In the 1960's and 1970's theatre directors Peter Hall and Trevor Nunn staged what were then ground-breaking productions of Shakespeare. Stripping away the false beards, theatrical make-up and elaborate staging which had been standard in the days of Olivier, Gielgud and Richardson, they brought new approaches to the plays (setting Othello in Victorian times, for example) and went 'back to the text' with simplified productions which let the Bard's language speak for itself.
This is one of those productions. It electrified audiences in 1976, but now seems as dated as the over-dressed productions of earlier generations. With no sets whatsoever, the theatre production was staged in the round, and actors just walked into the performance space from a circle of chairs set around the stage. Unfortunately, what works on stage is not right for film or television. The camera has to move to maintain audience engagement and create drama, there have to be close-ups and two-shots. This production seems to want to have its cake and eat it by reaching a wide audience through a new medium while trying to preserve a theatrical event.
Shoot me if you like, but I have always felt Shakespeare is over-rated. His use of language is often excellent and he tackles the big themes of human experience, but his plotting often goes to pieces and continuity isn't always his strong point. This play is a good example: we have a swift, fast-moving opening with the witches, and Duncan and Banquo getting bumped off in short order and then... a lot of talk about the nature of kingship and power between Malcom and MacDuff, and reports of Macbeth's increasingly bloodthirsty tyranny. The last third of the play is particularly slow until things liven up a bit toward the end with Lady M going nuts and the climactic confrontation between Macbeth and MacDuff - which is reported rather than shown.
Interestingly, in Macbeth's second visit to the witches, Ian McKellen seems to be given given some sort of hallucinogen and then brain-washed into believing the witches prophecies, rather than deluding himself, which sort of shifts the weight of responsibility for his actions.
The best performance in the piece comes from Bob Peck as MacDuff - no frills, no 'acting', but a real-life portrayal of a real man you can believe in. Otherwise the acting is in the best RADA theatrical style, far too broad for the camera and all but screaming "Look at me, I'm *acting*!" and using silly drooling and over-emphasised facial expression for shock value.
This may have set Stratford on fire 40 years ago, but now looks dated and uncinematic (or untelevisual, if you insist, as it was recorded for television). And if you want to hear how beautifully Shakespeare can be spoken, without theatrical overemphasis, listen to Gielgud's recordings of Macbeth's speeches. (Even better, watch him as Henry IV in Welles's 'Chimes at Midnight').
This is one of those productions. It electrified audiences in 1976, but now seems as dated as the over-dressed productions of earlier generations. With no sets whatsoever, the theatre production was staged in the round, and actors just walked into the performance space from a circle of chairs set around the stage. Unfortunately, what works on stage is not right for film or television. The camera has to move to maintain audience engagement and create drama, there have to be close-ups and two-shots. This production seems to want to have its cake and eat it by reaching a wide audience through a new medium while trying to preserve a theatrical event.
Shoot me if you like, but I have always felt Shakespeare is over-rated. His use of language is often excellent and he tackles the big themes of human experience, but his plotting often goes to pieces and continuity isn't always his strong point. This play is a good example: we have a swift, fast-moving opening with the witches, and Duncan and Banquo getting bumped off in short order and then... a lot of talk about the nature of kingship and power between Malcom and MacDuff, and reports of Macbeth's increasingly bloodthirsty tyranny. The last third of the play is particularly slow until things liven up a bit toward the end with Lady M going nuts and the climactic confrontation between Macbeth and MacDuff - which is reported rather than shown.
Interestingly, in Macbeth's second visit to the witches, Ian McKellen seems to be given given some sort of hallucinogen and then brain-washed into believing the witches prophecies, rather than deluding himself, which sort of shifts the weight of responsibility for his actions.
The best performance in the piece comes from Bob Peck as MacDuff - no frills, no 'acting', but a real-life portrayal of a real man you can believe in. Otherwise the acting is in the best RADA theatrical style, far too broad for the camera and all but screaming "Look at me, I'm *acting*!" and using silly drooling and over-emphasised facial expression for shock value.
This may have set Stratford on fire 40 years ago, but now looks dated and uncinematic (or untelevisual, if you insist, as it was recorded for television). And if you want to hear how beautifully Shakespeare can be spoken, without theatrical overemphasis, listen to Gielgud's recordings of Macbeth's speeches. (Even better, watch him as Henry IV in Welles's 'Chimes at Midnight').