versions that you mention, and of these I think my favorite remains 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥. Oh, and that scene at the end? Those were 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 arrows, fired by real archers, and Mifune’s expression of terror is entirely unfeigned: method acting at its purest. It must have given the completion bond people fits.
"This Ross knows something the Macbeths don’t, and that (for better or worse) Shakespeare didn’t consider: That ambition is a force unto itself that lives and lurks, always waiting for its next victim, and after Macbeth it will be someone else."
Have to slightly disagree here--This was the era of the Divine Right of Kings, which sometimes meant it was the Will of God that you murdered your way to the top (as here). Consequently Shakespeare would have lived through the transition from Tudor royalty (and the grasping, backstabbing, and maneuvering that entailed) to Stuart royalty (ditto). Failure to achieve one's ambition at that level usually meant execution.
I am sooooo not a Shakespeare person, never have been - mostly because it was SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS (like I’m sure it was everywhere) with ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for ANY OTHER THINGS CREATED BY NON-WHITE PEOPLE.
ESPECIALLY WOMEN.
But this, as usual, was a fab review (of the play and movie) Roy.
Nice finish. And I might add the way you frame the thing as lacking still encourages me to watch it, which I wanted to until I heard other reviews that could not put the reasons clearly. 'f I were king!
I have noticed that my very favorite works of literature must have left their creators feeling like they had committed a black offense against God in the act of the writing. Macbeth, Moby Dick, Heart of Darkness, Blood Meridian -- that's my short list. Even Gatsby, which completes my top 5, has a touch of it -- the absolute conviction that life and the self are not coherent wholes overseen by a benevolent Almighty -- but Gatsby keeps it under wraps, while the others are fucking altars to it.
this is an excellent review, not only of the movie, but the play itself. it's been half a century since i read it, and i want to go back to it now. it seemed too dark to appeal to me then, but affairs being as they are today, perhaps i'll find it more relevant.
“…Macbeth without the poetry is just sound and fury.”
That said, maybe the poetry hides the feral ambition driving the MacBeths. Then again, I lack the ability to engage with the poetry so rely on everything. Not judging here, just noting my limitation. Saw a Hamlet a few years ago that I loved that, again, put staging ahead of poetry so again, what do I know?
Anyway, I expect to watch this when it streams next month so I’ll, uh, see, maybe even listen as best I can.
Good, thoughtful review, Maestro.
Awesome, Roy — I must check this out! I get your points about lack of poetry in the movie.
I've often wondered recently that the point of these "ambition tragedies" such as "Macbeth" or "Duchess of Malfi" was to showcase the birth of a new kind of political player and that is the kind of bourgeois, mercantile, colonialist capitalist "savage" — the dark side of the carefully-self-curated "Renaissance man." The structures of Aristolean genre don't easily allow these creatures to be represented as anything but aristocratic (at least in tragedy [see Ben Jonson, Volpone], and the ubiquity & growing power of the capitalists force dramatists to locate them elsewhere (hence, so many plays set in Venice) — you tag it well here, sir.
"MacBeth" lingers in a medieval Scotland [pointedly given as "pre-Xtn" but the real MacBeth reigned around 1040, those Scots were most likely Xtn by then] as a way to amp up the "untimely" nature of the ambition & the scenario. It's not "Xtn" nor is it "English" — but of course it totally was.
Love these reviews this week so far — the news has been dark. But it shall be tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow as well...
Among the theatrical superstitions I've encountered (like "no peacock feathers on stage: they are bad luck'') was those about "the Scots Play": you don't say Macbeth. If you are doing it, avoid talking about the guy.
Perhaps it's because it looks like a terribly rough play to mount. Even college departments tend to avoid it: It takes two great actors, and as you not, the other characters are mere shadows compared to the loving couple...And of course wonderful bits must be cut for the modern pacing.
Thanks for this Roy: I'm not much of a movie guy, but if the or a Coen(s) did it, I will see it.
Excellent review to which I have nothing substantial to add, so I’ll just mention a lovely book, “A Charmed Life: growing up in Macbeth’s castle” by Liza Campbell. The real Thane of Cawdor was a piece of work. BTW, you can visit the castle. Watch your back.
I can't wait to see this. The Welles, Throne of Blood and the Polanski are three of my favorite films. It would be great to have another version of the play to love. Of course. I've never seen it as a play.
Ross isn't a character in the Welles version btw-his lines mostly went to Holy Man. He was written clear out of Throne of Blood too. I think Polanski agrees with you, though.
Ross is ever present' lurking at the edges of scenes.
I thought Jeanette Nolan was great btw.
Thanks for an excellent review. I've read Shakespeare since I knew how to read, and I taught Shakespeare for more than 30 years, and for me, Macbeth the play has always been his supreme poetic achievement.
I’ve seen the other versions that you mention, and of these I think my favorite remains 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥. Oh, and that scene at the end? Those were 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 arrows, fired by real archers, and Mifune’s expression of terror is entirely unfeigned: method acting at its purest. It must have given the completion bond people fits.
Wow, I was all excited for a moment: I thought maybe Peter Blake had released a version of MacB starring Tori Welles
What a lineup on that YouTube video. So many different interpretations. All worthwhile, but If I had to pick, it would be Patrick steward's version.
You are really really good at this shit, Mr. Edroso.
Thanks for the review! Like Cheez Whiz says, you are really good at this shit.
"This Ross knows something the Macbeths don’t, and that (for better or worse) Shakespeare didn’t consider: That ambition is a force unto itself that lives and lurks, always waiting for its next victim, and after Macbeth it will be someone else."
Have to slightly disagree here--This was the era of the Divine Right of Kings, which sometimes meant it was the Will of God that you murdered your way to the top (as here). Consequently Shakespeare would have lived through the transition from Tudor royalty (and the grasping, backstabbing, and maneuvering that entailed) to Stuart royalty (ditto). Failure to achieve one's ambition at that level usually meant execution.
I am sooooo not a Shakespeare person, never have been - mostly because it was SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS (like I’m sure it was everywhere) with ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for ANY OTHER THINGS CREATED BY NON-WHITE PEOPLE.
ESPECIALLY WOMEN.
But this, as usual, was a fab review (of the play and movie) Roy.
It almost makes me want to see it!
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Nice finish. And I might add the way you frame the thing as lacking still encourages me to watch it, which I wanted to until I heard other reviews that could not put the reasons clearly. 'f I were king!
I have noticed that my very favorite works of literature must have left their creators feeling like they had committed a black offense against God in the act of the writing. Macbeth, Moby Dick, Heart of Darkness, Blood Meridian -- that's my short list. Even Gatsby, which completes my top 5, has a touch of it -- the absolute conviction that life and the self are not coherent wholes overseen by a benevolent Almighty -- but Gatsby keeps it under wraps, while the others are fucking altars to it.