The story of Macbeth was adapted for film numerous times. A few examples of directors are:
Orson Welles and his 1948 version.
Akira Kurosawa and his 1957 version known as "Throne of blood".
Joel Coen (without his brother Ethan for the first time) and his 2021 version.
Simon Godwin and his 2024 version, which is a live stage performance.
I didn't see the Orson Welles version and the Simon Godwin registration (which I will see however next weekend) and the Kurosawa version is from a very different culture.
Someone adapting a Shakespeare play ought to make two decisions:
Do I stay faithful to the original Shakespearean language or will I translate it to more normal spoken language?
Do I situate the story in its original time or do I translate it to modern times?
Fortunately most adaptations stay faithful to the original language. Why throw away such beautiful language when it's up there for grabs?
More diverse is the situation with respect to the time in which the story is placed. Joel Coen made a very abstract version and Simon Godwin has translated the story to modern times.
The version of Roman Polanski which I discuss in this review is situated firmly in the Middle Ages, and I like that very much. It is also very much situated in Scotland.
Maintaining the beautiful but also somewhat artificial language sometimes lead to the temptation to make the adaptation too cultural, too sterile. Laurence Olivier did not direct Macbeth but he did direct "Henry V" (1944), "Hamlet" (1948) and Richard III (1955). From these adaptations I suspect he would have succumbed to this temptation had he done Macbeth. Not Roman Polanski's version however, which is raw, full of mud and violence. Some reviewers link the violence to the fact that "The tragedy of Macbeth" was the first film Polanski made after the murder on his wife Sharon Tate in 1969.
The story of Macbeth is very well known and the value of an adaptation is to no small extent dependend on the interpretation of this story.
I was struck by the Greek elements in the story. A king receiving a prophecy that a certain child will succeed or even kill him when grown up tries to eliminate this child when still young. Prophesies that are very cryptic and are misinterpreted by the main characters of the story to become true still in a very unexptected way. Both elements fit in with both "Macbeth" as with for example the Greek myth of "Oedipus", although in Oedipus the child is his own child and in Macbeth the child is the son of his friend.
An important element in the interpretation of the story is the character of Lady Macbeth. Is she the evil genius that encourages Macbeth to murder the reigning monarch King Duncan? In the Polanski interpretation she certainly encourages but she encourages a plan that is already lingering in the mind of Macbeth himself. When the first phrophecy of the witches comes true (Macbeth becoming Thane of Cawdor) he thinks whether he has to wait passively for the second prophecy (Macbeth becoming King) to become true or give fate a helping hand. In fact the opening scene with the witches already gives the answer to this question.
The film ends with a scene that is not taken from the play of Shakespeare but which is in my opinion very omnious. After Macbeth has been killed, misled by the prophecy of the witches, another Scottish nobleman visits the same witches suggesting a devilish continuity.
Orson Welles and his 1948 version.
Akira Kurosawa and his 1957 version known as "Throne of blood".
Joel Coen (without his brother Ethan for the first time) and his 2021 version.
Simon Godwin and his 2024 version, which is a live stage performance.
I didn't see the Orson Welles version and the Simon Godwin registration (which I will see however next weekend) and the Kurosawa version is from a very different culture.
Someone adapting a Shakespeare play ought to make two decisions:
Do I stay faithful to the original Shakespearean language or will I translate it to more normal spoken language?
Do I situate the story in its original time or do I translate it to modern times?
Fortunately most adaptations stay faithful to the original language. Why throw away such beautiful language when it's up there for grabs?
More diverse is the situation with respect to the time in which the story is placed. Joel Coen made a very abstract version and Simon Godwin has translated the story to modern times.
The version of Roman Polanski which I discuss in this review is situated firmly in the Middle Ages, and I like that very much. It is also very much situated in Scotland.
Maintaining the beautiful but also somewhat artificial language sometimes lead to the temptation to make the adaptation too cultural, too sterile. Laurence Olivier did not direct Macbeth but he did direct "Henry V" (1944), "Hamlet" (1948) and Richard III (1955). From these adaptations I suspect he would have succumbed to this temptation had he done Macbeth. Not Roman Polanski's version however, which is raw, full of mud and violence. Some reviewers link the violence to the fact that "The tragedy of Macbeth" was the first film Polanski made after the murder on his wife Sharon Tate in 1969.
The story of Macbeth is very well known and the value of an adaptation is to no small extent dependend on the interpretation of this story.
I was struck by the Greek elements in the story. A king receiving a prophecy that a certain child will succeed or even kill him when grown up tries to eliminate this child when still young. Prophesies that are very cryptic and are misinterpreted by the main characters of the story to become true still in a very unexptected way. Both elements fit in with both "Macbeth" as with for example the Greek myth of "Oedipus", although in Oedipus the child is his own child and in Macbeth the child is the son of his friend.
An important element in the interpretation of the story is the character of Lady Macbeth. Is she the evil genius that encourages Macbeth to murder the reigning monarch King Duncan? In the Polanski interpretation she certainly encourages but she encourages a plan that is already lingering in the mind of Macbeth himself. When the first phrophecy of the witches comes true (Macbeth becoming Thane of Cawdor) he thinks whether he has to wait passively for the second prophecy (Macbeth becoming King) to become true or give fate a helping hand. In fact the opening scene with the witches already gives the answer to this question.
The film ends with a scene that is not taken from the play of Shakespeare but which is in my opinion very omnious. After Macbeth has been killed, misled by the prophecy of the witches, another Scottish nobleman visits the same witches suggesting a devilish continuity.