Though I can't claim to have been exhaustive (yet), to date I've watched many and a variety of interpretations of 'Macbeth' rendered for the screen. Professionally filmed stagings have been modest, artistic, and/or made shrewd use of the medium in which they operated; cinematic adaptations have been phenomenal, grandiose, middling, or in some cases questionable. Whether an iteration keeps the medieval Scottish setting or changes it, keeps period costuming or takes a different tack, or remains resolutely faithful to William Shakespeare's verses or takes artistic liberties, there is potential in all. After all, the dark tale of the play is ripe for telling with its swirl of supernatural prophecy, ambition, conspiracy, murder, and madness, all of which readily invites fiery, passionate performances and a violent energy. With the esteemed Royal Shakespeare Company putting on this 2018 production, starring renowned Christopher Eccleston and Niamh Cusack, it's reasonable to say that all things considered, I had high expectations. However, while I did enjoy this in some fair measure, in all honesty I feel it's a letdown, and I don't expect I'll think on it hereafter.
In one manner or another, creative choices were made throughout that diminish the wholesale excellence this might have otherwise claimed. Some of the costume design is sharp and vibrant in its modern sensibilities, but maybe sometimes too much so - so crisp and impeccable, and angular, as to betray the artificiality since the outfits don't look lived in, and appear almost plastic. Other instances of the sartorial arrangements are unremarkable street clothes or sleepwear, or simply assembled from the local military surplus store. There are facets of the production design and art direction that I do indeed appreciate, such as the second floor, the door that is directly upstage, and some use of lighting or environmental effects. Mostly, though, the set pieces are unimpressive and bland, at best doing nothing to catch our eyes, and some inclusions raise a skeptical eyebrow: the projected text above the stage; the timer counting down (but not from the very start); the water cooler, which makes one think we're seeing a performance by a community college. The audio is terribly imbalanced, too, with some dialogue being curiously soft, and some noise being jarring and deafening beyond reason; even the music of Rupert Cross feeds into that difficulty.
None of these matters fully preclude the production's potential in and of themselves; all, together, are burdensome. And that's not all, for I am less than entirely convinced by the stage direction of Polly Findlay. I don't fault the cast at all, and I'm certain that under ideal circumstances all would shine; I trust that were I to see more examples of Findlay's work she would impress elsewhere. Unfortunately, here it comes across that the exquisite vibrancy that we commonly anticipate of 'Macbeth' is for the most part just not mustered. The acting ranges from inappropriately casual and ineffective, to overcharged and forced, and all too rarely does the acting strike a chord that perfectly captures the sinister mood and the increasingly harrowing urgency of the scenario. In scattered bits and pieces Findlay's interpretation of a scene may hold a spark of brilliance, such as the Lord's second visit to the weird sisters, but even these tend to be fleeting and in the next instant come off more dubiously, as other scenes do outright. Sometimes, even when Eccleston, Cusack, and their costars are hitting all the right proverbial notes, owing to Findlay's uneven direction and/or the broadly dull staging, it's as if they need to work extra hard to light the imagination - but they don't know it, and so they do not and cannot.
Sadly, too often those scenes that should be vivid and striking - even the most famous ones, like the Lady's quintessential moment at the beginning of Act V - come and go without leaving much of a mark, if any at all. This 'Macbeth' becomes something that we can "watch" without actively engaging, for it neither requires nor inspires our investment. Personally, I found the single most grabbing piece in these two hours to have been Edward Bennett's acting at the very end of Act IV, after Macduff receives awful news; one tidbit that routinely delights, the porter's speech in Act II, passes with just as much vexing insouciance as so much else here; occasionally a beat is so limp, or possibly embellished, as to almost inspire mocking laughter. To cap it all off, in filming the production for the screen, Robin Lough's direction, and the subsequent camerawork and editing, are in my opinion variable in quality. The visualization from a limited perspective of what we would be seeing much more freely in person receives better treatment than we've gotten in other cases (see, for example, the 1961 TV movie starring Sean Connery), but too often we as an audience plainly recognize the limitations of the presentation as the camera's focus is limited.
I don't altogether dislike this. I did have a good time, to some extent. It's just regrettable that the entertainment Findlay's 'Macbeth' has to offer is no greater than what we can derive from any average movie or TV show that we may view in passing. For what is done well I want to like the whole more than I do; for what is done poorly, or unexceptionally, or which is rendered with no specific import or weight, maybe I'm being too kind. I'm glad for those who get more out of this staging than I do, but whatever one's impetus may be for watching, there are other titles and productions that are much more noteworthy and deserving of one's time, and I find it difficult to give an especial recommendation for this particular vision of Shakespeare's classic.
