Macbeth (1971) User Reviews

One of the Best Versions of a Shakespeare Play That I Have Seen

[rwint1611 · 8/10 · 16 June 2008]

THE PLOT: Through ambition, greed, and the spurring of his wife a man rises to the ranks of King, but leaves murder, destruction, guilt, and a wide array of enemies in his wake.

THE POSITIVE: This is visually stunning from beginning to end. The photography of the Scottish landscape seems almost surreal. Although some may argue that the violence is excessive it is still well done and works in a nice lyrical fashion with the script. The gory special effects are very realistic and top anything that I have seen in any slasher movie especially the decapitation scene. The witches also come off as looking very frightening here. The scene in their coven where you see dozens of fully nude elderly women is grotesquely brilliant. This is one Shakespeare rendition that doesn't have any of the stiff staginess. The characters seem to be having real conversations and their lines are spoken in a much more natural way. Finch is absolutely perfect in the lead. The facial expressions that he show during Macbeth's different phases are fascinating and right on target. This would be a good version to show to teenagers and others who might not ordinarily be into Shakespeare. The action is well mounted and paced so anyone would be able to follow it even if they are not able to completely grasp the language.

THE NEGATIVE: Outside of a relentlessly bleak visual style that may be too much for some there really isn't anything negative about it.

THE LOWDOWN: This is the best film adaptation to Shakespeare's work that I have seen. It is exciting, graphic, realistic, visual, and captivating all at the same time even for those that may not be into Shakespeare.

THE RATING: 8 out of 10.

very good adaptation

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 15 February 2005]

Roman Polanski's blood-soaked version of Shakespeare's Scottish play was the video version of choice when we were studying this at school, in spite of it having a nude Lady Macbeth and witches (and Keith Chegwin in the cast - he's Banquo's son).

Jon Finch has the lead and he is exceptionally good. Even a dagger which really appears to float before him (an effect not needed) doesn't spoil things. Odd that he never really got good movie roles after this. His Lady M is Francesca Annis, a spider of a schemer, also putting in a good performance.

Less adequate are Martin Shaw as Banquo, Stephan Chase as Malcolm, and Sydney Bromley as the Porter, although Terence Bayler gives good value as Macduff.

Perhaps this Macbeth is the first one to be truly cinematic, something that even Orson Welles couldn't achieve with Scots accents and Scandinavian settings. It remains memorable long after seeing and, in its excesses, opens up the text for a new generation, and finally, sees the repellent murdering usurper get what he deserves.

(Incidentally for perspective, the book 'Macbeth - man and myth' by Nick Aitchison looks at the real historic facts in accessible coffee-table book style).

Stirring and violent retelling of a classic Shakespeare story

[MovieAddict2016 · 8/10 · 8 February 2006]

"The Tragedy of Macbeth" (simply abbreviated "Macbeth" on most video covers) is a violent retelling of Shakespeare's classic story. Macbeth (Jon Finch), the Scottish Thane of Glamis, conspires with his wife Lady Macbeth (and three strange witches) to kill the widely-respected King Duncan. After committing the awful deed, Macbeth begins hallucinating, hearing strange omens of death and haunting words; his wife similarly becomes worried with Macbeth's bloodlust, and Duncan's son convinces himself that Macbeth was involved in some way with the killing.

"Macbeth" is a true tragedy, and chances are you already know a great deal about it as it seems to be a high school requirement that it be read by all students. The remarkable thing about Roman Polanski's movie is that it is not only a painfully accurate retelling of William Shakespeare's story, but doesn't flinch when it comes to violence.

According to IMDb's trivia section (and I can't honestly say how reliable this information is, mind you), Polanski included very violent scenes (such as Duncan's death, which is NOT detailed in the original text) because the movie was filmed around the same time period of Sharon Tate's brutal murder, and it was Polanski's way of venting stress and anger. One must imagine what happens to Duncan in this film is what Polanski wanted to do to the Manson family members (and you certainly can't blame him).

As such, knowing the circumstances of what brought about the violence, it is more forgivable and certainly maintains a haunting element - some kind of historical relic, just in knowing that it was filmed during such a terrible time in Polanski's life.

The movie as a whole is wonderful. As I mentioned above, its accuracy (in comparison to Shakespeare's text) is spot-on -- entire scenes of dialogue are taken directly from the source, and even the strong violence lends the film a more realistic nature.

Overall, it's an epic and (sadly) somewhat forgotten Shakespeare epic. If you enjoyed "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet" (the '60s version) you'll certainly find this engaging, and - at times - rather shocking, too.

Medieval accuracy, good Shakespeare

[gerlynga · 10/10 · 31 December 2004]

A few years after this was released in the USA, I convinced my high school English teacher to take our class to see it. (In the days before videos & vcr's, this involved renting a theater and print.) I was glad I did. It is certainly the most real and immediate filmed version of the play. The sets, costumes (or lack thereof), and casting all work to create an accurate depiction of "nasty, brutal, and short" 11th century life. And of course, there is the wonderful insight of Shakespeare's language to engage our modern sensibilities.

One can only thank Polanski for casting such relatively young actors as his leads. Kings lived and died young then, and had to be both excellent generals as well as administrators to succeed. Jon Finch is both athletic and impassioned enough to carry off the soldiering, and young and introspective enough to be moved by his wife both as a woman and co-conspirator. Of course Francesca Annis made a splash by doing the mad scene in the nude--but in medieval times, everyone slept in the nude, so it was certainly accurate to the times.

And as has been noted before, at least the castle keeps are cold, dark, and dirty. The communal sleeping arrangements, straw bedding, flaring smoky torches, seeping walls, and muddy yards all contribute to the historical accuracy of this production. The exterior of Bamburgh also works. And keeping with Shakespeare's light vs. dark metaphors, the mist, rain, and lowering skies combine to enhance the mood.

What happens in this "Macbeth" is as realistic as possible. So what happens offstage in the play, happens onstage in the film: the murders of Duncan, Banquo, Macduff's family. Murder is nasty and bloody and Polanski (having much experience of its results) makes sure we know it. Medieval Scotland was nasty and bloody as well, and if the film is accurate in depicting its setting, why not the action? And only Polanski has an ending that hints that violence and ambition didn't die with Macbeth's overthrow. All said, Polanski's film still has the most accurate medieval setting, engaging performance(s), and thrilling battles.

PS. For those interested in the real historical Macbeth, read Dorothy Dunnett's excellent biographical novel "King Hereafter". Dunnett is world renowned for her historical accuracy, and did much research to create not only a very plausible rendition, but a thoroughly interesting and entertaining story as well.

certainly not a sunny story, but it's as darkly exhilarating and ominous as any Shakespeare adaptation can get

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 27 August 2007]

To get the obvious out of the way- Roman Polanski directed Macbeth as the first film following the death of his wife, Sharon Tate, and unborn child at the hands of Charles Manson's gang. That factor in the film- not least of which in small details, like the first shot after the opening credits where a man finishing slaying someone looks just like Manson, beard and all- is undeniable, but it shouldn't be counted as the sole influence. Aside from the purging, as far as I can figure, Polanski was doing for himself by going all out in showing the frank and bloody depictions of violence and almost cleansing (as Lady Macbeth would do in madness) of blood on hands that could never come off, of the sort of psychological impact of violence and its aftermath, it was a bloody time in the world and in films. As Vietnam continued to go on, the best films of 1971- and Macbeth could be counted as one of them- were some of the most stylish and explicit in how they attacked systems of government, corruption, and bad-ass anti-heroes or outright villains (A Clockwork Orange and Dirty Harry come immediately to mind). It would practically be dishonest, in a sense, for Polanski not to show how grotesque the acts of murder that, for example, Macbeth's men do on MacDuff's family and servants, or the simple, sadistic carnage of Macbeth's final curtain call in the climax, considering the mood and controversies of the period.

Compared to some of the really radical films of the year, however, Macbeth's story is as old and cherished as children's fables. Yes, children, you all remember the story of ambitious young Macbeth, prodded on by the alleged prophecies of three weird witches, who murders the king by his own (and his wife's) accord, and soon goes mad as power grips him into overreaching his domain and believing himself to be invincible to all but a fleet of woods. Not really too much happiness in Shakespeare's work, and all the better, as it might be his masterpiece: a saga of the frailties of the human conscience and abstractions of consciousness, where the supernatural substitutes just as well for faith in some religious calling- and a questioning and doubt throughout- and what it does to those around the Mr & Mrs who still can't cope deep down with killing a man in the dead of night. Yet even more incredible is that Polanski, as well as Kurosawa with Throne of Blood, enrich the material with the film adaptations, changing around some scenes, omitting some altogether, and offering brands of surrealism based on preferred styles.

While Kurosawa stuck to the Noh method for much of his film, Polanski's Macbeth is an atmospheric milestone as far as concrete production design can go (never once does it feel like they used a fake castle, or much of a fake set even), and all the grays and dark Earth colors, especially when Macbeth goes to the witches a second time, blend into something that matches the psychological conundrum of the king of Scotland and his desperate wife. But seeing Polanski take things further, with touches of the bizarre (the floating and illusionary dagger, the drops of blood in Lady's hands, and the spectacular scene of Macbeth seeing through the windows, shot in a hazy and pirouetting camera), and showing what was only alluded to in strange and exciting ways- the killing scene in the bedroom feels almost like the Psycho shower scene, missed stabs and the messy quality of it all, only from the guilty party's point of view. This, plus the attention to detail in storytelling, the nuanced and gleefully over-the-top dialog provided very close to the original text, and even hand-held camera-work right out of something in Repulsion, makes this a work of daring for Polanski, not simply in the realm of elaborate fights (though there is that) or blood-shed (a lot of that) or decapitations (one or two gushing ones).

Though not to forget as part of the success too, aside from the director's total control of mis-en-scene, are the actors. Jon Finch, who also appeared in Frenzy, is a tightly wound loose cannon, if that makes sense, whose voice-over narration sometimes blends in with talking to himself, and the look in his eyes sometimes tells all, or perhaps not, as case might be. Although Welles and Mifune have their fair share of great Macbeth points in other films, Finch proves himself as on their same level, if only for this one moment in his career. Also very noteworthy (albeit such a meaty part for any actress) is Francessa Annis as Lady Macbeth, and Terence Baylor as MacDuff, and Stephan Chase as Malcolm is a very good choice. And as usual Polanski populates his picture with effective faces, strange looks that seem very conventional and at the same time all apart of the visual and mood. I loved seeing the whole room of witches, most naked (thanks to Hugh Hefner mayhap), and it almost seeming as if a bare minimum of make-up was used.

Bottom line, if you're looking for a hallmark of the dark literary drama, or a disturbing tale of the madness of power, or just a classic Polanski film, it's all here.

Very surprising, and competently made film

[quixoboy · 5 September 2003]

I remember watching this film in my Grade 11 English class when we were studying William Shakespeare's "Macbeth". Reading the story a couple of times, I rather enjoyed the classic tale to a degree. Whether or not it would convincingly translate to film, I, along with my class, was about to find out...with Roman Polanski's 1971 film adaptation, also produced by - HUGH HEFNER?!? As strangely amusing as the "Playboy" credit seemed in the opening credits, we were prepared for a very interesting take on the famous, violent play.

Shakespearean tragedies/comedies being translated to film are nothing new, of course. There have been some clear hits and misses over the decades - but fortunately, "Macbeth" does not fall into that latter "miss" category, for it is a tremendously underrated, very surprising, and overall competently made film. Roman Polanski is an excellent director here, and the acting, music, and effects (some of which - particularly the "dagger/murder" sequence - perversely amused my fellow classmates, who are obviously jaded by today's overblown, unsubtle, effects-laden "dramas") worked well for me. As well, the graphic violent and sexual nature of the film (which was also sometimes entertaining to the class, sadly) shocked me quite a bit. Of course, for a film made in 1971, Polanski's "Macbeth" isn't exactly "tame", if you will. Apparently it was rated X at the time, when the notorious film rating existed. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but it clearly wouldn't be surprising if it were, especially considering how intense this film can get - both physically and psychologically. It works extremely well as an old-fashioned action-packed thriller, and even to someone who knew the story fairly well, it was an exciting little soap opera to behold. The class really enjoyed it as well, I'm glad to say; even for all its "old" qualities (i.e. the twangy psychadelic-sounding music that plays upon the closing credits) it still achieved a certain charm that was impossible to deny.

One of the most impressive and enjoyable Shakespearean films I have ever seen, "Macbeth" deserves much more acclaim than scorn - for it is well-made, and enormously faithful to its original source, capturing all the details of ol' Scotland and its inhabitants with great care. It's a wonderful treat. Highly recommended.

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Something

[Jonny_Numb · 7/10 · 5 July 2008]

The films of Roman Polanski almost always transform characters' psychological baggage into an extension of the external storyline: whether the paranoid apartment-dwellers of "Repulsion" and "The Tenant," or the Holocaust survivor of "The Pianist," the director savors finding ways to visually and aurally enunciate an almost purely internalized anguish. In that context, Polanski's interpretation of Shakespeare's "Macbeth"–while faithfully adapted and placed within a period setting–keeps in step proper with his signature style. While the titular characters in the Bard's tragedies tend to be cut from the same ascending-to-descending code of ethics and allegiances, Macbeth (Jon Finch) is portrayed as a man whose ambition is first catalyzed by 3 witches, and reinforced by his even-more-ambitious wife (a luscious femme fatale played by Francesca Annis), and proceeds to infect his once-noble mind with notions of dominance and absolute power that dictate his demise. Being the first film Polanski made following his wife's murder, there is a sense of the director's own demons being transposed into the internal monologues and asides of the conflicted Macbeth, as he attempts to rationalize his own deeds in the face of what he views as an unjust act (being passed over for the crown). The sets are appropriately ominous–never too brightly-lit, and always containing an air of apprehension and uncertainty; the performances are carefully-etched and compelling; and the violence is very intimate–Polanski builds Shakespeare's patented mix of disapproval and disgust for Macbeth's actions, while keeping him grounded in a flawed humanity that lends him a degree of sympathy. "Macbeth" is an involving, richly layered adaptation that captures the nuance and effect of Shakespeare's language without compromising its intricacy.

Something wicked this way comes

[MidniteRambler · 9/10 · 5 June 2004]

Dark, bloody and brooding version of Shakespeare's play about a doomed Scottish king who was, according to his wife, Lady MacBeth "too full of the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way". This is one of Shakespeare's later plays and is entirely devoid of some of the lighter moments prevalent in his earlier work.

Macbeth, a loyal Scottish thane and a cousin of King Duncan, is waylaid with his companion, Banquo, by three witches who prophesise that he will become king and that Banquo will beget kings. Once MacBeth has informed his wife of these predictions, he is propelled by her and by his own lust for power on a journey of self-destruction leading ultimately to madness. In his determination to bring about the witches' predictions, he kills his liege-lord, steals the crown from the rightful heirs, who flee into exile on suspicion of regicide and patricide, then orders the secret murder of ally and friend Banquo and Banquo's son Fleance. So begins a descent into a nightmare existence, replete with ghostly apparitions, sleepless angst and withering self-doubt. Gradually mutual distrust emerges between himself and the nobles whose support maintains his position, and eventually he murders the wife and children of one MacDuff, an act which symbolises the horror he has become. MacDuff, along with other Scottish nobles, has joined the exiled heir, Malcolm, who lives under the protection of the English king. An army of rebellion - or liberation - is brought to bear on MacBeth's stronghold, whilst inside, MacBeth has begun "to grow aweary of the sun". The witches have told him that he cannot be killed by any "man of woman born". But, in the final fight scene, he learns too late that MacDuff "was, from his mother's womb, untimely ripped" and that the witches have, in Banquo's words from the start of the play, won him "with honest trifles" and betrayed him "in deepest consequence", and his destruction is complete.

This is a suitably melancholic reading, full of images of blood, of sombre leaden skies, of torrential downpours and of thickset, bearded nobles. Scotland is presented as a gloomy outcrop on the edge of the known world and the sun has been heavily filtered by Polanski, giving the film a surreal and eerie feel and stressing the superstitious environment in which the play is set. We are also treated to a fair representation of the early Middle Ages, a time when travelling lords and ladies and their kith and kin slept communally on straw in the great halls, side by side with their massive hunting dogs.

The obviously archaic dialogue has been abridged and everso slightly updated for modern audiences. The lines are delivered eloquently by the two leads, Jon Finch and Francesca Annis, who are well matched as the doomed couple, and this clipped entry would be a good introduction to Shakespeare for those of the MTV-set with a literary inclination. All in all a good stab at bringing Shakespeare into the twentieth century and an effort which the bard himself might well have smiled upon.

By Polanski - from a difficult time in his life.

[Amyth47 · 7/10 · 3 February 2019]

My Rating : 7/10

Polanski is one of those auteurs that really 'gets' psychological trauma - be it 'Repulsion', 'Rosemary's Baby' or 'The Pianist' - his understanding and portrayal of horror, angst and shock is of the highest artistic order.

'The Tragedy of Macbeth' which was filmed after the Manson family murder of his wife is a brutal, angry and violent retelling of one of Shakespeare's most famous plays and it really shows from beginning to end.

A mad medieval play that feels accurate and with all the nastiness and brooding that only Polanski can do justice with. RECOMMENDED.

Murderous MacBeth

[winner55 · 9/10 · 16 July 2006]

How does one do justice to one of the most nihilistic murderers in the history of drama? Even Richard the Third has a sense of humor. but once MacBeth buys into the witch's prophecy (which he doesn't have to do) - it's all straight to hell from there. Even his wife finally gets the idea that 'When you choose to ride the tiger, you don't get off' as one Confucian wit put it, long ago....

This is the film that put an end to the "high-school" Shakespeare that we all had to suffer through in the 1960s. That Shakespeare was dull, lifeless, meaninglessly conservative - everyone hated him. In America, we had heard about Peter Brooks, and about an all-nude MacBeth (which of course never happened, the reference was to the "out damn spot' scene, just as we see in this movie); and there were the legendary Orson Welles versions that were, unfortunately, wholly unavailable at the time. Then Zeffirelli made his Romeo and Juliet, showing Romeo's bare butt, even in the ad for the film, and we started getting the glimmer that Shakespeare had been a real person writing about other real people - then came Polanski's MacBeth.

I won't lie and tell you that this is the definitive MacBeth - or even that it's a really great movie - all of the actors seem like they are way over their heads in this material.

But Polanski's purely cinematic bravado pulls it off. Right from the beginning, watching a medieval warrior beat his opponent into a bloody pulp, we are drawn into a world where violence is the only truth we can believe - pretty much as MacBeth himself sees it.

From this point on, there was no turning back. The Shakespeare we inherit from this film may not be the one we want, but he is certainly a playwright of Elizabethan England (which the "high-school" Shakespeare never was).

That makes this film really important - at least until the definitive version actually gets made (and it hasn't, yet...).

An excellent version of Shakespeare's tragedy

[Rosabel · 7/10 · 17 October 1999]

An excellent adaptation of one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. This production never stops moving, even during the soliloquies, which in other hands tend to bog down and betray their "stagey" origin. Jon Finch plays Macbeth with more resolution and calmness than I have usually seen in the role, but this fits in with the hard-edged, primitive society he belongs to. A man could not be a successful soldier in such a barbarous age if he were weak-willed and emotional. Francesca Annis is a great Lady Macbeth, self-confident and strong at the beginning, and finally breaking and crumbling into madness under the weight of guilt and fear she carries. This film better than any other production I have seen shows the hollowness of mere power; Macbeth begins his reign with all the outward signs of success, and through his crimes drives away or murders all the men of worth in his kingdom. Eventually he is surrounded by toadies and mediocrities, only to be deserted by them at the end, and left alone in his castle to face the army of his enemies. His final scene, from his haughty declaration to the attacking soldiers "My name's Macbeth!" as he refuses to run or hide from destruction, is a masterpiece of corruption, pride and insane courage, and Finch plays the part magnificently.

Stunning, well performed and very bloody adaptation of the play.

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 10 September 2009]

To say that this adaptation is a bit of a bloodbath is a bit of an understatement, but you cannot deny that this film from Roman Polanski is quite possibly the definitive film version of Shakespeare's play, which is very complicated to even contemplate transcribing to screen. The cinematography is excellent, as is the script. It is true that there are a lot of disturbing scenes, chiefly Lady Macbeth's nude sleepwalker scene and King Duncan's death. Roman Polanski should be commended for how much he managed to get into the film, and he somehow made it all effective. Any scene with the three witches, the murder of Macduff's family, plus the part when Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost was very well done.(I saw an amateur production of this, and not only was it disappointing, but that particular scene was the worst aspect of it) The performances were brilliant, Jon Finch(who did start off uncomfortable) is great on the whole as the treacherous thane-turned-king, and Francessca Annis was nigh-on-perfect as Lady Macbeth. And Martin Shaw was excellent as Banquo. From the suitably eerie opening scene, to the superb climax, this is a near-perfect adaptation, there were just some bits that were really disturbing to watch, that deserves more recognition. 9/10 Bethany Cox

"Never shake thy gory locks at me"

[Steffi_P · 6/10 · 4 October 2011]

Probably the strangest bit of trivia about this version of MacBeth is that it was produced by the Playboy corporation, of all things. Or perhaps it's not really that surprising given director Roman Polanski's lecherous ways that he was in alliance with Hefner et al. Certainly, this isn't soft-porn Shakespeare (unless you count some elderly nakedness and the leaving in of one of the bard's penis jokes). No, this is in fact more in keeping with the era's penchant for realism, especially in the field of violence.

The bleakness of a Scottish picture really suits Polanski, but it is his trademark feeling of enclosure that most of all gives this MacBeth its character. With the simplest of elements he can make the image feel maddeningly hemmed-in. There is a lot of heavy foreground business, as well as visible ceilings and low angles, but the real trick is the way Polanski gives us just a tiny glimpse of an exit. There is, for instance, a shot just before MacBeth gets made thane where he awakens in his tent. As he raises his head a gap in the seams of the tent comes into view, and the result is more claustrophobic than if it had been simply bare canvas behind him. This confined atmosphere is of best effect in the Duncan murder scene, which has echoes of the demon rape in Rosemary's Baby, Polanski's previous picture. Note that there is no dialogue in this scene; it is not an official part of the play and most versions do not include it. So Polanski is taking a gamble in showing the act, but he pulls it off fairly well. Also very good is the dreamlike series of visions in the witches' den, which go for a warm, prickly fear rather than spooky chills.

In coaching his actors Polanski seems to want to shear the production of all theatricality, treating Shakespeare's play as if it were a new screenplay rather than a thing of grand traditions. Hence we get the witches' rather businesslike manner of stating that they are off to meet with MacBeth. As such, while not badly acted, the performances don't really stand out. The naturalism is nice to see, but it could do with a little more heart and soul. Another problem is that some of the more quirky bit players, for example Richard Pearson as the doctor, seem strangely out-of-place amid the more sober lead actors. Polanski makes up for the lack of grandiose hamming with plenty of blood-spattered medievalism, with stabbed-up corpses, bear-baiting matches and rolling heads. This is all fair enough, but perhaps the production could have done with a bit more of the old theatrics, to bring out the life in Shakespeare's lines.

And it also seems somewhat that Polanski has got caught up in the gore and authenticity and neglected some of the more abstract elements of the original work. For example, I would have liked to see a better realisation of the idea that the land itself, via the metaphor of the transplanted forest, is rejecting its false king. Not that one necessarily has to be faithful to every thought of the bard – I am all for reinterpretation – it's just that without some kind of commentary, some kind of ideal, it seems MacBeth becomes little more than a dreary catalogue of unpleasant happenings.

Polanski hath murdered Shakespeare

[jjjj · 1/10 · 30 March 2005]

I recently watched the Polanski/Hugh Hefner version back to back with the Ian McKellen/Judi Dench performance, clearly demonstrating that Polanski made wrong choices at almost every turn. (1) Turning the soliloquies into voice-overs, probably because the actors weren't up to the task of delivering them on camera (2) shooting key actors in key scenes from behind or at a distance, again probably because the backs of their heads were just as effective as their faces at interpreting the lines (3) upstaging the "dagger of the mind" scene with a cheesy day-glow special effect rather than letting Macbeth act out the hallucination (4) upstaging Lady Macbeth's "damned spot" scene by pointlessly making it a nude scene - this & the casting of the bunny-calibre actress must have been Hefner's influence (5) presenting the witch's prophecies to Macbeth as movie-cliché dream images rather than keeping the speech in the foreground (6) casting a stronger actor as Macduff than as Macbeth.

I could go on & on, but will just say that if you want to see acting rather than set design and irrelevant movie gimmickry, see the Ian McKellen/Judi Dench version instead.

Fair is foul, foul is fair, and the movie is great.

[colonel_green · 10/10 · 17 May 2005]

A little more than 400 years ago, at the turn of the 17th century, William Shakespeare, the greatest playwright in the history of the English-speaking peoples, brought forward the tragedy of "Macbeth" to please King James I, who was also James VI of Scotland. The story tells of a tragically ambitious Scottish lord, his scheming wife, and their downfall at the hands of three evil witches. Notwithstanding a few alterations by respected contemporary Thomas Middleton, Shakespeare's work survives him by four centuries, and continues to enrapture audiences worldwide. In 1971, director Roman Polanski brought to the world his deeply personal adaptation, brimming with realistic violence. It's quite clear that this film is Polanski exorcising the demons of his wife's brutal slaying. English actors Jon Finch and Francesca Annis star as Lord and Lady Macbeth, with an able (if indistinct) supporting cast; make no mistake though, this movie belongs to Finch and Annis. Annis' portrayal of the shrewish Lady Macbeth has been the focal point of much debate, with many considering her too soft, but I find her performance to be quite good. Finch is even better, bringing Macbeth's tortured, tragic, and ultimately tyrannical character to the screen. Scotland in this movie is a brooding, shadowy backdrop, and colour appears only with the arrival of the gaudy English army, coming to dethrone the tyrant Macbeth. Polanski and noted Shakespeare scholar Kenneth Tynan modified the Bard of Avon's texts, splitting up scenes and transferring lines from place to place, but the effect works perfectly. A worthy worthy of a 10/10.

Fascinating Adaptation

[DA-4 · 10/10 · 3 January 2005]

When the text is cut, folks like me hope to hear the rhythm preserved. Polanski and Tynan opted not to try to cut this way. However, what is remarkable about Polanski's film is that the images cut from the language are instead presented visually. Read the play just before watching the film, and you'll see what I mean. A great film for students who are studying, and reading, the play.

This is also one of the great efforts by RSC master fight choreographer William Hobbs, who followed this film with the comic fights of Richard Lester's "Three Musketeers" films. On the stage, Macbeth's next-to-last fight with Young Seyward is often a "warmup" for the big finale with Macduff. Here, it brings the audience back to what characters had to say about "the noble Macbeth" at the play's beginning, before his descent. Hobbs plays Young Seyward, and is established early on, training men to fight. Their astonishing confrontation leaves you wishing Macbeth didn't have to perish.

As another reviewer noted, the DVD and VHS box art is a testament to Columbia Home Video's botched handling: they put Banquo on the cover by accident. The shot is from Macbeth's vision of Banquo and his sons, actor Martin Shaw wears a crown...you can see how easily the mistake could be made, especially if the person designing the art hasn't bothered to watch the film. But never fear, the geniuses at Columbia made it up to Jon Finch. There's a terrific photo of him as Macbeth in the final fight with Macduff. You'll find it on the back of Columbia's edition of Nicol Williamson's "Hamlet." When you're in marketing, I guess all Shakespearean actors look alike...

Can the Devil Speak True?

[tedg · 17 May 2001]

Spoilers herein.

Shakespeare mixes poorly with film, and it takes great talent and/or cleverness to do it well. We have a great clever Tempest (Greenaway); a great straight Lear (Kurosawa) ; two great Hamlets, a straight and clever one (Branaugh and Almereyda); two great Romeo and Juliets, a straight and clever one (Zeffirelli and Luhrmann).

But Othello and Macbeth hold special challenges. They are too internal for realistic film, designed for direct bonding between a performer in the physical presence of his/her audience. Welles triumphed with his Othello using the trick of deep architecture, unique to my knowledge. But we still have no masterpiece film Macbeth.

This is the best we have. Polanski understands the devil, specifically the celtic devil which is what this is about (written for the superstitious Scots thug James). He was masterful in other devilish stories (`Rosemary,' `Repulsion,' `Ninth Gate'), and there placed himself within the mind of the character rather than the audience (an Eastern European conceit).

It doesn't work here, I think because there is a visual presence and a quite different one created by the imagination of words, and he couldn't marry the two. None of his other films have particularly worked with language well, even Tess.

What we do have are some rather masterful sets (worthy of Zeffirelli), and an interesting vision of the witches. What we need is a `Shakespeare in Love'- type reworking of the story, built around the witches. He could do that if Stoppard would come back from the dead and write it, back from the devil. Could it tell the truth?

Fantastic story!

[S James M · 7/10 · 21 April 2002]

Polanski's film of "Macbeth" is absolutely outstanding. I don't like the play by Shakespeare that much but I must say that I loved this film.It is filled with gore and action. First of all Macbeth is told that he will become almighty "Thane of Cawdor" by the three witches,and they also tell him that he is to become the King of all Scotland. Macbeth is surprised and does not believe the witches at first but then he realises that if the witches say so then it must be true.He and his wife plan to kill King Duncan who is ruler of Scotland so that Macbeth can become the king. Macbeth does not want anything to do with the horrible deed and tells his wife that he will not kill his king whom he loves.Lady Macbeth (the brains behind the scheme)finally persuades Macbeth to kill his king. Macbeth agrees to murder King Duncan although his mind is telling him not to do the evil deed.Then Macbeth's mind starts to play tricks on him and he sees a dagger before him which is his mind telling him that he can murder King Duncan,it is the bad part of Macbeth telling him to do it and get it done over with,whilst his good side is still telling him not to do it. He finally creeps into King Duncan's chamber at night and murders the king whilst sleeping. Lady Macbeth had given the guards lots of alcohol so that they could fall asleep in order for Macbeth to creep into Duncan's chamber unnoticed.Macbeth stabbed King Duncan causing tons of blood to squirt out of his neck. Lady Macbeth puts blood onto the guards' hands to make everyone believe that it was the gaurds who had murdered King Duncan. Then all of a sudden the tables turn,and Macbeth becomes a ruthless killer whilst Lady Macbeth starts to feel guilty. And I'll leave the rest of the film for auidiences to watch. But take my advise,you wouldn't think that it was Shakespeare who wrote this because it's such a good film.

one of the mightiest adaptations from Shakespeare's :p

[shahriyar-ovi · 8/10 · 5 January 2013]

Vehement and inch-perfect approach of Roman Polanski towards Shakespeare's greatest play "Macbeth". Polanski's absolute narrative technique and profound direction set the heinous deed of Macbeth and his tragic fate with elegance.

He brilliantly represents all Shakespearean symbols on the screen--- especially the floating "dagger", apparitions in the witches' den. Jon Finch powerfully portrays the downfall of Macbeth while Annis appears vivid struggling with her greed and conscience. Vibrantly, one of the mightiest adaptations from Shakespeare's :p

8/10__:D

Dark, gloomy but superb.

[searchanddestroy-1 · 7/10 · 3 June 2020]

I am not a fan of Roman Polanski's features, too much intellectual for me, i don't consider myself smart enough to get them as they should deserve to be got. But this one surprised me in the best way, despite his pace and directing, so typical from him. Dark, downbeat, gloomy, I find here many elements that remind me some movies I watched and produced from Eastern Europe after the war, during the Iron Curtain era, black and white for most of them, very rough, austere, impenetrable, with very few talking and with monotonous settings. I guess that confirms the Polish roots of Polanski. I enjoyed this movie very much, even if I knew no actors in it.

one of the great films of all time

[lionz85 · 10/10 · 26 May 2002]

This is truly polanski's dark masterpiece that is rarely discussed. After the trauma of polanski's life - his parents dying in during the holocaust, the killing of sharon tate, polanski the artist contributes this fascinating adaption of shakespeare's play. out damned spot out....indeed. The blurry dreamy photography of a softly tinged filter is reminisent of Geoffry unsworth's photography on Boorman's Zardoz and both complement's the Macbeth's demented blurry nightmare state and it's set and symbolism. Truly a great film which is both sexy, scary and sensual.

An impressive adaptation

[halohamish · 7/10 · 7 September 2008]

Written over 400 years ago, Macbeth comes back to life again in Polanski's 1971 remake. The Tragedy of Macbeth is set in the same chronological time line of Shakespeare's original and reserves all the original language. These things already, personally, make for a very unappealing movie. I love Shakespeare and his works. His stories are brilliant and revolutionary, It's just that, now we're in a new age, shouldn't these legendary tales be retold through our era? And the themes Shakespeare wrote about make it so easy to do that! It doesn't mean not staying true to the original and I'm sure the old guy isn't rolling in his grave. But this was Roman's decision and I respect him for it, just you can understand how I was a bit hesitant to watch the film.

The film starts off with great promise with the wicked performances from the witches and the eerie fog covering the screen as the title imposes over the screen, boasting its brilliance. Then, for a while, things tone down. It feels very slow to begin with and I felt too much time was focused on irrelevant scenes. I know Polanski wants to build a foreground - try and evidence to the audience Macbeth's ambition - but he does this for too long and not with enough excitement to hold you. None of the performances were too gripping either, which is what the main basis of Shakespeare's plays rely on.

Regardless of all this, the film does have a lot to offer and shapes up immensely in the second half. Performances build up more and more and emotions really start to flow, showing the best of Polanski's direction. Even though an original Shakespeare production, Polanski has edged in a lot of his own unique touches, giving the film a freshness - the mirror scene is pure Polanski brilliance. The effects are also very amazing and advanced for the time of filming and the final scene with Macduff and Macbeth is some real excellent cinema. Overall, this is an impressive adaptation with a lot more on offer than I expected.

Hamish Kearvell A.K.A Screaming Japan Productions - www.myspace.com/screamingjapanproductions

Outstanding achievement, definitive - a perfect 10.

[ejpede · 10/10 · 12 March 2001]

I think that Polanski's "Macbeth" is truly an outstanding film. I wonder why I have never before heard how good it is (and I was a young adult when it came out in 1971). Maybe it was too bloody for most people. However, the gore is not gratuitous. The sights and sounds of this film are powerfully realistic, and greatly enhance the action. "Opening up" this play was for the best. The things Polanski added work: Showing the murder of Duncan (and others) and the remarkable hanging of the Thane of Cawdor are examples of how a film, in the right hands, can sometimes give more than the stage play. And what was taken away is not greatly missed. It is still essentially Shakespeare, excellently performed by a cast of non-stars. What is left is a movie with all the look and feel of a brutal, fierce Scotland of old, which is perfect for this story. It is hard to imagine another filmed version of the play surpassing this one; call this definitive. A perfect 10.

All hail Polanski, Thane of a pretty good Shakespeare

[tonypeacock-1 · 7/10 · 27 July 2019]

William Shakespeare play filmed by nearly as legendary in filmmaking terms Roman Polanski from 1971. Called The Tragedy of Macbeth in some territories the film has a dark tone and explores Macbeth's mental demons.

What better director at the time. Polanski reeling from the 1969 murder of his wife Sharon Tate Polanski by the Manson family. Perhaps Roman Polanski was projecting some of his own angst in the tormented character of Macbeth?

The location's (of which there were many) include several sites in Northumberland and Wales and are photographed to full effect.

Macbeth is one of my favourite Bard plays and Polanski does a good version which has stood the test of time. Features some trademark Polanski quirks including some scenes of nudity and a beheading at the end. Indeed the film was financed by Playboy.

The cast is very British including the late stage actor John Finch as Macbeth, Martin Shaw as Banquo and Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth. Look out for a very young Keith Chegwin as Fleance, the son of Banquo.

All hail Macbeth!

a travesty

[your_secret_detractor · 3/10 · 26 April 2005]

An absolutely disgusting production of Macbeth. To summarize: a chaotic, badly shot mass of gore, blood, and sex with disgusting misogyny thrown in and laced with disturbing, sadomasochistic, homoerotic overtones (the execution of the thane of cawdor). I'm not a sex fearing puritan, but this was simply blood and sex for the sake of blood and sex--and therefore disgusting. The whole various implied subplots--Ross's villainy, Donalbain's jealousy--were useless, annoying, and frankly perverting of the entire production.

The soliloquy-voice overs were an awful idea. The actors, almost all from the Royal Shakespeare company, were all wonderful--but had to stand like corpses or Keanu Reeves on set, staring blankly and coldly into space while their pre recorded voices blabbed on in their minds. What it loses therein is so much of the possible emotion and life found in any actual half-decent production. It is truly more realistic--but simply badly done and mutilating of the actor's abilities. For example: Banquo's soliloquy ("Thou hast it now: king, cawdor, glamis, all. As the weird women promised. And I do fear thou didst play most fouly for it) is laden with confusion, accusation, jealously, pain, hate, love; a mix of emotions that is carelessly discarded as Banquo merely stands on a Scottish heath, staring at macbeth. the emotions of his face, the language of his body, all that could be there if he spoke was lost. Tragically.

The misogyny of the play, again, was explicitly disturbing--but then, what can one expect from the director of Rosemary's Baby?