Macbeth

Director: Justin Kurzel/Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine and David Thewlis

Australian director Justin Kurzel, who helmed the visceral and deeply disturbing The Snowtown Murders, returns with his much-anticipated film adaptation of Macbeth. Film versions of Shakespeare's play stretch to infinity and it is likely more will come, so what distinguishes Kurzel's from other interpretations? For one, Kurzel's version features the magnificently intense Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Stunning visuals are yet another attribute. It is certainly something to look at but how do the drama and more importantly; the dialogue, fare?

One problem I've had with Shakespearean film-adaptations in the past is mumbled or inaudible dialogue. It's a problem I have with Kurzel's film too. Aside from the play's characters, who stand as some of the most famous in theater; Shakespeare's words, for me, are what really make him master of all playwrights. Whenever I see any production of Shakespeare, I want to hear the dialogue clearly expressed. In Kurzel's film, much of the dialogue, including soliloquies, is robbed of its power and poetry.
Any character or play should be open to creative interpretation and performed accordingly; an artistic edict both Michael Fassbender (Macbeth) and Marion Cotillard (Lady Macbeth) embrace fully. But famous, key scenes suffer from either said unintelligible muttering or weakly-conveyed meaning. The famous Is this a dagger I see? soliloquy is expertly expressed but one has to strain to hear the words, whose clarity waxes and wanes. The monologue is key to understanding Macbeth's manic ambition but its impact is severely diminished if one has to strain to hear the words. It wouldn't have hurt to provide subtitles.

In another famous scene, Lady Macbeth's Out damned spot fails to capture the madness and guilt gripping her mind. The words are spoken in a curiously reserved manner. The choice to make the dialogue sound more natural rather than stagy is a nice touch but in accomplishing that goal much of Shakespeare's dialogue is unheard, leaving those familiar with the play to fill in what fails to find our ears.

Aside from Fassbender's charismatic fury, another of the film's strong attributes are the film locations. The stark beauty of the British and Scottish landscapes; majestic mountains and vast, grassy plains, make excellent, dramatic settings.

The visual aesthetics: the bleak, gray gloom and the eerie fog from which the witches emerge are stylized touches that nicely serve the story's moody forebodings.

One may notice the costumes in the film for their naturalistic, spare look. We never see regal finery or any garments adorned with vivid colors. Even Macbeth's crown is a drab headdress.

Though I found Michael Fassbender to be an awe-inspiring Macbeth, I thought Marion Cotillard to be a disappointingly mild Lady Macbeth. I think Cotillard is an excellent actress and is one of my contemporary favorites but I never got the sense she was the cunning and conniving force behind her husband's rise to power. Her Lady Macbeth seems passive and though she isn't meek, she comes across as a wife who has little influence on her husband's diabolical designs for the crown. Other characters, such as Paddy Considine's excellent Banquo and David Thewlis' Duncan, are played with distinction.

It is apparent Kurzel's aim was naturalism; an aesthetic I admire. He wanted us to feel the blood and dirt of the tragedy rather than showing us gaudily-costumed characters strutting about, chewing Shakespeare's words to death. His approach succeeds handsomely but the film fails miserably where it should be strong. Shakespeare's words are everything. Without the dialogue's poetic brilliance, we would merely have an interesting story about a man with Machiavellian ambitions. Kurzel understands poetry in all its visual expressions but he hamstrings the words and that, my few and dear readers, is what keeps the film from achieving a level of greatness it nevertheless strives for.

Pride

:**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Matthew Warchus/Starring: Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Dominic West and Paddy Considine

Based on the true story of the 1984 UK miner's strike, Pride dramatizes the unlikely alliance of the gay/lesbian group known as LGSM (Lesbian, Gays Support the Miners) and a Welsh mining town and the conflict that arose from the two disparate cultures uniting for a purpose. Identifying with the miner's mistreatment in the hands of an unsympathetic Thatcherite government, the LGSM starts a campaign to raise money for the strikers.

Led by a charismatic, young, gay man named Mark (Ben Schnetzer), the LGSM is formed as an activist group whose first campaign is to raise money for families of striking miners. The small group claims a gay/lesbian London bookstore as their center of operations.

The film firmly establishes the vehement anti-gay/lesbian climate of early mid-1980s'; showing us people who are very familiar with the hostility and violence their culture sometimes arouses.

The group chooses a small, Welsh mining town as a recipient of their fund-raising but are apprehensive; harboring no illusions about the virulent resistance they will most likely encounter. After the LGSM acquire a van to transport them to Wales, a young member of the group named Joe (George McKay) deceives his conservative parents into believing his trip is nothing more than a school-related school baking class. We know sooner or later his deception will be exposed, which adds a pinch of tension to a story already fraught.

As the group makes their way to the Welsh burg, the townsfolk prepare for LGSM's arrival. Though many are hospitably inclined, some fear the group and what they represent. Undaunted by anti-gay sentiment, some members of the community, lead by town representative Dai (Paddy Considine) embrace the group's altruistic agenda and their identity. Among the sympathetic citizens are Cliff (Bill Nighy) and Hefina (Imelda Staunton), who wield a certain measure of influence in the town.

The miners are naturally suspicious of the LGSM and some, as we might expect, are hostile but as the strike wears on and the miner's hardships mount, the town slowly begins to warm to the group and welcome their fundraising efforts.

While the group shuttles between London and Wales, Joe continues his deception until his mother uncovers evidence of his double life, which leads predictably to his alienation from his home. If the group is forced to contend with domestic intolerance, they also have to deal with the relatively new threat of AIDS, which hovers menacingly over the gay community.

Though the story takes place in the mid-80s', which isn't that far in the past, it is astonishing to see how far the western world has come in its attitudes about gay/lesbian rights. If all the battles have yet to be won, at least the film serves as a progress yardmarker.

The British have created a kind of niche for films like Pride; stories that deal with socio-political events but with the eccentric humor for which the English are known. Made in Dagenham and Pirate Radio are but a couple of examples.

I may have chuckled a couple of times but I found the drama a bit more compelling. Though the story is based on fact, it feels like everything about it is canned. I felt I needed only an impression of the characters to chart their actions and behaviors.

The performances are quite good. Ben Schnetzer is quite terrific as the determined realist of the group while Bill Nighy and Imelda Staunton are ever exceptional. Paddy Considine could play a pencil sharpener convincingly and make it compelling while Dominic West is also good as the elder gay man of the group who has endured too much intolerance to be altogether optimistic.

The end titles give us biographical information about what became of the various personalities; some successful in various causes, others tragically lost to AIDS. But in spite of the subject matter and its connection to real history, the film just seems like a well-done project rather than something excellently-done. The audience it will play to is the choir so it won't disappoint but won't please either. I would rather come away from a film hating it than feeling etherized indifference, which is my emotional response to Pride. It's an important story about issues that matter even now but that doesn't grant the movie free passage to the empyrean of dramatic/comedic excellence.

If the film had been American, the score would include triumphant orchestral blasts to queue our feelings of elation. That's really all that's missing from the film but bless the Brits for at least avoiding that annoying tendency.

A brother of mine used to say "It's there" whenever he was asked to express an opinion about something he for which he felt a passionate indifference. To assess Pride, one might say:

"It's not bad."
"It's not good."
"It's there."