Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard in<i>Macbeth</i>.

Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard inMacbeth.

Macbeth's"castle"is more like a stockade,built of reeds and wood. His chapel,where Lady Macbeth explores her misery and guilt,is a modest structure,filled with candles.

Marion Cotillard​ does her most effective work here as an actor. Her accent is never a problem,because she has the measure of Shakespeare's lines.

That's not as true of Michael Fassbender's​ Macbeth. This is his first attempt at Shakespeare and he struggles with the rhythm and depth of the text. There's no strong sense of belief behind his delivery,and if he doesn't believe in the lines,how can we?

Advertisement

The play is reworked,of course,but all theMacbeth films do that.

We begin with the burial of a child,which is something Shakespeare only hinted at. It's an interesting idea,because it sets up a sense of grief for Macbeth and his wife.

What comes next becomes less an act of ambition than one of post-natal trauma.

They kill their king,Duncan (David Thewlis),in part,to help them forget the loss of their child. It's a kind of shared madness,which is an essential part of the original. This adaptation just arrives at it through a different path.

Kurzel did something big with his first film,Snowtown.

He made the hard-to-believe true story of the Snowtown murders credible,by methodical and unflinching dissection of a base character.

The attraction of a different kind of evil is easy to see.

Macbeth is almost more straightforward. He kills because he wants to be king,after the witches have foretold it.

He has reason;what he lacks is ambition,so his wife supplies it. Killing is not the problem:we get a brutal battle in the first few minutes that shows he is a beast on the battlefield.

His problem is his kinder nature,as Lady M explains. She sets to work on that.

Shakespeare is never an easy translation to film. Many have failed,usually because they don't respect the text.

It doesn't matter if the landscape and locations are rich,if the lines are underprivileged.

It doesn't help if the battles are modern and explicit,in the style of300,so as to appeal to the young male audience that likes its violence meaningless,and in large doses of computer-generated unreality.

Macbeth is not an action flick,even with all the murders.

Kurzel's adaptation tries to enrich Shakespeare with modern cinematic flourishes.

The score,by his brother,Jed,is loud and dramatic,to match the big locations. The costumes,the make-up,the cinematography are all highly developed.

It doesn't matter:the play is the thing and this version doesn't quite remember that.

Fassbender's performance,halting and self-conscious,doesn't lead us. Cotillard is stronger,but neither actor feels like they have approached this as if their life depended on it.

So this is a prettily mounted,visually arrestingMacbeth with high cinematic style.

If there had been more Shakespeare in this Shakespeare,the flourishes might not have seemed so stifling.

As it is,the words come second to the images. That would be great,if this were from a lesser source.

Directed by Justin Kurzel

Written by Jakob Koskoff,Michael Lesslie and Todd Louiso,based on the play by Shakespeare

Rated MA 15+,113 minutes

Most Viewed in Culture

Loading