Macbeth

I have said elsewhere that only people who really know what they are doing should attempt to do Shakespeare. This also goes for the reviewers: only those who really know Shakespeare should attempt to review a Shakespeare production. Otherwise ignorance will make you say things that reflect as poorly on you as a poor Shakespeare production reflects on its creators.

Why are many people saying bad things about the Jason Connery Macbeth? Well, one reason is that the technical side of things is not in order. The available versions do not have a crisp picture or sound quality, and the movie is kept in a torch-light mood which under these conditions tend to smudge the colors and the light somewhat. Which is a shame, because if the technical things were in order, this would be a very good movie. The direction is good, the acting is impressive, and the overall style is effectively atmospheric. It is not as good as it might have been, but it is almost as good as the Polanski version, and has its own characteristic style. It is colorful rather than dark, but an effect similar to darkness is achieved by the production being dominated by reds, oranges and earth-tone colors, enhancing the torch-light mood. The milieu and costumes are realistic and convincing, and the Scottish accents are great. Macbeth with the proper accents is the only appropriate way to experience this play!

As I am a bit of an idealist, who tends to see a film in its (imagined) ideal version, I choose to look beyond the technical deficiencies of this movie, and judge it as if I had access to a crisp and perfect version. It is a worthy Macbeth in any case, all the more admirable for being a well-produced movie rather than a filmed stage play. It's really too bad about the technical defects; hopefully a more polished version will be available one day. But an enjoyable Macbeth in any case, and one that merits a good rating.

8 out of 10.

Fresh, luminous Helen Baxendale and the magnetic Jason Connery, a slightly more subdued, less craggily Celtic version of his famous dad, make a sexy pair of doomed partners in this low-budget Scottish production. Many ingenious touches, and some scenes, especially those leading up to the murder, among the most compelling versions of the play I have ever seen. A worthy successor to Orson Welles' cheeseparing lensing for Republic Pictures. Good stuff.

In terms of look and feel this is faithful to the period and Jason Connery and Helen Baxendale are excellent as the Macbeths, with the supporting cast in fine form. The film suffers from poor production values, cheesy music and some dialogue editing that is strange. However, and on balance, this is a good version of the Scottish play, and well worth a viewing. It compares favourably with most other versions and I await he new Fassbender version with trepidation, as the trailer shows totally inappropriate backgrounds. This Jason Connery version is a film interpretation of the play rather than a a film of the play as performed on the stage so allowances have to be made. The use of the Scottish accent is authentic and the costumes seem as accurate as they can be. Baxendales interpretation of Lady Macbeth is excellent, and Jason Connery makes a good fist of a difficult role.

Every review I have read so far seems to have missed a crucial point. Shakespeare wrote for the accent and the pronunciation just as he did for northerners in other plays. The Scottish accent changes the emphasis and rhythm of the language and affects profoundly what is said and the way it is taken. So, listen again and note the difference. The play is well done and the rhythm of the words are so much better than that provided by people using received, polite, well- enunciated English. I am reminded of the time a teacher in a school in Leicester, unknowingly, asked me, age 14, to read a piece of Walter Scott which was written in the tone of the Border. I come from the Border and when I read it as it should be read it made all the difference.

This is for "mcjadt", who wrote:

"Within a few minutes of Connery's mumbling, the viewer is struck the urge to see the roles reversed and MacTavish in the title role. No wonder MacBeth felt he needed to kill him."

Funny, I felt the same way about the two actors who played those parts in Polanski's version -- and again when I saw the play live with Richard Jordan as Macbeth.

It may be -- and I said MAY be -- that Shakespeare fully intended the audience to grasp immediately that Duncan is putting his trust in the wrong guy, and wrote their respective speeches accordingly: Banquo bluff, open, and truly self-assured, Macbeth a different breed of cat altogether despite his undoubted military skill and courage.

I believe you are supposed to think: "Huh. Something wrong with that guy ... Banquo's the cool dude, here ... "

And all three actors in the versions I've mentioned have let Shakespeare have his way.

That's just one of the things that makes Macbeth such a tough role to play -- I tried it once in workshop form (the scene where Lady M is trying to talk him out of his scruples, such as they are) and just about turned myself inside out trying to reconcile the sensitive, brooding, poetic philosopher with the ruthless, merciless murderer -- the two sometimes showing up in successive speeches.

Connery could have done better, I guess. So could Finch. So could Jordan. But since Bernard Shaw considered the role to be so unbelievable as a single human person as to be almost impossible to fully portray in a credible fashion, and since Shakespeare sets Banquo up from the beginning to be the better man, well ... best to focus on what any actor foolish enough to risk playing it does RIGHT, instead of wrong.