The name Joe Macbeth was used before, in a 1955 version with a gangster setting. This new version seems also to tip its hand to the Orson Welles and Roman Polanski versions, by borrowing details. But plenty is new and interesting. Lady Macbeth gets a bit of a back story involving that baby whom Shakespeare mentions in a throwaway remark, and she has a literally luminous presence (compared to the rest of the lighting) that does not depend on her relationship to Macbeth. For Macbeth's part, a little extra motivation is inserted to replace the lust for the crown, since there's no crown to be had this time-- at least not one that any arguably sane person could imagine killing for. It may be a matter of opinion, but I think that all the kitchen business does manage to fill the gap in interest left by the omission of Shakespeare's language (though no one could compare a pig's head to "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow"). What I did see as a flaw is that no great contrast emerges between Mr. and Mrs. Macbeth as the story advances after the first murder. They seem to break down pretty much in parallel, and he is the less interesting, even in his climactic comeuppance.
18 Reviews
Keeley was superb
benbrae7629 August 2006
Is there any role that the wonderfully versatile Keeley Hawes cannot tackle? She was certainly the mainstay as "Ella (Lady) Macbeth" in this decent modern adaptation of Shakespeare's "Macbeth", aided by excellent performances by all, except perhaps James McAvoy who to my mind somewhat overplayed the title role a tad. I also thought that the script, though clever, was a little disjointed.
I wasn't sure at first whether or not the restaurant setting would work, and it did indeed take a little while to get used to, but once the play settled, it turned out to be quite an inventive interpretation, with good use of lighting to create a suitably Gothic-like atmosphere.
I can't say this was the best production of "Macbeth" I've ever witnessed, but it was by no means the worst, and if only for Keeley's performance alone, it was well worth seeing.
I wasn't sure at first whether or not the restaurant setting would work, and it did indeed take a little while to get used to, but once the play settled, it turned out to be quite an inventive interpretation, with good use of lighting to create a suitably Gothic-like atmosphere.
I can't say this was the best production of "Macbeth" I've ever witnessed, but it was by no means the worst, and if only for Keeley's performance alone, it was well worth seeing.
Re-told Shakespeare
redsoxfan21448 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a big fan of James McAvoy. He does a great job as being MacBeth and I find this a lot like the real thing. Even though the different scenery is strange, I like how it was taken place in a resteraunt. Very casual and a lot like today, this would be a good thing to watch if someone didn't get the book or play. I feel it would clear a lot up for them. Keeley Hawes also did an amazing job. I really got into it and I just felt like the whole thing was splended.
I love how instead of witches they used garbage men. It was a good idea, everything was done nicely.
A few things I didn't like however, is how fast everything happened. I'm glade it wasn't going on and on but a little longer with a bit more details might have been nicer.
If you don't like to see blood, you might not want to watch this. Personally I don't get bothered by it, but with a weak stomach you might. It wasn't to bad but it had a lot during points of it.
I love how instead of witches they used garbage men. It was a good idea, everything was done nicely.
A few things I didn't like however, is how fast everything happened. I'm glade it wasn't going on and on but a little longer with a bit more details might have been nicer.
If you don't like to see blood, you might not want to watch this. Personally I don't get bothered by it, but with a weak stomach you might. It wasn't to bad but it had a lot during points of it.
Excellent film - tense, violent and beautiful
vbenjamin5 December 2005
I very much enjoyed the BBC1 Macbeth. The script was good, the actors were excellent and I thought that the direction and the photography brought the best out of them. The director managed to convey a sense of tension and violence throughout, starting with the initial 'creative' tension and controlled violence in the lively scenes in the kitchen at the beginning and building to the desperation of the final scenes. This was helped by the stylish but claustrophobic interiors. This is an extremely beautiful film as well, heightened by the unflinching close ups of the principal characters as they start to disintegrate under the pressure.
More like this please!
More like this please!
fabulous
bigtvguru5 December 2005
I thought this was an absolutely stunning production. It was beautifully crafted and slick. James Macavoy is fabulous as Macbeth, charismatic, brooding and intense. Keeley Hawes is also superb. This high standard was maintained by the rest of the cast. I think Joe Milson (Billy) also deserves a special mention.
The whole thing is set in a dark claustrophobic atmosphere which is skilfully fused with the vibrancy and energy of the kitchen in a Michelin starred restaurant. I loved the bin men - what a clever idea. Plus the tone of eerie humour whenever they appear adds further dimension to the film.
The pace is just right, time enough to drink in the atmosphere and empathise with Macbeth's plight before being drawn along with him on his inexorable journey. The only fault with this production is that it wasn't shown on the big screen.
The whole thing is set in a dark claustrophobic atmosphere which is skilfully fused with the vibrancy and energy of the kitchen in a Michelin starred restaurant. I loved the bin men - what a clever idea. Plus the tone of eerie humour whenever they appear adds further dimension to the film.
The pace is just right, time enough to drink in the atmosphere and empathise with Macbeth's plight before being drawn along with him on his inexorable journey. The only fault with this production is that it wasn't shown on the big screen.
Amazing!
CiciRose25 December 2006
All I can say after watching this is "Wow." I watched it two nights in a row and I still feel that I have more to take in. Everything is masterfully done, the acting, direction, everything. A large part, in fact the largest, is definitely the casting of Macbeth as well as Lady Macbeth; they are fantastic..!! James McAvoy's performance was one of the strongest I have seen from any actor in a long while. There were a few scenes of his in particular that had me absolutely riveted. Keeley Hawes is incredible as well (to be honest I'd never seen her in anything before this, but she was absolutely perfect!); I believed that they were those characters. Even the fact that the dialogue was "updated", if you will, did not bother me (something that usually does). It's refreshing to see a Shakespeare adaptation that hasn't been dumbed down. If you're a fan of Macbeth this is definitely worth seeing. 10 out of 10.
Absolutely stunning contemporary adaptation of Macbeth!
s_l_p_b1 December 2005
The idea of setting Macbeth in a the kitchen of a top restaurant is inspired. Those places are kingdoms in miniature with some star chef taking all the glory and doling out all the pain.
James McAvoy plays Joe Macbeth in an utterly mesmerising performance as a the driven, passionate sous-chef put who is taken for granted by the chef and restaurant-owner Duncan - a suave, Irish rogue played by Vince Regan oozing charm and bonhomie.( Think Oliver Reed before he climbed into a bottle.)
Ella Macbeth is the restaurant's hostess with the mostest. Keely Hawes' natural innocence and cool beauty are perfect: is she really capable of what Lady Macbeth does..?..In a stunning scene where she whispers poison in her ear, turning Mcavoy to fury and the hot passion - she certainly seduced me.
The whole film is beautifully lit and the director has done a fantastic job making the very best of the enclosed nocturnal world of the kitchen - harsh contrasts of bright light in the kitchen and almost darkness in the restaurant with muted, and then more and more pervasive splashes of red.
This is what bringing Shakespeare to life is all about. It works perfectly as dark, modern fable if you know nothing of the original - and it pays huge dividends if you know the original. The updating of 'Banquo's ghost ' is brilliant!
James McAvoy plays Joe Macbeth in an utterly mesmerising performance as a the driven, passionate sous-chef put who is taken for granted by the chef and restaurant-owner Duncan - a suave, Irish rogue played by Vince Regan oozing charm and bonhomie.( Think Oliver Reed before he climbed into a bottle.)
Ella Macbeth is the restaurant's hostess with the mostest. Keely Hawes' natural innocence and cool beauty are perfect: is she really capable of what Lady Macbeth does..?..In a stunning scene where she whispers poison in her ear, turning Mcavoy to fury and the hot passion - she certainly seduced me.
The whole film is beautifully lit and the director has done a fantastic job making the very best of the enclosed nocturnal world of the kitchen - harsh contrasts of bright light in the kitchen and almost darkness in the restaurant with muted, and then more and more pervasive splashes of red.
This is what bringing Shakespeare to life is all about. It works perfectly as dark, modern fable if you know nothing of the original - and it pays huge dividends if you know the original. The updating of 'Banquo's ghost ' is brilliant!
Respect
tedg30 April 2010
I was very excited about these four new versions of great plays. Then I saw "Much Ado about Nothing" which happens to be the best of these and my hopes soared. Now I have seen all four.
This is the least successful. The comedies (using the meaning of the term applied to the plays) use language to sustain a world where love and intrigue are complex, lacy things. This effect can be carried by cinematic means, with potentially as much sophistication.
But in the tragedies, the language is used to build structures great and small that knot concepts in challenging and troubling ways. This, potentially could be effected cinematically, but to lead the narrative you would need a rare cinematic genius. That is not the case here. So what you have is the story roughly preserved and a few character traits that come along with it. It loses so much power that the only fun is in the references to Shakespeare — the same fun you get from those teen parody compilations.
There are two clever things here. We have lost all of the context in which the play was written, all that stuff about divine selection of rulers, magical insight into the mechanics of the universe, and locally the controversies about James and his rough Scots exoticism. So replanting that context into an elite kitchen is a very clever idea. It works conceptually and it works cinematically as well, because we already have a rich food-vision vocabulary. There have been many kitchen films, some good.
The other notable transplant seems to be popular, to judge from the comments here. The three witches are what in the US are called garbage men. The risk needs to be admired, but it didn't work for me. The idea here is that being exposed to the dross of the world gives insight into its paths. But in the play, the worlds are the other way around: there is a set destiny and everything that exists in that ecology is dross. The small crazinesses and reference to unpleasant things doesn't do it.
Anyone who thinks Lady Macbeth is effective here simply as a character needs to compare her to Swinton's character in "Michael Clayton."
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
This is the least successful. The comedies (using the meaning of the term applied to the plays) use language to sustain a world where love and intrigue are complex, lacy things. This effect can be carried by cinematic means, with potentially as much sophistication.
But in the tragedies, the language is used to build structures great and small that knot concepts in challenging and troubling ways. This, potentially could be effected cinematically, but to lead the narrative you would need a rare cinematic genius. That is not the case here. So what you have is the story roughly preserved and a few character traits that come along with it. It loses so much power that the only fun is in the references to Shakespeare — the same fun you get from those teen parody compilations.
There are two clever things here. We have lost all of the context in which the play was written, all that stuff about divine selection of rulers, magical insight into the mechanics of the universe, and locally the controversies about James and his rough Scots exoticism. So replanting that context into an elite kitchen is a very clever idea. It works conceptually and it works cinematically as well, because we already have a rich food-vision vocabulary. There have been many kitchen films, some good.
The other notable transplant seems to be popular, to judge from the comments here. The three witches are what in the US are called garbage men. The risk needs to be admired, but it didn't work for me. The idea here is that being exposed to the dross of the world gives insight into its paths. But in the play, the worlds are the other way around: there is a set destiny and everything that exists in that ecology is dross. The small crazinesses and reference to unpleasant things doesn't do it.
Anyone who thinks Lady Macbeth is effective here simply as a character needs to compare her to Swinton's character in "Michael Clayton."
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
Disappointing melodrama depicting Macbeth and his wife as complete idiots
rosian12 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The only reason I give this disappointing update of Shakespeare's fine (though historically, offensively inaccurate!) play Macbeth as many as 4 stars is because of the excellent acting.
I used to admire this play until I learned that it's based on a pack of lies about the real history of the time that was rewritten later to suit the current ruling family. The name Stewart simply means Steward and the Stewarts were not ancestrally heirs of the Scottish throne - much the same tricky situation as faced the Tudors hence the damnation of Richard III who was no better nor worse than his brother and his Tudor successors. Scotland, or at least the part that concerned Duncan and Macbeth in Macbeth's time was ruled by the chosen representative of the chieftains although a fairly unruly situation when there was dissension. Macbeth was chosen but Duncan, an unpopular chief, seized the Kingship. No wonder he got removed though not as in Shakespeare's play. Macbeth was supposed to be the just king and a good king whilst Malcolm was a hostage in England for quite a long time where he was indoctrinated with the English custom of primogeniture which he took back with him to Scotland, convinced he was the rightful king and the old system of election was invalid. No wonder the English let him go home - a useful "English" puppet on the Scottish throne. As I recall, Malcolm was a strong but very harsh king and not too popular.
So it's hard for me to watch this play without remembering the injustice to Macbeth who didn't murder Duncan so far as I recall. Even harder to watch this over-melodramatic and unrealistic adaptation in which Duncan actually tells his ambitious chef that if he Duncan dies tomorrow, Macbeth will inherit the business instead of Duncan's son "who isn't ready yet to inherit". Completely daft!
So Mrs Macbeth promptly decides her husband must murder Duncan right away, and worse, not some clever scheme to avoid being implicated but "you're a chef, a knife man, murder him with a knife". Which Macbeth does.
I was never too impressed as Macbeth and his wife descend into madness even in the original play and especially as Macbeth was as I had learned the rightful king anyway. However, it does make some sense as they are all so superstitious and prophesies start coming true to scare them. But in a modern Scottish restaurant setting, it's really hard to believe how Joe Macbeth loses all control over himself, acts weird, alienates staff and customers and is well on the way to bankrupting the business. He has Banquo murdered by one of the illegal immigrants his wife had tried to pin the murder on and then is himself murdered by MacDuff - another daft theme as now Macduff will end up in jail for murder whilst in the original play MacDuff is within his rights in the period setting as a supporter of Malcolm to pursue Macbeth.
Mrs M goes off her head much more realistically and really rather deserved to chuck herself off a building given what a mess she'd made of their lives with her loopy scheme.
Watchable for the good acting and the restaurant milieu and if you don't mind it being a travesty of history. Watchable if you like a melodrama and don't mind that it isn't realistic, or assume the modern couple had an uncertain grasp on reality anyway. But don't expect the later part to make any sense if you prefer plays to be in the real world, just ride with the melodrama if you can and admire the actors.
Had Shakespeare written this play now, set in our time, he wouldn't have written what the BBC issued because it doesn't make modern sense. A shame the modern writer couldn't take that thought on board rather than going overboard with unrealistic melodrama. The melodrama could have worked if the basic setting had worked. With the restaurant setting something more devious was needed. In a different setting and with far more at stake for the Macbeths than hurt pride, the two murders might have made sense. You could say "murders have been done for less" but are we to suppose Shakespeare's Macbeth and his wife are idiots? Of course they aren't. And a great deal was at stake in a historical period in which murder by one prince of another for power or revenge wasn't unusual. In this modern retake, clearly they are idiots.
The three witches are amusingly played as refuse men.
I used to admire this play until I learned that it's based on a pack of lies about the real history of the time that was rewritten later to suit the current ruling family. The name Stewart simply means Steward and the Stewarts were not ancestrally heirs of the Scottish throne - much the same tricky situation as faced the Tudors hence the damnation of Richard III who was no better nor worse than his brother and his Tudor successors. Scotland, or at least the part that concerned Duncan and Macbeth in Macbeth's time was ruled by the chosen representative of the chieftains although a fairly unruly situation when there was dissension. Macbeth was chosen but Duncan, an unpopular chief, seized the Kingship. No wonder he got removed though not as in Shakespeare's play. Macbeth was supposed to be the just king and a good king whilst Malcolm was a hostage in England for quite a long time where he was indoctrinated with the English custom of primogeniture which he took back with him to Scotland, convinced he was the rightful king and the old system of election was invalid. No wonder the English let him go home - a useful "English" puppet on the Scottish throne. As I recall, Malcolm was a strong but very harsh king and not too popular.
So it's hard for me to watch this play without remembering the injustice to Macbeth who didn't murder Duncan so far as I recall. Even harder to watch this over-melodramatic and unrealistic adaptation in which Duncan actually tells his ambitious chef that if he Duncan dies tomorrow, Macbeth will inherit the business instead of Duncan's son "who isn't ready yet to inherit". Completely daft!
So Mrs Macbeth promptly decides her husband must murder Duncan right away, and worse, not some clever scheme to avoid being implicated but "you're a chef, a knife man, murder him with a knife". Which Macbeth does.
I was never too impressed as Macbeth and his wife descend into madness even in the original play and especially as Macbeth was as I had learned the rightful king anyway. However, it does make some sense as they are all so superstitious and prophesies start coming true to scare them. But in a modern Scottish restaurant setting, it's really hard to believe how Joe Macbeth loses all control over himself, acts weird, alienates staff and customers and is well on the way to bankrupting the business. He has Banquo murdered by one of the illegal immigrants his wife had tried to pin the murder on and then is himself murdered by MacDuff - another daft theme as now Macduff will end up in jail for murder whilst in the original play MacDuff is within his rights in the period setting as a supporter of Malcolm to pursue Macbeth.
Mrs M goes off her head much more realistically and really rather deserved to chuck herself off a building given what a mess she'd made of their lives with her loopy scheme.
Watchable for the good acting and the restaurant milieu and if you don't mind it being a travesty of history. Watchable if you like a melodrama and don't mind that it isn't realistic, or assume the modern couple had an uncertain grasp on reality anyway. But don't expect the later part to make any sense if you prefer plays to be in the real world, just ride with the melodrama if you can and admire the actors.
Had Shakespeare written this play now, set in our time, he wouldn't have written what the BBC issued because it doesn't make modern sense. A shame the modern writer couldn't take that thought on board rather than going overboard with unrealistic melodrama. The melodrama could have worked if the basic setting had worked. With the restaurant setting something more devious was needed. In a different setting and with far more at stake for the Macbeths than hurt pride, the two murders might have made sense. You could say "murders have been done for less" but are we to suppose Shakespeare's Macbeth and his wife are idiots? Of course they aren't. And a great deal was at stake in a historical period in which murder by one prince of another for power or revenge wasn't unusual. In this modern retake, clearly they are idiots.
The three witches are amusingly played as refuse men.
Unintentional Evil
guy-kewney28 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The star of "The Scottish Play" is, of course, not the Thane; it's his ambitious, unscrupulous wife. And the star of this show is the wife of the chef.
It's amazing that anybody could fail to enjoy this - but there's no accounting for taste, or lack of taste! - because the young, perfectionist deputy chef is created as a flawed character, ideal soil for the evil insinuations of his wife.
The plot is too well known for any review to fail to be a "spoiler" - it follows the original. The chef of a top restaurant, feted, media-savvy and grandiose, is supplanted by his number two, after being murdered by the younger chef's wife; but although he inherits the restaurant, he can't cope with his guilt and neither, much to her own surprise, can his wife.
The "weird Sisters" of the original were found on a blasted heath. The script brilliantly transplants them to an urban "recycling centre" with plastic bags blowing in an evil-smelling wind from the back of a council garbage truck. And the Sisters themselves are three weird garbage men.
The joke about "The Scottish Chef" had all of us, watching, shouting with laughter. It's a terrible pity it has to be given away here... but I'm glad to see someone else liked it as much as we did.
The triumph of the script and the performance is the degradation of the heroine, from the "power behind the throne" of chef Duncan, preparing him for media interviews by smearing his immaculate white overalls with blood - in an extraordinarily ambivalent, sexually simmering scene, done al forno - to her final extinction, lost, elevated too high for her own equilibrium, cold as revenge served out of doors as she walks the roof-tops in her nightie.
Clever touches; the discovery of a message from the dead Duncan in the form of an old SMS, as a modern "ghost" and the omnipresence of blood in a kitchen substituting for the blood of battle... definitely one to watch twice!
It's amazing that anybody could fail to enjoy this - but there's no accounting for taste, or lack of taste! - because the young, perfectionist deputy chef is created as a flawed character, ideal soil for the evil insinuations of his wife.
The plot is too well known for any review to fail to be a "spoiler" - it follows the original. The chef of a top restaurant, feted, media-savvy and grandiose, is supplanted by his number two, after being murdered by the younger chef's wife; but although he inherits the restaurant, he can't cope with his guilt and neither, much to her own surprise, can his wife.
The "weird Sisters" of the original were found on a blasted heath. The script brilliantly transplants them to an urban "recycling centre" with plastic bags blowing in an evil-smelling wind from the back of a council garbage truck. And the Sisters themselves are three weird garbage men.
The joke about "The Scottish Chef" had all of us, watching, shouting with laughter. It's a terrible pity it has to be given away here... but I'm glad to see someone else liked it as much as we did.
The triumph of the script and the performance is the degradation of the heroine, from the "power behind the throne" of chef Duncan, preparing him for media interviews by smearing his immaculate white overalls with blood - in an extraordinarily ambivalent, sexually simmering scene, done al forno - to her final extinction, lost, elevated too high for her own equilibrium, cold as revenge served out of doors as she walks the roof-tops in her nightie.
Clever touches; the discovery of a message from the dead Duncan in the form of an old SMS, as a modern "ghost" and the omnipresence of blood in a kitchen substituting for the blood of battle... definitely one to watch twice!
Shakespeare Re-Told: "Macbeth"
dimmydom10 December 2005
I thought it was great.
I am studying "Macbeth" at the present and this has helped me to understand the play better.
Even though it wasn't exactly as I thought it would be, I liked the idea of the three "Witches" a.k.a bin men. They provided the much needed humour in the dramatisation of one of Shakespeare's most famous works.
Watching the programme has helped me raise my grade from a c- to an a-!!
I enjoyed it immensely!!
I am studying "Macbeth" at the present and this has helped me to understand the play better.
Even though it wasn't exactly as I thought it would be, I liked the idea of the three "Witches" a.k.a bin men. They provided the much needed humour in the dramatisation of one of Shakespeare's most famous works.
Watching the programme has helped me raise my grade from a c- to an a-!!
I enjoyed it immensely!!
Great film? Yes! Shakespeare? Not so sure...
halohamish19 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I just finished watching this with the rest of my English class as part of our study on Macbeth. Personally, I really enjoyed it and so did the rest of the class. But one thing that has seemed to strike everyone, even me and my English teacher, about this film, is that it is missing too many of the vital elements that make a Shakespearean film, Shakespearean.
First off, the language isn't Old English, which already takes that authentic feel away from it. This may help, and it did, viewers understand the story better, but that is the primary genius of Shakespeare - his language. It was always so beautifully scripted and used in a way no one had ever done so before, creating some of the best storytelling of our time. But, even with this said, this is definitely not enough to make a modernized Shakespeare film bad, which this film definitely was not.
I think the main thing that didn't help with this film was the lack of references to the original. Many important scenes, like the floating dagger and the ghost of Banquo, were either almost non-existent or barely delved into. Then, in the absence of these things, many ideas thought up by Moffat were incorporated to add his own touch to the film, which I don't have a problem with, some were even quite clever, but a mix of the two - lack of original context from Shakespeare's story and the personal additions done by the writer - make for something that definitely works as a film, but not quite so much as Shakespeare. The thing is, Macbeth is such a simple story, like many of Shakespeare's works, that it can be applied to a huge variety of different, unique plots. They would have been better off getting rid of the Shakespearean elements and making this film as an original creation. I understand how this is easier said than done, due to the nature of why this film was written, but it would have made for a much better reception.
If you don't know the classic, don't watch this as a way of experiencing it, as too much is missing. Watch it for its good acting, clever play on words and kick-ass music. And if even that doesn't catch you, watch it just for McAvoy's performance, which is very impressive. If you already know the story, I recommend you watch this as it is still a great attempt at recreating an old tale for modern audiences and you will find a lot to still enjoy.
Hamish Kearvell - A.K.A Screaming Japan Prodcutions - www.myspace.com/screamingjapanproductions
First off, the language isn't Old English, which already takes that authentic feel away from it. This may help, and it did, viewers understand the story better, but that is the primary genius of Shakespeare - his language. It was always so beautifully scripted and used in a way no one had ever done so before, creating some of the best storytelling of our time. But, even with this said, this is definitely not enough to make a modernized Shakespeare film bad, which this film definitely was not.
I think the main thing that didn't help with this film was the lack of references to the original. Many important scenes, like the floating dagger and the ghost of Banquo, were either almost non-existent or barely delved into. Then, in the absence of these things, many ideas thought up by Moffat were incorporated to add his own touch to the film, which I don't have a problem with, some were even quite clever, but a mix of the two - lack of original context from Shakespeare's story and the personal additions done by the writer - make for something that definitely works as a film, but not quite so much as Shakespeare. The thing is, Macbeth is such a simple story, like many of Shakespeare's works, that it can be applied to a huge variety of different, unique plots. They would have been better off getting rid of the Shakespearean elements and making this film as an original creation. I understand how this is easier said than done, due to the nature of why this film was written, but it would have made for a much better reception.
If you don't know the classic, don't watch this as a way of experiencing it, as too much is missing. Watch it for its good acting, clever play on words and kick-ass music. And if even that doesn't catch you, watch it just for McAvoy's performance, which is very impressive. If you already know the story, I recommend you watch this as it is still a great attempt at recreating an old tale for modern audiences and you will find a lot to still enjoy.
Hamish Kearvell - A.K.A Screaming Japan Prodcutions - www.myspace.com/screamingjapanproductions
This is a tale told by an idiot... signifying nothing
lucynunn2 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
How far is too far for a promotion? Coming from someone working for barely minimum wage at a dead-end weekend job, I know that nothing's out of the picture in the desire for such. However, Macbeth's grandiose plan to 1. Murder his boss and 2. Takeover his acclaimed Glaswegian restaurant appears melodramatic - even to me. This is the problem with Mark Brozel's modern adaptation of Macbeth, reinvented in the second instalment of the critically acclaimed television series: ShakespeaRe-Told. While I can appreciate Brozel's affluent use of motifs and their importance in honouring the primary text, much of the significant depth of the play is lost through power imbalances and a setting that trivialises Macbeth's motives.
Brozel attempts to appeal to a modern audience with contemporary language, and a stellar cast (including the oh-so-dreamy James McAvoy and talented Keeley Hawes as the Macbeths), along with a post-modern (accompanying the familiar setting of a) Michelin Star restaurant. Yet the adaptation fails to capture some of the key relationships developed throughout the play, and I found his contextual choices vacuous.
The setting was where Brozel fell the furthest in developing a realistic adaptation of the play, opting to transport the Macbeths into a 2000's kitchen; far from their Jacobean origins. This change, clearly aimed to rejuvenate the ageing play, simply trivialised everything about the original that was enticing: the moral imbalances of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth (referred to as "Joe" and "Ella" in the film) and their desire for power. Shakespeare's Macbeths toy with the concept of regicide for the reward of being royalty themselves - an idea that, while blatantly immoral, is almost understandable. However, the Brozel's choice to change the setting means that this almost excusable act becomes unwarranted, and this tug of war between right and wrong becomes simply overruled by what is wrong far too easily.
The switch from striving to be the King of Scotland to owner of a restaurant is plainly confusing - and creates a disjointed context that fails to fall in step with the essence of the plot. This discordant patchwork trivialises the legacy of Macbeth - unlike the absolute power of the 16th century, and in this retelling he his status of head chef means he is already in a place of power.
The realistic context created an expectation of realistic action which was nowhere to be seen - ultimately disappointing viewers longing for a refreshing remodelling of their beloved Shakespeare.
There is merit in the obvious attempt to reinvent the tale through the change in backdrop - the action packed; fast placed climate of a restaurant isn't the most absurd place for Macbeth to end up. Shakespeare's Macbeth is notoriously violent - his love for a good knife is not dissimilar to the butchery requirements of the kitchen. Also, the hierarchy within the kitchen could be compared to that of the Great Chain of Being (the natural order of life - an established hierarchy supposedly employed by God) prominent in the Elizabethan Era. What's more, the lack of power from Lady Macbeth was frankly disappointing in the 2005 edition. The manipulative and empowered Lady Macbeth didn't exist in the recreation, albeit for her moment where she chastises that Joe is "too full of the milk of human kindness" iii as in the text, inferring her boyfriend to be weak in his compassion. But this glance of dominance is abruptly extinguished with Joe pushing her down and choking her, instantly making audiences say goodbye to the possibility of the strong character that Ella Macbeth could have been.
Even though her persuasive monologue is appreciable in isolation, her lack of villainous and dominating characterisation prior to this moment made this scene appear out of place for her in a greater perspective.
Consequently, the lack of Lady Macbeth's iconic dominance led to her film character appearing one-dimensional, and to me, simply boring.
Despite the other poor directorial choices and characterisation of Ella Macbeth, the motif of the washing of hands and the desire to be cleaned from sin throughout the movie - a theme in Shakespeare's play that gave a dimension of morality to the Macbeths - was successful in conveying the pair's guilt.
Throughout the film, the sanity of the two visibly dwindles as they move through cycles of repeated cleaning. Quotes such as "Out, damned spot!"v or "will all great Neptune's ocean was this blood clean from my hand?"vi from the initial text weren't required to be said, with flashes of bloody water flushing down white bathroom sinks sending the obsessive motif to viewers clearer than words could.
At the conclusion of the film, Ella submits herself to her guilt and immorality, breaking the cycle of cleansing and instead smearing her lipstick over her hands and face. This moment shows her abandonment of her efforts to maintain innocence for both Joe and she in a captivating image immediately before her death.
This moment at the conclusion of a well-developed motif almost makes up for her previous characterisation. Key word: almost. Brozel's remake of Shakespeare's Macbeth was frankly, 86 wasted minutes of film. His sledgehammer attempts to modernise the film missed the mark greatly, with an ill-chosen setting and a power-imbalance that left me - as a fan of Lady Macbeth - disappointed to say the least.
However, credit should be provided where due, and Brozel must be awarded for his superb use of the motif of wanted innocence through sequences of obsessive cleansing. Regardless, such a motif would be evident in almost any other adaptation of the script, so it's certainly not wasting one's time over.
A remake of any text should aim to bring new light to possibly outdated themes. Yet, the 2005 remake added nothing interesting to the original, instead detracting from many significant themes such as power imbalance and justifiable desire.
In the end, the modern adaptation of Macbeth "signified nothing." vii
Brozel attempts to appeal to a modern audience with contemporary language, and a stellar cast (including the oh-so-dreamy James McAvoy and talented Keeley Hawes as the Macbeths), along with a post-modern (accompanying the familiar setting of a) Michelin Star restaurant. Yet the adaptation fails to capture some of the key relationships developed throughout the play, and I found his contextual choices vacuous.
The setting was where Brozel fell the furthest in developing a realistic adaptation of the play, opting to transport the Macbeths into a 2000's kitchen; far from their Jacobean origins. This change, clearly aimed to rejuvenate the ageing play, simply trivialised everything about the original that was enticing: the moral imbalances of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth (referred to as "Joe" and "Ella" in the film) and their desire for power. Shakespeare's Macbeths toy with the concept of regicide for the reward of being royalty themselves - an idea that, while blatantly immoral, is almost understandable. However, the Brozel's choice to change the setting means that this almost excusable act becomes unwarranted, and this tug of war between right and wrong becomes simply overruled by what is wrong far too easily.
The switch from striving to be the King of Scotland to owner of a restaurant is plainly confusing - and creates a disjointed context that fails to fall in step with the essence of the plot. This discordant patchwork trivialises the legacy of Macbeth - unlike the absolute power of the 16th century, and in this retelling he his status of head chef means he is already in a place of power.
The realistic context created an expectation of realistic action which was nowhere to be seen - ultimately disappointing viewers longing for a refreshing remodelling of their beloved Shakespeare.
There is merit in the obvious attempt to reinvent the tale through the change in backdrop - the action packed; fast placed climate of a restaurant isn't the most absurd place for Macbeth to end up. Shakespeare's Macbeth is notoriously violent - his love for a good knife is not dissimilar to the butchery requirements of the kitchen. Also, the hierarchy within the kitchen could be compared to that of the Great Chain of Being (the natural order of life - an established hierarchy supposedly employed by God) prominent in the Elizabethan Era. What's more, the lack of power from Lady Macbeth was frankly disappointing in the 2005 edition. The manipulative and empowered Lady Macbeth didn't exist in the recreation, albeit for her moment where she chastises that Joe is "too full of the milk of human kindness" iii as in the text, inferring her boyfriend to be weak in his compassion. But this glance of dominance is abruptly extinguished with Joe pushing her down and choking her, instantly making audiences say goodbye to the possibility of the strong character that Ella Macbeth could have been.
Even though her persuasive monologue is appreciable in isolation, her lack of villainous and dominating characterisation prior to this moment made this scene appear out of place for her in a greater perspective.
Consequently, the lack of Lady Macbeth's iconic dominance led to her film character appearing one-dimensional, and to me, simply boring.
Despite the other poor directorial choices and characterisation of Ella Macbeth, the motif of the washing of hands and the desire to be cleaned from sin throughout the movie - a theme in Shakespeare's play that gave a dimension of morality to the Macbeths - was successful in conveying the pair's guilt.
Throughout the film, the sanity of the two visibly dwindles as they move through cycles of repeated cleaning. Quotes such as "Out, damned spot!"v or "will all great Neptune's ocean was this blood clean from my hand?"vi from the initial text weren't required to be said, with flashes of bloody water flushing down white bathroom sinks sending the obsessive motif to viewers clearer than words could.
At the conclusion of the film, Ella submits herself to her guilt and immorality, breaking the cycle of cleansing and instead smearing her lipstick over her hands and face. This moment shows her abandonment of her efforts to maintain innocence for both Joe and she in a captivating image immediately before her death.
This moment at the conclusion of a well-developed motif almost makes up for her previous characterisation. Key word: almost. Brozel's remake of Shakespeare's Macbeth was frankly, 86 wasted minutes of film. His sledgehammer attempts to modernise the film missed the mark greatly, with an ill-chosen setting and a power-imbalance that left me - as a fan of Lady Macbeth - disappointed to say the least.
However, credit should be provided where due, and Brozel must be awarded for his superb use of the motif of wanted innocence through sequences of obsessive cleansing. Regardless, such a motif would be evident in almost any other adaptation of the script, so it's certainly not wasting one's time over.
A remake of any text should aim to bring new light to possibly outdated themes. Yet, the 2005 remake added nothing interesting to the original, instead detracting from many significant themes such as power imbalance and justifiable desire.
In the end, the modern adaptation of Macbeth "signified nothing." vii
disappointing
damienmuldoon19 November 2005
The second in the series of B.B.C.'s "Shakespeare Re-told" this version of "Macbeth" is a huge disappointment after "Much Ado About Nothing" last week. The writers succeeded in complicating this most straight forward of Shakespearian tragedies. The dark mood of the original is preserved but the pace is slow and the plot tedious. Decent performances from the leading characters do little to lift this dull production out of the dramatic mire. Transferring Shakespeare's great portrayal of power and ambition to a twenty-first century restaurant was always going to be problematical, but to be honest, this is a botched effort that should have been aborted half way through the project.
Interesting updating of the witches to bin men on a dump though.
Interesting updating of the witches to bin men on a dump though.
BBC doth murder Macbeth...
sarastro73 May 2006
Let's review an important fact: Any version of Shakespeare that doesn't feature the original text can only be intolerably watered down, both in terms of dialog and subtext.
That doesn't mean that a Shakespeare-inspired tale cannot be a success (witness Forbidden Planet, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead). But this BBC re-imagining of Macbeth was a success only as a low-key standard drama - as such deserving perhaps a rating of 6 or 7. However, I have to evaluate it as a version of a Shakespeare story (which it was presented as), and as such it was sorely wanting. It was unbearably decompressed, to the extent that it felt like nothing was going on, and everything moved too slowly. It was Shakespeare Lite at its very litest and its most simplistic. You could be entertained by it, but you could learn very little about Shakespeare from it. I once saw some soap opera movie modeled very loosely on Othello (only with a happy ending). It was quite worthless, and this movie is in the same category. Actually, this should have been marketed simply as a slightly Shakespeare-inspired drama in its own right, and not as a modern version of Shakespeare, complete with the original play's title and all. Because it doesn't even begin to live up to the thing it's based on.
5 out of 10.
That doesn't mean that a Shakespeare-inspired tale cannot be a success (witness Forbidden Planet, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead). But this BBC re-imagining of Macbeth was a success only as a low-key standard drama - as such deserving perhaps a rating of 6 or 7. However, I have to evaluate it as a version of a Shakespeare story (which it was presented as), and as such it was sorely wanting. It was unbearably decompressed, to the extent that it felt like nothing was going on, and everything moved too slowly. It was Shakespeare Lite at its very litest and its most simplistic. You could be entertained by it, but you could learn very little about Shakespeare from it. I once saw some soap opera movie modeled very loosely on Othello (only with a happy ending). It was quite worthless, and this movie is in the same category. Actually, this should have been marketed simply as a slightly Shakespeare-inspired drama in its own right, and not as a modern version of Shakespeare, complete with the original play's title and all. Because it doesn't even begin to live up to the thing it's based on.
5 out of 10.
Yes, Macbeth can be made boring.
pawebster25 November 2005
What a bore. To make a gripping tragedy like Macbeth boring takes some doing, but this production managed it with ease.
The story drags -- it seems interminable -- and one couldn't care less if the characters live or die. The restaurant idea does not work very well -- it's simply insufficient as a substitute for the throne of Scotland. The cooking is over-emphasised and is one of the factors dragging down the proceedings.
There's no chemistry between Keeley Hawes and James McEvoy. His Glaswegian accent is also a trial and not always easy to follow. I know it's the Scottish Play, but this is pushing it.
Both he and Hawes been good in other things, but they need to hope fervently that their CVs are sufficiently Teflon-coated for this to slide off and disappear without trace.
What a contrast with the excellent production of 'Much Ado' the week before!
The story drags -- it seems interminable -- and one couldn't care less if the characters live or die. The restaurant idea does not work very well -- it's simply insufficient as a substitute for the throne of Scotland. The cooking is over-emphasised and is one of the factors dragging down the proceedings.
There's no chemistry between Keeley Hawes and James McEvoy. His Glaswegian accent is also a trial and not always easy to follow. I know it's the Scottish Play, but this is pushing it.
Both he and Hawes been good in other things, but they need to hope fervently that their CVs are sufficiently Teflon-coated for this to slide off and disappear without trace.
What a contrast with the excellent production of 'Much Ado' the week before!
boring
cybermansec4 December 2005
How can you make Macbeth boring, well this is how. It had good bits but overall what a snore. I cannot believe how bad this was and I don't know why it's so bad though. The other three were really good (especially the first one Much Ado About Nothing) This is probably the 5th worst drama I have ever, ever, ever seen. I must admit that it was a very good beginning but ti wen't wacky and boring. I gave up halfway through. I like the play though. Shakespeare retold had defiantly lost their minds or fell asleep doing this. If you can't get to sleep and want to, I have something for you. I'm watching it tonight because I have it on tape. I can't usually sleep sometimes when I'm excited.
New skin, same story
Vincentiu12 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Experiment, not really brilliant.
New skin, same story about power and lies, fear and murder.
Poor man and huge ambition. And signs voices.
Same questions about truth and desire. But same answer, too? The price and his limits is the essential problem of every age, every land.
"Macbeth" is my favorite Shakespeare's play and this movie is form of revelation of great values of every time. The tension and location, the fever of gestures are expression of universal crisis in a society. It is not an actualization of an old play but a form of revelation, in new images, of values and hope.
In fact, the film is expression of the power's fragility - blood of ambiguous time and strong gesture. And about the fall of silence.
Subject is Greek tragedy's taste and mud sky, end of fake victory and strange glory of chimeric desire.
Amber desire in the nightmare's steps, that is definition of this movie's atmosphere. Age of petrification and rest of slow honor. Desire like only truth of a very small world.
Night. Desire. Murder.
Final gesture - form of vain salvation.
New skin, same story about power and lies, fear and murder.
Poor man and huge ambition. And signs voices.
Same questions about truth and desire. But same answer, too? The price and his limits is the essential problem of every age, every land.
"Macbeth" is my favorite Shakespeare's play and this movie is form of revelation of great values of every time. The tension and location, the fever of gestures are expression of universal crisis in a society. It is not an actualization of an old play but a form of revelation, in new images, of values and hope.
In fact, the film is expression of the power's fragility - blood of ambiguous time and strong gesture. And about the fall of silence.
Subject is Greek tragedy's taste and mud sky, end of fake victory and strange glory of chimeric desire.
Amber desire in the nightmare's steps, that is definition of this movie's atmosphere. Age of petrification and rest of slow honor. Desire like only truth of a very small world.
Night. Desire. Murder.
Final gesture - form of vain salvation.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
