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.