Review: Macbeth (UK Cert 15)

In the UK especially, Macbeth is often the first exposure schoolchildren get to Shakespeare (as it's often used as a set text for school exams). The story is well known: Macbeth gets supernatural premonition of greatness, gets egged on by his ambitious wife, murders the king and then it all goes to pot. On film, the seminal version of 'the Scottish Play' is generally considered to be the dark and disturbing 1971 version directed by Roman Polanski. Here, Justin Kurzel (Snowtown) directs a bloody, bold and resolute re-telling of one of Shakespeare's most popular plays.

Michael Fassbender is the titular thane and he's damn good at portraying what is a complex character on paper but can often be written off as a crazed tyrant. Some of the dialogue is spoken as internal monologue as Fassbender broods upon the actions he's committed and plans to commit. Marion Cotillard is very impressive as Lady Macbeth, another complex character often boiled down. There's a scene that's been added at the beginning which can go to explain the mental state of the two characters- plus also gives weight to one of the big questions academics always ask about the play. Lady Macbeth's descent from ambitious bitch to madwoman is cannily played and Kurzel makes a canny directorial decision in just focusing on Cotillard's face whilst she delivers the 'sleepwalking' lines. It's a potent performance.

The rest of the cast are similarly strong. Happily, there's not an actor in the cast that speaks the words but doesn't know what they're actually saying; they all speak the Shakespearean language trippingly off the tongue. Paddy Considine is a solid presence as the ill-fated Banquo whilst Sean Harris gives a sterling turn as the avenging Macduff whilst David Thewlis makes an all-too brief appearance as Duncan. 

It's a brutal story told brutally. The opening battle scene spares nothing in the blood and guts state and the murder of Duncan is similarly unsparing. Macbeth does bad things and they are shown in unflinching detail (the dispatching of Lady Macduff and her children is particularly powerful). However, the film isn't perfect:  Kurzel employs the jerky camera movements which make me feel a bit seasick (quite annoying) and, sadly due to the virtue of necessity, some of the best pieces of verse/text are excised. The famous 'double double toil and trouble' witches scene is right out- in fact the witches get particularly shortchanged- and the arguments between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth before and after Duncan's murder get completely filleted. What's left is a taut telling of the main story but there's not a word or syllable wasted. 

In summary, it's worth seeing for the performances of Fassbender and Cotillard and some of the brooding cinematography (hats off to Adam Arkapaw), but by no means could this be considered a definitive version of the play.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Tez 

Shakespeare On Film

Yesterday was the 450th anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare. 

Whether you rolled your eyes and groaned when Shakespeare was mentioned at school or if you thoroughly loved his work, there's no denying that Shakespeare was a genius. Thanks to him, the world has some of the most beautiful, powerful, tragic, funny, horrifying, thrilling and engaging theatre ever performed (and which keeps being performed). We also have an expanded vocabulary- Shakespeare is known to have originated many words including assassination, bump and eyeball- and lines from his plays have passed into common parlance ('eaten me out of house and home', 'neither a borrower nor a lender be'). 

Shakespeare's plays are just that. Plays. They are not meant to be read in a stuffy classroom or lecture hall. They are living, vibrant texts that absolutely come to life when performed. 

So, to celebrate the birth of the Bard, we take a look at ten of Shakespeare's plays and their various film adaptations.

ROMEO & JULIET

The tragic tale of 'star-cross'd lovers' is most pupils' introduction to Shakespeare and it's become one of the most enduring love stories in the whole canon of literature. It's been filmed many times- in the 1936 version directed by George Cukor, Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard played the teenaged lovers (she was 34, he was 43); Franco Zeffirelli directed a rather beautifully lyrical version in 1968 with Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting in the lead roles, whilst the kinetic, frenetic wham-bam visuals of Baz Luhrmann's 1996 version (with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes) kickstarted a whole slew of updated Shakespeare productions on stage and screen.

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM

Four young lovers, fairies, magic spells and a group of wandering players are the elements of this comedy. The 1935 version (directed by William Dieterle and Max Reinhardt) stars Jimmy Cagney as Bottom and the late Mickey Rooney as Puck, whilst the lush 1999 adaptation by Michael Hoffman transplants the scene from Athens to the Sicilian countryside and has a star-studded cast including Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Christian Bale, Anna Friel, Sam Rockwell and Sophie Marceau.

HAMLET

There are three adaptations of Shakespeare's finest tragedy which are of particular interest. 

Laurence Olivier's 1948 black-and-white production holds a couple of firsts: it's the first (and so far only) Shakespearean adaptation to win the Best Picture Oscar, with Olivier as the first (and so far only) actor to win an Oscar for a Shakespearean performance. Thoughtful and powerful, like so many of Olivier's performances, it has remained the benchmark for all others to come after it. 

Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 adaptation with Mel Gibson in the title role is a bit hit-and-miss, but there are great performances by Glenn Close as Gertrude, Stephen Dillane as Horatio and Ian Holm as Polonius, whilst Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is a full-on, unexpurgated version that stretches to four hours. Absolutely stuffed to the ginnels with star talent, with even minor roles taken by acting royalty, it's the definitive version of the story. 

To give you a glimpse of how good Branagh's Hamlet is, here's a clip which shows the famous 'to be or not to be' soliloquy:

HENRY V

Unashamedly patriotic, this oft-quoted History of the Battle of Agincourt was the perfect morale-booster during the darkest days of the Second World War. Olivier directed and starred in the 1944 version of the play, complete with music by William Walton, and won an Honourary Oscar for his troubles. In 1989, Kenneth Branagh made his directorial debut with a second adaptation of Henry V, following in Olivier's footsteps by directing himself in the lead. 

RICHARD III

The seminal performance of Shakespeare's hunchbacked king is, unsurprisingly, Laurence Olivier's in the 1955 film (which he also directed). His tone of voice (famously spoofed by Peter Sellers when he performed 'A Hard Day's Night') and posture have been the blueprint for playing Richard for decades. However, the 1995 film directed by Richard Loncraine and starring Ian McKellen in the title role went in a different direction and is all the better for it. Set in an alternative fascist English setting, McKellen's turn as the scheming king is just fantastic. 

CORIOLANUS

Not one of Shakespeare's best known plays, this searing Roman drama of revenge and betrayal recently had a stage revival at the Donmar Warehouse featuring a powerhouse performance by Tom Hiddleston in the title role. However, it has also been filmed. A 2011 adaptation was directed by Ralph Fiennes (who also took the title role) and also starred Gerard Butler, Jessica Chastain, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave. There are blistering performances by Redgrave and Cox whilst it's a decent adaptation of a tricky play.

THE TEMPEST

This is my favourite of Shakespeare's plays. There are two particularly interesting film version of this lyrical, beautiful and poignant play. Derek Jarman's 1979 version, starring Heathcote Williams as Prospero and Toyah Willcox as Miranda (above), is full of the usual striking and out-there imagery you would expect for a Jarman film- for instance, the masque of the spirits is represented by opera singer Elisabeth Welch singing 'Stormy Weather'. The second is a 2010 version directed by Julie Taymor, remarkable for the gender-swap of the main character Prospero, now a sorceress named Prospera and played with style by Helen Mirren. Too bad about Russell Brand though.

In this next clip, Prospera gives up her magic in what is one of the finest speeches in the play:

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

There are two very different film versions of this Shakespearean comedy- the first was released in 1993, directed by Kenneth Branagh and starring Emma Thompson and Branagh as Beatrice and Benedick (along with a woefully miscast Keanu Reeves as the villain Don John) and Joss Whedon's delightful, minimalist 2012 adaptation with Whedonverse alumni Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof as the central couple, which succeeds to make the more implausible elements of the b-plot into something moving.

OTHELLO

The tragedy of the jealous Moor has had a fairly chequered film adaptation history, with two of the best-thought-of adaptations- the 1952 version starring Orson Welles and the 1965 version with Laurence Olivier- having the lead character played by a white actor in blackface make-up. However, Oliver Parker's 1995 version casts Laurence Fishburne in the title role who makes for a ferocious Othello, whose descent into jealous madness is aided by Kenneth Branagh as the duplicitious Iago.

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

Classed as a comedy but with more than its fair share of drama, Michael Radford's 2004 film version sees Al Pacino in fine scene-chewing form as Shylock, determined to get his 'pound of flesh' from Antonio, the eponymous Merchant. The balance of the comedy and drama goes slightly awry here- its difficult to balance the lightness of the caskets against the drama of the court- but its a wonderfully committed performance by Pacino, plus there's an intriguing decision to play Antonio as a man in unrequited love with his friend Bassanio. 

In this final clip, you get to see Pacino's Shylock in full flow as he is questioned over his desire to exact his revenge on Antonio:

Other great film adaptations include:

• Roman Polanski's dark and powerful version of Macbeth (1971), with Jon Finch and Francesca Annis

• Franco Zeffirelli's 1967 version of The Taming Of The Shrew starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor as Petruchio and Kate

• Trevor Nunn's 1996 version of Twelfth Night starring Imogen Stubbs, Helena Bonham Carter and Ben Kingsley

• Titus, Julie Taymor's 1999 version of the bloody revenge play Titus Andronicus, starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange

• Kenneth Branagh's 2000 musical adaptation of Love's Labour's Lost starring Alicia Silverstone, Alessandro Nivola and Nathan Lane

When promoting the latest version of Romeo & Juliet which he adapted and augmented, Julian Fellowes created a bit of a stir by saying 'you require a kind of Shakespearean scholarship' and 'a very expensive education' to be able to follow the language of a Shakespeare play. 

Utter, abject nonsense. 

What you need to understand Shakespeare is a clear production design, a director who understands the text and can get their vision across, and a cast who know what it is they are saying and can convey the necessary emotions. You don't need a fancy degree or years of study. Shakespeare's plays were written and performed for the masses as well as the aristocracy and speak to us all. 

The play's the thing, indeed

Tez

Review: Much Ado About Nothing (UK Cert 12A)

Joss Whedon and William Shakespeare. A potent combination that I was powerless to resist. I'm a huge fan of both and it's clear that Whedon is certainly a fan of the Bard (fun fact- 'Once More With Feeling', the musical episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, came about during a private reading of Shakespeare). Shot in black and white at Whedon's own home in just twelve days, and featuring a cast that includes many actors from his previous TV shows and movies, this is a slick and stylish adaptation of one of Shakespeare's best-thought-of plays.

Whilst the setting is modern day, the language is Shakespeare's as is the plot. Don Pedro (Reed Diamond) and his associates Claudio (Fran Kranz) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) return from a victorious campaign against Pedro's villainous brother Don John (Sean Maher) and his associates, whom they have captured. Visiting Leonato, the governor of Messina (Clark Gregg), Claudio falls in love with Leonato's daughter Hero (Jillian Morgese) whilst Benedick verbally spars with Leonato's headstrong niece Beatrice (Amy Acker). The scene is set for romance, however there is a snake in this paradise: Don John, who seeks to destroy Claudio and Hero's burgeoning relationship for his own amusement.

I'll say, right off the bat, that I've never really been taken by Much Ado About Nothing as a play- I have several issues with the Claudio/Hero B-story which takes the shine off it for me, although the pairing of Beatrice and Benedick is amongst Shakespeare's finest double acts. But Whedon does something extraordinary here - he manages to make the more implausible parts of that storyline into something very affecting and even moving.

That's down in no small part to the cast of the movie. Sometimes, when it comes to Shakespeare, you can tell the actors are just saying the lines and not really paying attention or understanding the meaning behind it. Not so here. Everyone speaks the language fluently and the meaning comes through. Performances are uniformally excellent so it seems unfair to single people about, but Acker is just fantastic as Beatrice, running the gamut from disdainful, playful and flighty to fierce, upset and forthright. Denisof is a perfect foil for her as the smooth Benedick and their easy camaraderie together will be a joy to fans of the TV show Angel. Whedon makes a shrewd move by showing the previous intimate relationship shared by Beatrice and Benedick which gives their 'war of words' a greater depth. Clark Gregg- a late replacement for Anthony Head who was unable to take part due to scheduling difficulties- is excellent as Leonato, coming across as authoritative but also warm, whilst Maher makes for a very silky and seductive villain. Nathan Fillion (Firefly/Serenity) is on fine scene-stealing form as the hapless policeman Dogberry.

You can tell this has been a real labour of love for Whedon and he's a director skilled enough to stop this passion project from becoming utterly self-indulgent. There are some excellent moments of physical comedy, a very lovely soundtrack and some beautiful cinematography. It's light and actually funny, a perfect romantic comedy. I left the cinema beaming and feeling uplifted and joyous.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Tez

The Tempest (2010)

The Tempest is one of my favourite pieces of literature and my favourite of Shakespeare's plays. So when I heard that there was to be a film adaptation of the play directed by Julie Taymor (Titus, Frida, Across The Universe), I was intrigued. Not least because Taymor would be changing the gender of the main protagonist- from the sorceror Prospero to the sorceress Prospera.


Apart from the switch in gender, the film follows the plot of Shakespeare's original: on the way back from the marriage of his daughter, Alonso (the King of Naples) and his entourage are caught in the titular tempest and are shipwrecked on a distant island. But this  was no act of nature; Prospera  has raised the storm deliberately. She and her daughter Miranda were stranded on the island when her brother Antonio (supported by Alonso) usurped her from the dukedom of Milan. For twelve years, Prospera has been exiled on the island and now has her chance for revenge... The play is such a wonderfully powerful piece, touching on themes of love and loss, revenge and sacrifice, redemption and restoration. With such a strong  base, you would think the success of the project would be virtually assured. Well, not quite. There are a few misgivings that I have regarding the film which stop it being, for me, truly great. 

Just in case you think one of those misgivings in the switch in gender, let me be clear: I don't have any problem with changing Prospero's gender, especially when you have as accomplished an actress as Helen Mirren in the role. Her Prospera is a volcano ready to erupt, full of simmering passion and righteous anger for her treatment (Taymor wisely explains in pretty decent pseudo-Shakespearean writing that Prospera became Duke of Milan once her husband died, was accused of witchcraft by Antonio and then banished). Prospera's journey throughout is powerful stuff and Mirren is just excellent. Her grasp of the Shakespearean language frankly puts some other performers to shame, especially with the two famous speeches ('Our revels now are ended' and 'Ye elves of hills').


Other performances are fairly strong; David Strathairn, Chris Cooper and Tom Conti are all eminently watchable (especially Conti as the garrulous old counsellor Gonzalo), whilst Alfred Molina is good as the drunken butler Stephano. Sadly, Russell Brand grates on me every time he's on screen as the court jester Trinculo and Reeve Carney, who plays Ferdinand, has rockstar looks but is utterly bland (not sure whether that's the role or the acting though). They also shamelessly rip a song from Twelfth Night- 'O Mistress Mine'- so that Carney (a rockstar) can get to sing.

Taymor's visual style is impressive, utilising the harsh backdrops of Hawaii and Lanai to good effect and sequences showing the magical apparatus in Prospera's cell (and the masque for the marriage) are excellent. However, there were a few moments which baffled me, mostly around the presentation of Ariel, the airy spirit who serves Prospera. Sadly, Ben Whishaw's decent performance was slightly spoiled by the fact that, to me, he looked like a ghost from a Japanese horror movie - bone-white skin, black hair, staring eyes- which undercut him slightly. However, there is a rather poignant moment towards the end when Ariel and Prospera share a scene (and it appears to be the only time Mirren and Whishaw were in the same room together). 


As a piece of film-making, it's assured if a little shaky in places. As an adaptation of Shakespeare, its success (or otherwise) will depend on how much importance you give to the re-gendering of Prospero. Like I said previously, it wasn't a huge issue for me and raised some interesting questions: is a mother's love different from that of a father's, for instance. As a curio, this is well worth seeing but by no means would I consider it the seminal version of the play.


Rating: 3 out of 5


Tez

Review: Coriolanus (UK cert 15)

If you asked most Shakespeare fans to name the Bard’s plays, it would be a rare occurrence for someone to name Coriolanus first. It’s arguably one of his lesser-known plays, written around 1608. It’s quite a tricky play and this is the first big-screen adaptation of it, directed by Ralph Fiennes (who not only makes his directorial debut but also plays the eponymous character).

The setting of the play has been changed from Ancient Rome to a modern Balkanised warzone, which ‘calls itself Rome’. Caius Martius (Fiennes) is a soldier for Rome, whose mortal enemy is the Volscian general Aufidius (Gerard Butler). After a particularly crushing defeat of the Volsces at the town of Corioles, Martius is lauded and given the name ‘Coriolanus’. When Coriolanus is asked to run for the Senate, his contempt for the hoi-polloi leads the public tribunes to denounce him as a traitor and have him banished. Coriolanus then tracks down Aufidius and offers himself as a soldier to the Volsces to bring Rome down…

It’s a powerful portrayal of the downfall of a great soldier, directed with some real visual flair by Fiennes (especially with the very visceral battle scenes especially, played without music so you hear every grunt, groan, stab and shot). The quieter scenes are no less powerful, as Fiennes allows the characterisation to grow surrounded by an eclectic but powerful cast.

I was as surprised to learn that Gerard Butler was doing Shakespeare as I was when he was cast as the Phantom of the Opera. Luckily, Butler can speak Shakespearean verse better than he can sing and provides a decent foil for Fiennes in their scenes together. Jessica Chastain rounds off a year of amazing supporting roles by playing the slightly thankless role of Virgilia, Coriolanus’ wife. She only has a few scenes but plays them well- starting as an anxious figure awaiting his return but growing in confidence throughout, to the point where she attacks the public tribunes who banished her husband.

John Kani and Brian Cox appear as Coriolanus’ comrades and friends, both of whom deal with Shakespearean verse as if it were second nature to them. There are two lovely performances by James Nesbitt and Paul Jesson as the public tribunes whose sly, wheedling, snake-in-the-grass politicking gets Coriolanus banished. To round the cast off, giving one of the strongest supporting performances I’ve seen this year to date, is the utterly brilliant Vanessa Redgrave. Every scene she’s in is so riveting and she speaks the verse so fluently that it’s a joy to behold. Volumnia is one of those great but oft-overlooked roles in the Shakespearean canon and Redgrave grabs it by both hands, never more so in the final scene where Volumnia goes to Coriolanus, now allied with the Volsces, to plead for Rome.

Updating Shakespeare to modern times is nothing new (you can thank/blame Baz Luhrmann for that) but there is something interesting at play to see what would have been messengers and soothsayers represented by scrolling 24-hour news. Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow pops up in a few places to deliver the dread news of banishment or victory. When Coriolanus meets the public, many of them have mobile phones recording the encounter; similarly, the public meeting where Coriolanus is denounced is done in a television studio. Bizarrely, none of this seems out of place, given the setting and isn’t overly intrusive.

This isn’t going to be for everyone. Coriolanus is an intense play and the transition to film hasn’t softened it. If you’re a fan of Shakespeare and haven’t seen or read this play, it’s an accessible and well-made film full of stand-out performances. Personally, I enjoyed it very much but I can appreciate it may have a rather niche audience.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Tez