Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

MacBeth

2»

Comments

  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Hard to form any real expectation based on that trailer.
    It looks pretty much like they took a play and stuck a budget on it.

    I guess you can't really expect much more from a movie based on Shakespeare's work (Baz Lurhmann notwithstanding)

    Yeah, I think it's pretty much a standard adaptation. I think I read one of the reviews from Cannes that mentioned they'd changed something at the end.... not sure, but mostly it is literally the play in real locations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭PressRun


    I like that they've kept it in a period setting and obviously kept the language, and the two central performances look like they could be very strong. The few glimpses in the trailer suggest something quite visually beautiful to me. I would have much higher expectations for this than Lurhmann's Romeo and Juliet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭PressRun


    Yeah, I think it's pretty much a standard adaptation. I think I read one of the reviews from Cannes that mentioned they'd changed something at the end.... not sure, but mostly it is literally the play in real locations.

    I think there have been a couple of interesting interpretations of certain speeches that are a little different to typical stagings of Macbeth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87,579 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,812 ✭✭✭Addle


    Looks very promising.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Hollister11


    Looks good.

    I'll be seeing this, and Steve Jobs in October. Both Michael Fassbender films.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,403 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Saw the trailer in the IFI on Tuesday. Very excited to see it now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


    Hi, looking forward to seeing this because I really like Michael Fassbender. I never studied macbeth in school so dont know the story, should I read up on the story before I see it, do people think?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,655 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    fin12 wrote: »
    Hi, looking forward to seeing this because I really like Michael Fassbender. I never studied macbeth in school so dont know the story, should I read up on the story before I see it, do people think?

    A quick plot synopsis should do the trick beforehand, just so you have a handle on what's what and who's who. It is a relatively mainstream movie, so I can't imagine it's been designed to confound people who aren't that familiar with the source. The play itself is pretty accessible and relatively short. Unless you want to prise it apart like a Shakespearan scholar, I think you should be okay, even if you go in totally blind.

    In fact it could be interesting to hear your opinion afterwards, as someone who will be coming to it just as a movie-goer, without all the extra baggage of preconceptions.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    It's been a few years since I read it, but from what I can recall it's actually one of the 'easier' Shakespeare plays in terms of understanding the dialogue. It's eh, not particularly a barrel of laughs which has the unexpected benefit that there's not reams of obscure wordplay and jokes about Elizabethan current affairs, there's some bits with Duncan's sons that can be like that but it's not going to make it impossible to follow (again, as far as I can remember). Most of the big speeches should make perfect sense to modern ears. I'd say going in blind would be fine

    Anyways, that trailer looks class! Love the play and love those two actors, haven't seen the director's other stuff but I think I'll go ahead and let myself be excited about this :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


    Thanks guys, ya I think I'l read up on it somehow before I go see it in the next few days because I'l prob go see it at the weekend.

    Its just because its a play I was just a bit concerned I would be lost. I studied Merchant of Venice and King Lear at school.

    Really loved the play King Lear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,427 ✭✭✭Pierce_1991


    Haven't put Spoiler tags because I assume most people on here know the story of Macbeth.

    Saw this the other night. Not really sure what to make of it. The first hour moved a bit too slowly for my liking. After the murder of Banquo things picked up. Fassbender turns in a very solid performance. I feel they didn't make the most of Marion Cotillard who was perfect for Lady Macbeth. All in all it was very well shot but added nothing new to the original play. I'm guessing some people weren't expecting the full on Shakespearean dialogue because I counted 24 people walking out of the screening I was at. Never seen that before. I'd probably give the movie a 3/5 at a push.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    At least half of those at the screening I was at walked out by the halfway point. I stuck it out, but only just. Have seen Macbeth a few times on stage and it was never as consistently slow paced and monotonous as this and given it's subject, that's not hard to understand why. It seemed to have all the ingredients of a great adaption, but really was rather boring.

    Cotillard was flawless though and she alone seemed to hold the film together.

    Without her it would be horrendous. As it is, it gets away with just being poor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,427 ✭✭✭Pierce_1991


    At least half of those at the screening I was at walked out by the halfway point. I stuck it out, but only just. Have seen Macbeth a few times on stage and it was never as consistently slow paced and monotonous as this and given it's subject, that's not hard to understand why. It seemed to have all the ingredients of a great adaption, but really was rather boring.

    Cotillard was flawless though and she alone seemed to hold the film together.

    Without her it would be horrendous. As it is, it gets away with just being poor.

    Can't help but disagree. I felt she just came and went without nearly as much influence as Lady Macbeth should have. Cotillard is such a great actress for Lady Macbeth but just wasn't utilised enough for me. After Macbeth becomes king she has very little to do anymore.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Can't help but disagree. I felt she just came and went without nearly as much influence as Lady Macbeth should have. Cotillard is such a great actress for Lady Macbeth but just wasn't utilised enough for me. After Macbeth becomes king she has very little to do anymore.

    Maybe I didn't articulate it very well (no surprise there) but what I was trying to say was that her performance, for me at least, was so riveting and compelling that it was the only thing that kept me interested in the story and but for it, I would have walked.

    I totally agree with you that she wasn't used enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,356 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    I was always of the opinion of Lady Macbeth being wrongly vilified in most adaptations. They were really sympathetic in this one and I'm not sure it's for the best. The traditional view is of her as the master manipulator and leading Macbeth down a stray path. I believe she shows very little personal ambition and it's all down to the love she has for her husband that she "unsexes" herself for him.

    As regards the performance Cotillard's accent was quite off-putting from the start I felt and she put in a performance that felt almost disconnected from the rest of the characters. Her and Fassbender in the first hour or so showed very little emotion I felt and I didn't buy any kind of moral dilemma which should have been somewhat obvious.

    On the overall film I felt they made it too atmospheric to the point of it distracting from already difficult to follow dialogue that was not clearly enunciated by the actors which in a Shakespeare adaptation is disappointing. The score works well for the atmospheric shots but having it underlying the dialogue was very jarring I thought. The audience isn't helped at all and that isn't really what Shakespeare is supposed to be about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,917 ✭✭✭nix


    Went to see this on the weekend, i liked the cinematography and the acting. But all the dialogue went over my head, I knew nothing of the story going in really and that was my downfall.

    I would recommend at the very least, reading what the story is about so you know whats going on before going in, unless you have an ear for old English.. To me it was like watching a foreign movie without subtitles, i could only gather what was going on based on the actions and facial reactions of the cast. And i did well having read the gist on the net afterwards :D

    Its odd that i had so much trouble understanding anything said in this but having watched Joss Whedeons modern day telling of much ado about nothing, in which i was able to follow the story just fine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,563 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    How does this stack up against the Polanski version?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 902 ✭✭✭Cows Go µ


    I haven't seen it yet and I'm so disappointed to hear it wasn't good. I really like Cotillard and Fassbender and Macbeth was my absolute favourite play when I was in school so I was really hopeful about this. I loved the story, the characters and I adored the dialogue when I was a teen. I might not watch it at all now if it's that bad. It'll just tarnish my good memories of the story


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Cows Go µ wrote: »
    I haven't seen it yet and I'm so disappointed to hear it wasn't good. I really like Cotillard and Fassbender and Macbeth was my absolute favourite play when I was in school so I was really hopeful about this. I loved the story, the characters and I adored the dialogue when I was a teen. I might not watch it at all now if it's that bad. It'll just tarnish my good memories of the story

    Ah sure go anyway, be interesting to see what you think.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭drugstore cowboy


    I'm a Hamlet man and I'd rank MacBeth below it but I'm looking forward to seeing this & Fassbender could be looking at an oscar nomination?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,747 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    This was a refreshingly striking effort from Justin Kurzel. Less showy than its trailers suggested (outside of its appropriately blood-red titles and coda, and the heavily stylised battles), Kurzel maintains an admirably miserable, uninviting mood throughout. Adam Arkapaw's cinematography, assisted by exemplary art designers and set dressers, is drenched in shadows and mist, capturing the film's relentless foreboding from the very first frame. The sound further amplifies the discomfort - the scratchy, whispered dialogue; the ambient soundtrack; the deafening chants, sword clashes and battle cries. This all helps the supernatural elements blend smoothly in - the fantasy and reality exist on the same general plain for much of the film, which is a perfect way to put across the increasingly vulnerable states of mind of Macbeth and his wife.

    Yet, at the same time, it's a film I regularly felt distant from. I could almost always admire the craft and mood-building, but the pacing came across as plodding at times - strangely enough for the material, it felt some of the monologues in particular needed an extra spark to properly ignite. The performances seemed to be on an unusual middleground between understated (for the material) and melodramatic, and it didn't always quite work (although I think Cotillard powerfully captured the internal conflict and uncertainty of Lady Macbeth around the midpoint). It's a film in some ways to admire rather than enjoy - impeccably put together, but almost - and in a sense, this seems to be part of the point - chilly and unwelcoming.

    Edit: Ha, just had a look back about what I wrote in the Snowtown thread, and very similar response. Kurzel definitely has his own distinct directorial signature :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,356 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    This was a refreshingly striking effort from Justin Kurzel. Less showy than its trailers suggested (outside of its appropriately blood-red titles and coda, and the heavily stylised battles), Kurzel maintains an admirably miserable, uninviting mood throughout. Adam Arkapaw's cinematography, assisted by exemplary art designers and set dressers, is drenched in shadows and mist, capturing the film's relentless foreboding from the very first frame. The sound further amplifies the discomfort - the scratchy, whispered dialogue; the ambient soundtrack; the deafening chants, sword clashes and battle cries. This all helps the supernatural elements blend smoothly in - the fantasy and reality exist on the same general plain for much of the film, which is a perfect way to put across the increasingly vulnerable states of mind of Macbeth and his wife.

    Yet, at the same time, it's a film I regularly felt distant from. I could almost always admire the craft and mood-building, but the pacing came across as plodding at times - strangely enough for the material, it felt some of the monologues in particular needed an extra spark to properly ignite. The performances seemed to be on an unusual middleground between understated (for the material) and melodramatic, and it didn't always quite work (although I think Cotillard powerfully captured the internal conflict and uncertainty of Lady Macbeth around the midpoint). It's a film in some ways to admire rather than enjoy - impeccably put together, but almost - and in a sense, this seems to be part of the point - chilly and unwelcoming.

    Edit: Ha, just had a look back about what I wrote in the Snowtown thread, and very similar response. Kurzel definitely has his own distinct directorial signature :)

    I would agree with a lot of this actually. It certainly was a fine visual adaptation of the play if a few of the stagings of scenes were a bit jarring. The whispered dialogue that you mention I think may have contributed to why I was disappointed. This was obviously a different take on the norm but I think speaking a bit more clearly would have helped the overall spectacle and allowed a bit more emotional resonance from the characters.

    The shots of the country were wonderful and the score added to this but I felt it didn't need to somewhat cloud the dialogue. I did Macbeth in school and this is the 4th medium I've experienced it in and the first that the dialogue bothered me. That could just be my increased lack of a listening ear for the language in the last few years but I don't think so. It was kind of like being in a trance at times watching the film, being taken in by the atmosphere but the characters leaving me cold.

    It was a bit strange that they gave the bloody-red text context shot at the start in modern English and then didn't go back to that method throughout. I felt that it may have helped with the changing of scenes and acts. The film was very visually satisfying which is obviously a plus to the viewer but a bit more assistance to the audience would not have gone amiss.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,385 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    Went to see it last night. Small bit disappointed in it. Loved the play, did it for the leaving cert! But this film doesnt compare. Its too slow for me, some of the shots linger too long. Cotillard's descent into madness is given 5 minutes and
    then she's dead
    . Both leads have serious acting talent and you could see it coming through but I dont know, the film just didnt seem to grip the horror and the fall into despair and madness as much as i wanted it to.
    Also was dissapointed that burnam woods was burnt instead of chopped down. Loved that visual in the play that Macbeth sees the woods marching towards him and starts to think "oh sh*t".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I thought it was pretty good. Very somber and dreary, fine sense of dread established throughout, great cinematography, a good score and some fine acting. Overall, quite theatrical.

    Drags a bit initially, but picks up after the first 20 minutes or so. Fassbenders accent also slips a few times, humorously reminiscent of, but nowhere near as glaringly obvious, as the infamous 'Magneto O' Toole' scene in X-Men.

    Certainly not for everyone, few walk-outs in my screening as well, despite a relatively small crowd. I think a lot of people don't realize it is Shakespearean English.

    I'd give it a 3/5. Very atmospheric with stunning visuals and some excellent performances but doesn't quite hang together in the way I wanted it to.


Advertisement