Macbeth

It's hard to go wrong with any earnest interpretation of Bill Shakes' 'Macbeth,' whatever the context or modifications. The man's language is intoxicating and unforgettable; the story is wonderfully dark and violent. And while some scenes and roles lend themselves to wry humor, the very nature of the subject matter means that there's a great and terrible fire inherent to the roles of the Lord and Lady especially. Particularly when placed in the hands of actors who can truly bring that fire to bear, the result is often marvelously spellbinding and downright invigorating. The only questions to be asked of any realization on film, of any nature, is of how successful the various aspects are beyond what Shakespeare wrote. Sitting to watch this, professionally filmed footage of a performance at the modern Globe Theatre, I readily admit I already had a personal favorite (2010's iteration with Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood), but I nonetheless looked forward to seeing what Joseph Millson and Samantha Spiro (among others, including Billy Boyd) would bring to the production. I've not been disappointed, for I think this 2014 movie gives us an excellent, enjoyable stage play from the comfort of our own homes. With that said, I do think it has discrete problems, both in terms of the production and its capture on film - but even so this remains much better than not and worth checking out, with a strong final act that sets right whatever troubles we might see.

It's worth discussing the points of criticism first, for while not so severe as to wholly sink the viewing experience they are all too noteworthy. In fairness, it's very possible that the faults become more evident by happenstance since we're already familiar with the material, and are therefore more apt to look for problems to chastise. One way or another, I would note first off that while no issue is to be taken with the camerawork in and of itself, the sad fact of the matter is that an electronic device has a limited perspective. At any time our eyes are greeted with one actor who is speaking, or two or more who are in dialogue, but we do not see the concurrent reactions of all actors on the stage to the events of a scene, nor necessarily the positions and movement of actors in a moment, which themselves can be integral to how a scene plays out. It's analogous to watching a conventional feature like 'Jurassic Park,' but with no more than one-third of the image (and often less) visible at any one time. Such is the disadvantage of watching a stage play on a screen instead of from among the audience, but here we are. Speaking of the audience, secondly, it's regrettable that those seated in the Globe for this production sometimes serve as a distraction, not least when they laugh at inappropriate times - whether out of nerves, or disrespect for the material, or ignorance of the actual gravity of a moment, I do not know. Between the extremely restricted perspective of the camera, and the partial dispelling of the illusion owing to the audiences' presence and reactions, our investment in this treatment is much less than what it ideally should be.

There's more. By and large the production is terrific, and we'll get to that in a moment - but it's far from perfect. Truth be told, the pacing often seems rushed at entirely too many points, and by as much as twenty to thirty percent (if not more). The nuance and the weight of the tale are reduced in the process; the violence, sinister scheming, and heightened emotions feel less meaningful as they are kind of glossed over, and even some beats in the plot may get lost in the harried mix. Being robbed of nuance, the proceedings often feel a little heavy-handed. I do not blame the actors for this, and I think it's a question of Eve Best's direction. To that end, I do not think Best's direction is outright bad, and in what was accordingly her debut in that capacity, she broadly illustrates firm capability. As if to emphasize the matter, I've seen some stage productions in person that also struggled with the same failings of direction, so it's not as if Best is the only person to have ever had such difficulty. Still, there's marked disparity between those less frequent moments when a scene is allowed to play out at its own natural gait, and subsequently come off well, and the far more frequent instances when a scene is forced along at an abnormal, accelerated velocity, and subsequently comes off less well. There are also choices that Best made as director that aren't necessarily altogether dubious, but which don't necessarily fit with the tenor of what 'Macbeth' otherwise is and should be, or which in the very least pale in comparison with other renditions. For one example, in some instances the basic cadence of how lines are delivered feels off; e.g., Bette Bourne's big scene as the porter, answering a knock at the gate, is characterized by slow, slurred speech - appropriate for someone who is drunk, granted, but ill-fitting for the humor of his lines, or for the theatrical needs of enunciation and vocal projection. For another example, the famous first scene of Act IV in which Macbeth again visits the witches ("Double, double, toil and trouble") is presented with distinct embellishments (music, sound and vocal effects, environmental effects) that fly in the face of how the "weird sisters" were previously treated, and in the face of the relatively straightforward, unsophisticated style that the production otherwise follows. Awkwardly, there are additional instances of such embellishments in the back end of the play that Best did not deign to include in the front end, which would have helped foster a sense of cohesion.

All this is unfortunate, because there really is a great deal to like about Best's vision of the Scottish play. The set is excellent, stark and pure, and I love the costume design. The hair and makeup is swell, and the effects in and of themselves. Though the audience itself may be a limiting factor here, I do appreciate that the design of the Globe encourages actors to come and go from amidst the audience, leading to some especially smart moments - or, as we see in a couple instances here, to briefly interact with them. And of course with Shakespeare's words as foundation - and even troubled by what I believe to be flaws in Best's direction, and her interpretation - the cast give genuinely outstanding performances, all well deserving of congratulations. Observed especially in Acts IV an V, when the narrative begins rolling toward its bloody conclusion - and when Best's direction seems to take a backseat to the significance and deliberate measure of the story itself - that tremendous fire that burns within the characters, and their words and actions, is given fabulous, vibrant life. Spiro indisputably shines as Lady Macbeth, not least in the absolutely haunting famed scene at the start of the last act; similarly, Stuart Bowman is a reliable anchor as Macduff, and when the man receives dire news in Act IV Scene iii, we sincerely feel the burden of that news thanks to the subtle power of his acting. And among others, of course Millson is superb as the title character. Once again, in the last act especially, the unwavering strength of the star's performance bears delicious fruit; one quite wishes that all the preceding length had been allowed to stand on its own legs rather than be dogged by the deficiencies in the direction, for if that had been the case then the whole would certainly have come across better still.

Rounded out with excellent choreography (above all at the climax, and at the very end), and shrewd flourishes of pounding drums and flavorful bagpipes at select moments, at its best this version of 'Macbeth' is magnificent. I really do like it, and the value it claims at its best thankfully outweighs and compensates for the faults with which it is plagued. Why, from the last scene of Act IV all the way through to when the cast take their bows, this is so exceptionally, mindfully, exquisitely crafted and shaped that my favor bounced back considerably from where it previously had been. In that last stretch we get the tactful, understated elegance we had been missing before, and the last impression this makes is a fantastic one. Ah, but would that these faults weren't present in the first place. Though it admittedly can't be helped, the camerawork is restrictive; though overall she is to be commended, Best illustrates definite weaknesses in her direction that more substantively inhibit the affair from achieving its full potential. When all is said and done the admirable qualities this boasts must, and do, counterbalance and supersede its shortcomings; it's just that they shouldn't have to in the first place. Ultimately I do believe this is well worth watching, whether one is a Shakespeare devotee or just looking for something good to watch. I would offer only that any recommendation is paired with a caveat for those ways in which the viewing experience is dragged down, making it uneven. Provided one can abide such matters, however, I'm happy to say at length that 'Macbeth' really is a gem, if an imperfect one, and is well worth exploring if you have the opportunity.