'Macbeth' succeeds in avoiding its onstage curse when it's onscreen

Thespians, a superstitious lot, insist that "Macbeth" should never be directly referred
to inside a theater. If an actor accidentally forgets to call Shakespeare's malevolent
masterpiece "the Scottish play," an elaborate ritual is required to prevent all hell from
breaking loose.
But a theater critic can tell you the real reason "Macbeth" is cursed. Of all
Shakespeare's great tragedies, this is the one that most often disappoints onstage.
"Macbeth" on-screen doesn't have the same jinxed reputation, thanks to Orson Welles,
Akira Kurosawa and Roman Polanski, all of whom successfully put their auteur stamps
on the play. One of this fall's prestige releases is Justin Kurzel's film version
starring Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard.
If the prospect of this latest "Macbeth" doesn't fill me with dread, it's not because I've
finally gotten over the memory of Ethan Hawke mumbling his way through "Tomorrow,
and tomorrow, and tomorrow" on Broadway. Film, counter intuitively for such an
outrageously theatrical work, has an advantage when it comes to meeting the play's
spectacularly fiendish demands.
To understand this, one must consider why "Macbeth" so often proves dissatisfying
onstage. Runaway expectations are no doubt part of the problem. The play generates
enormous excitement in theatergoers, many of whom (if I can extrapolate from my
own experience) had their teenage imaginations set ablaze by Shakespeare's
audacious genius in this work.
"King Lear" may be harder to pull off because of its monstrous scale. "Hamlet" may be
eternally in search of a lead actor who can contain the Danish prince's contradictory
multitudes. But theatergoers have, if not an awareness of these challenges, a keen
sense that a degree of boredom is built into these prodigious tragedies.
By contrast, "Macbeth," with its ruthless velocity and diabolical intrigue, seems like a
theatrical slam-dunk. The great speeches, when first encountered on the page,
demand to be recited. Although my high school English teacher forced us to memorize
Hamlet's most famous soliloquies, I came to know those of Macbeth and his conniving
queen through speaking their lines aloud as I returned again and again to my favorite
scenes.

God knows what my family thought hearing me ask the evil spirits who prey on mortal
thoughts to "unsex me here" while ostensibly studying for exams. But suffused with
occult mischief and murderous mayhem, Macbeth demands to be read with histrionic
relish.
Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard in "Macbeth."
Theatrical flamboyance, however, isn't tantamount to dramatic effectiveness.
Macbeth's challenging character trajectory, moving from a decorated war hero to a
spiritually deadened killing machine, would have been frowned upon by Aristotle, who
had fixed views on this sort of thing. Drama critic Kenneth Tynan summed up the
quandary brilliantly in a 1955 review of Laurence Olivier's Macbeth at Stratford-uponAvon: "Instead of growing as the play proceeds, the hero shrinks; complex and manyleveled to begin with, he ends up a cornered thug, lacking even a death scene with
which to regain lost stature."
For Tynan, Olivier miraculously succeeded in holding our interest by zeroing in on "the
anguish of the de facto ruler who dares not admit that he lacks the essential qualities
of kinship." This is but one approach to playing the usurping Thane. There is no
assured path, but an actor must somehow clarify Macbeth's slippery interior journey.
The moral makeup of the man all that is tragically lost is revealed through
sidelong glimpses of hesitation, wavering and remorse.
These subtle shifts are easy to overlook onstage amid all the witchery and bloodshed.
Film's ability to glide from the supernatural panorama to the eyes of the protagonist is
a boon for a play in which the outer world uncannily mirrors the unconscious life of the
protagonist.
"Macbeth" has always struck me as Shakespeare's most psychological tragedy. But it's
not psychological in the introspective way of "Hamlet," in which the melancholy Dane
unpacks his soul in soliloquies.
Macbeth is distinguished by his bravery, not his intellect. A soldier accustomed to
demonstrating his mettle with deeds, he acts out rather than analyzes his inner
drama.
He begins caked in the filth
of war but aglow in victory.
Duncan, admittedly not the
best judge of character, calls
Macbeth "valiant," "noble"
and "worthy," and though
Duncan will be slaughtered
by him, he is not mistaken in
identifying those attributes
that set his general apart on
the battlefield.
Shakespeare draws
associations between the

language, imagery and special effects of the play and the secret goings-on in
Macbeth's mind. The evil that exists in the world is too real to be dismissed as a
figment of his fervid imagination. But the wicked cabal only throws into relief the
wayward desires already pulsing within him.
It must be remembered that no demon proposes regicide as the way to realize the
witches' prophecy. In demanding her husband "catch the nearest way," Lady Macbeth
makes explicit what Macbeth has already been contemplating: the murder of Duncan.
When he first encounters the weird sisters and hears that he shall be king, his buddy
Banquo asks, "Good sir, why do you start and seem to fear / Things that do sound so
fair?"
Macbeth's twitchy reaction is often eclipsed onstage by the spectacle of the ghastly
witches. But an alert actor will recognize this as an opportunity to illuminate an
embattled conscience.
Close-ups can help us get inside a character desperately trying to escape his own
tortured mind. But it is necessary to follow the unspooling thread of Macbeth's
humanity. Too often in the theater the final third of the play seems like a mechanical
march of evil. Shakespeare scholar L.C. Knight compares Macbeth at the end to a
"bear tied to a stake." The difference, of course, as Knight recognizes, is that Macbeth
has tethered himself.
There should nevertheless be pathos in that self-imprisonment, a sense that he has
become more and more ensnared in an evil that no longer permits him to choose a
better course. (It helps to cast an actor younger than middle age in the role, as the sin
of vaulting ambition is more poignant under 40.) But this is rare emotion in "Macbeth"
productions, the vast majority of which have left me numbly waiting for the head of
the "dead butcher" to be carried out.
The most successful encounters I've had with the play have curiously both come from
Japan: Yukio Ninagawa's 2002 staging at the Brooklyn Academy of Music and
Kurosawa's film adaptation, "Throne of Blood," which was clearly a major influence on
Ninagawa. Both works ritualize "Macbeth" into a stylized allegory without sacrificing
any of the visceral horror.
Shakespeare's language is lost, but a harrowing visual poetry fills in the gap. The
theater is still the place where the play's verbal richness can best be honored. There's
dark power in the seductive words of the Macbeths, whose loathsome deeds are
conveyed in irresistible rhetoric. But tapping that sorcery in the theater has left scores
of actors and directors badly burned.
Welles made great use of his prowess as a stage actor to motor his low-budget affair.
Polanski left us spellbound with an atmosphere thick in eroticism and appalling
menace. But the willingness of film directors to unseam the play and thereby expose
the dramatic skeleton may be what has allowed a notable few of them to elude the
curse on-screen.
By Charles McNulty Los Angeles Times Calendar Section Sunday, November 29,
2015

YOUR ASSIGNMENT
There will be a limited release of a new cinematic version of Macbeth
staring Michael Fassbender opening December 4. I am willing to offer
twenty-five extra credit points if you see the movie. You will then have to
write a review while keeping in mind and referencing this article about the
success of previous Macbeths in film. You will have to read your review to
the class in order to be eligible for the twenty-five points.
I mean for you to take this seriously. How well does the film succeed?
What do you think of the performers? Did anyone stand out for either
good or bad? How was the spiritual elements handled? Was the third
murderer revealed? Anything explained inadequately? Was it necessary
to have an understanding of the play before seeing this production? (Make
sure you answer that one.) Whatever, in fact, you feel you need to
comment upon. The more you say, and the better you say it will only add
to your point total. What I mean is you dont get twenty-five extra credit
points for seeing a movie and telling me you liked it, or it was good.
Due: 12/14