The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) User Reviews

The Tragedy of Macbeth

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 31 January 2022]

Joel Coen brings a low key Macbeth. It is shot in black and white with minimum staging. There is some clever use of special effects and CGI.

To my mind it bears comparison with Orson Welles inexpensive version.

This is not a low budget version and it boasts heavyweights both behind and in front of the camera. Joel Coen, his wife Frances McDormand and Denzel Washington have 10 Oscars between them.

Denzel Washington as Macbeth starts out as low key before being consumed by his thirst for power as he is approached by the witches. (A contorted performance by Kathryn Hunter.)

To becomes the King of Scotland, he overthrows King Duncan (Brendan Gleeson) with the full support of the scheming Lady Macbeth (Frances McDormand) who likes the idea of becoming Queen.

Macbeth's corruption and paranoia invites revenge from Duncan's heir and Macduff. There is civil war in Scotland.

The text is dense but the film remains accessible. Coen has kept the play stripped down and stagebound.

Lady Macbeth who starts as clever and crafty becomes slowly mad to match her crazed husband.

Hunter shines as the witches. There are good performances from Bertie Carvel as Banquo and Alex Hassell as Ross.

There are a range of accents on offer in the movie, but very few Scottish ones.

Viewed by an Idiot Seeking the Sound and Fury!

[calebcorrill-79905 · 6/10 · 4 January 2022]

I really, really, really wanted to love this movie. I have taught the play before and have a good feel for the material, but even I found it to be inaccessible.

The Coens (even though this is just Joel) are my favorite directors, the cast is incredible and the vibe certainly resonates, but even then I found it to be hollow. I was waiting for that Oscar moment from DENZEL, but it looked like he was contained throughout the production.

I will certainly review the film - with subtitles - to see what that does, but I walked out feeling empty. I thought this would walk away with film of the year, but I don't think it'll even end up in the Top 5 or 10.

Maybe I am the idiot looking for the Sound and Fury that should accompany one of best tales of all time.

Gorgeous Looking Version of Shakespeare's Darkest Play

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 26 January 2022]

I'm usually not a huge fan of Shakespeare on screen, but "Macbeth" is my favorite Shakespeare play, so that combined with my curiosity about what Joel Coen would do with the material drew me to see this one. It's really good, and it fully embraces what I like best about the play, its twisted and macabre aesthetic. Coen goes all in on atmosphere, and this has to be one of the most gorgeous looking movies released this year. Rather than try to open up the work for the screen, he instead goes the opposite direction, making this film look purposefully artificial, like it's being performed on the grandest of theater stages.

The acting is superb all around, but it's Kathryn Hunter, playing a variety of characters throughout, including all three witches, who walks away with the movie. I was slightly disappointed with Frances McDormand as Lady Macbeth. It's not that she's bad, it's just that this is such a juicy role and I felt like an actress as formidable as McDormand could make something truly memorable out of it, but instead it's a serviceable but uninspired interpretation. If you want a really memorable version of the Lady Macbeth character, take a look at Isuzu Yamada's take on it in Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood." That performance will make your hair stand on end.

One of the things I never like about Shakespeare adaptations is that they always feel so stage bound and insular, no matter how much writers and directors try to make them fit a cinematic medium. "The Tragedy of Macbeth" also feels stage bound and insular, but since Coen decides to film it in a way that enhances its artificiality rather than try to compensate for it, I enjoyed it much more.

Grade: A-

Which grain will grow, and which will not

[mmaggiano · 6/10 · 11 January 2022]

Edit: given the large fraction of user reviews condeming this film's casting due to the race or nation of the actors, I find it now necessary to preface my review by disagreeing with anyone advancing those claims. If anyone condemning it is doing so in good faith, I would urge them to consider the following:

1) Having studied the writer cover to cover, I can tell you that the overwhelming ethos of the writer's works is outward-looking/cosmopolitan, playful, humanistic, and above all skeptical of any received knowledge (such as "Shakespeare must be done this way and can't be done that way"). It is a well-established tradition that productions of Shakespeare (and other classical theater/opera) on stage and screen need not always emphasize historical accuracy, but that productions can pick different aesthetics and themes to explore in different productions, and pick times/places real or imagined in which to set a given production. This is well established both in England and around the world. It's generally agreed that today's sense of reimagining Shakespeare's work (and other classical theater/opera) is itself an act of respect and reinvigoration for Shakespeare as one of the most esteemed writers in history and part of our shared cultural heritage on this planet. The majority agrees that producing Shakespeare playfully is part of what keeps the works alive, and from descending into a renaissance faire or re-enactment of a single time and place with every production. I reject rejections of the universality of great cultural works, wherever they come from.

1a) Conversely there's nothing wrong with a given production emphasizing history and place among other themes. There's nothing wrong with either, and neither can do what the other does. But the writer himself hardly put historical or geographical accuracy above all else. There is no reason, outside of ideological horse blinders, to suppose that one or the other is forbidden.

2) Following from the above, it is generally agreed in England and around the world that actors can use their own natural accent to play their roles, and that the decision of characters' accents is more a function of the above creative decisions (the setting, themes to explore and emphasize, etc.) than anything else.

3) I have utter contempt for any notion that humanity has such essential differences that groups should or must be hermetically sealed off from each other, and I reject it regardless of what ethos is supposed to require these divisions, who says so, their sob story or motivations. Specific to acting, we are far better off accepting any casting for any substantially decent reason (whatever the end result), than thinking of ourselves as fundamentally categorized and those categories as hermetically sealed. There is not always a particular reason to cast with freedom in this way above other competing virtues, but the arts across enough time have an impeccable history of disproving the rantings of cranks, puritans, ideologues and pearl-clutchers. Furthermore, it's oil and water to compare casting classical works that have been produced thousands of times with casting works about people in living memory.

All that said, I'd like to review a movie in which the casting and acting in my estimation have problems for other reasons.

* * * * *

Breathtaking retro-formalism in Coen's version of MacBeth is marred by miscasting and patchy acting.

Studio formalism (informed by film from the western world in the 30s and 40s, German expressionism, and pinches of Bergman), yesteryear's 4:3 ratio, stark yet tasteful design and sets, and mid-contrast B&W all combine for a visually exhilarating version of MacBeth.

What might have been one of the greatest adaptations of Shakespeare on film fails to hold the throne due to some combination of acting and casting problems. It could be debated whether the problem is in the miscasting of Washington and McDormand as some have said; either Macbeth and Lady MacBeth cannot reasonably be characters in their sixties, or the pair aren't right for the roles themselves, or Shakespeare at all- whatever else we can say about these two incredible actors, it is fair to say that not every actor can play every role and style. Or, it could be debated whether there is no unity in the acting tones used across the performances.

There are a few acting flaws that I think are beyond debate, and they are intertwined. Most of the performances in Coen's MacBeth fail to unfold Shakespeare for the modern ear, failing to capture the thoughts and feelings within the text. I think it can also be said that the changes in MacBeth and Lady MacBeth, particularly the strangeness they both find themselves in and wind themselves up into, are not rendered in the performances. It pains me to conclude this on a project by one of my favorite directors, but I fear that the acting is more often that not too high-paced and general, and generalized acting is the absolute death of Shakespearean language on stage or screen. One could speculate further on the possible disconnects between what Shakespeare and Joel Coen each do well and why the combination did not bear fruit, but since I deeply admire both in their own right, I will leave off with a sigh.

Amazing cinematography

[johnpercival-66006 · 8/10 · 22 November 2021]

BFI London Film Festival The Tragedy Of Macbeth shows that Joel Coen can do it alone without his brother. This film is nothing short of spectacular, some of the greatest cinematography I've probably ever seen, the monochrome adds even more beauty to such a well shot film too, I could compare the cinematography to some of the greats of cinema like Bergman. Denzel Washington kills his role as Macbeth, showing how diverse his acting skills can go, he's almost a completely different person, I would have never imagined him doing old English speech, but we go it, and he doesn't mess it up at all, his emotions shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio is tremendous, once again leaving the cinema wanting every film to be shot in it.

Style Over Substance

[sumtim3s00n · 14 January 2022]

I have to say Im beginning having trouble distinguishing between these artsy films the last couple of years because so many use the same portrayal and cinematography. Bleak, minimalistic scenes, often used black/white portrayals, filled with "symbolism" and "methaphores" that are either so plain and on the nose its sad or only understood by the creator.

Also the actors all acting with their emotions on 11, with it all being depressing seems to draw praises and Oscars like the best of baits. Never mind the dreary, long and uninspired monologues (or dialogues if "lucky").

Doesnt anyone have any original ideas anymore? Cant you portray Macbeth in a new, original light and add something new to it, shape it into a form(format we havent seen yet, make it appealing to newer and/or younger audiences. Make it entertaining, informative, moral and multilayered.

Always making these dark, minimalistic and overboard in every aspects productions has gotten beyond boring, bland and a work to get through.

Cinema should be inviting, exploring, adventerous, imaginative, new... This is NOT that, not by a long shot, it is a deja-vu of numerous productions past.

Tragedy of reviews

[akdjreview · 7/10 · 7 January 2022]

Macbeth is a gorgeous take on the Shakespeare classic. With a phenomenal performance by Denzel Washington as Macbeth, with some incredible emotionally loaded scenes. The soundtrack and sound effect during the film was nothing short of astounding catching your attention.

With beautiful use of lighting and a lack of props, to put complete focus on the characters. While also using the lightning during the film to set different moods and feelings. With an incredibly slow start, this movie might seem boring at first but end up finishing intensely.

The negative reviews surrounding The Tragedy of Macbeth are disappointing. To be fair, without subtitles I wouldn't understand much either. But saying this cast is "woke" is downright disrespectful to the amazing performance by Washington.

The Tragedy of Macbeth is a beautiful piece of film. It's definitely a film worth seeing but a lot of people will be disappointed in the slow start and use of old English.

Complex dialogue but very well made by Joel Coen

[UniqueParticle · 9/10 · 23 March 2022]

I didn't realize how brilliant this play/story is as complicated as the bulk is it's extraordinarily made and flows well. My mom couldn't finish cause she didn't understand it that's kinda fair the performances are phenomenal and cinematography is perfect! Well deserving of the award nominations. I'm not sure what else to say except The Tragedy of Macbeth is glorious in thy presentation!

Sorry if it makes a difference I have autism I might not be best at describing things but the movie is fair to understand a portion.

sound and fury

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 24 December 2021]

Greetings again from the darkness. The confounding part about screen adaptions of great and familiar literary works is that we have each already formed our mental images of characters and setting. Adapting Shakespeare's 400 year old play is Joel Coen (4 time Oscar winner, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN), and it's also his first time to fly solo as director without his brother Ethan. Filmed in black and white on a sound stage, this production may lack the frills we've come to expect in modern times, yet while its stark sets recall German Expressionism, the film still manage to deliver memorable visuals.

Denzel Washington (2 time Oscar winner, TRAINING DAY, GLORY) stars as Macbeth, while Mr. Coen's wife, Frances McDormand (4 time Oscar winner, NOMADLAND) is a perfect fit as the scheming Lady Macbeth. The absolute best and creepiest sequences are thanks to terrific work from stage actor Kathryn Hunter, who plays not one witch, but rather the trio (plus, in true Shakespearian fashion, a fourth character later). Ms. Hunter's work is a highlight as she contorts her body and rings out prophecy with an exceedingly disturbing voice. She is fantastic. It's the witches' prophecy that Macbeth will become King of Scotland that sets into action a chain of events familiar to most of us.

The reasons this didn't work as well for me as it did for others include Denzel's extremely low-key performance in the first half, and more crucially, the film lacks that unbridled lust for power that so attracts me to this particular story. It struck me more as a story of a disgruntled couple than the timeless themes of corruption and lust for power that Shakespeare so expertly crafted. Denzel's performance does come alive in the second half and he's quite something to watch. However, it's Ms. McDormand who nails the Lady Macbeth role and ensures our attention doesn't drift. Although obvious, it must be noted that these two renowned actors are a bit old for the roles, but interesting enough, this elements adds a different perspective to the characters' ambitions.

Supporting performances include Brendan Gleeson (is he ever not a standout?) as the ill-fated King Duncan, and Harry Melling as Malcolm and Matt Helm as Donalbain, Duncan's two sons. Corey Hawkins plays Macduff, Bertie Carvel is Banquo, and Stephen Root is the scene-stealing (and comic relief) Porter. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel treats us to some creative shots and angles ... and plenty of birds. But of course, it's Denzel and McDormand who will make or break this for you.

Director Coen does include the familiar lines: "Something wicked this way comes" inspired writer Ray Bradbury, Lady Macbeth's "out, damned spot" still packs a punch, while Macbeth's "a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" remains my personal favorite. With the stark sets, Coen serves up a shadowy presentation - or is it a presentation of shadows? It's a blend of stage and screen, yet never fully both. Despite some of my displeasures and the long-lasting curse, overall it's a welcome version of "the Scottish play" ... although I still prefer reading The Bard's prose.

Opening in theaters on December 25, 2021 and streaming on AppleTV+ on January 14, 2022.

Kathryn Hunter shines in a masterful cast

[rtwilliamsactor · 8/10 · 1 January 2022]

In the trailers, the most we get of the weird sisters is a glimpse of some shadowed silhouettes, and Kathryn Hunter sitting on a high beam chanting the famous "pricking of my thumbs" line. But from the FIRST scene of the film, you recognize the power she wields as an actor. Not only does she play all 3 sisters, and switch between them with Gollum-like fluidity, but her physicality contorts with such deliberate eeriness that for the first time in a long time, I was reminded of how terrifying the character(s) can be. Also, her vocal and rhythmic control of the witches' incantations- perhaps some of the wackiest lines Shakespeare ever penned- is masterful, elevating them to an effect that might haunt the Bard himself. A rare and memorable performance that left me with a new appreciation for the odd, yet profound presence of the supernatural in this play.

Denzel and Frances are masters in their own right. While their performances as the Macbeths may not be as striking as Hunter's, they nonetheless make for a very good pair to carry this film's weight, and each bring a grounded freshness to their lines. One thing I really appreciate was that they didn't "rise themselves up" to the weight of these characters, but rather brought the characters down to them. Instead of expanding their presence to fill the shoes of giants, they let the words filter through them with the coolness of their own natural presence. I could see and hear Denzel and Frances adopt the text in their own cadence/mannerisms, and (to quote another Shakespeare play) "acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness."

Finally, Joel's vision really makes this adaptation stand out. Its aesthetic is a clever blend of film and theatre, employing the intimacy of one with the uncanny semblance of the other. Not only does this effect serve the presence of ghosts and witches well, but it gives the whole piece an almost dream-like quality that draws you in like the air-drawn dagger. But beyond that, Joel's understanding of the text and concept as a whole is so sharp that his own changes to certain scenes/characters offer a savvy new take on a 400 year old tale.

Could use some shades of grey

[dbiester · 6/10 · 31 March 2022]

First, Denzel Washington is very good. But all that restraint needs to be let loose at some point, and it isn't. The black and white staging and lighting is more like a throwback to German Expressionism than anything actually new. Frankly the direction, staging, and cinematography detracted from the excellent acting, and the whole thing felt very heavy handed. I wanted it to be great, I really enjoy the play, I enjoy Coen's other movies, but it just did not quite work.

One of the greatest of all filmed Shakespeare's.

[MOscarbradley · 10/10 · 17 January 2022]

Do we really need another version of 'Macbeth' so soon after the debacle that was the Kurzel/Fassbender version, (some people praising it to the heights; others, like me, hating it), but then this is Joel Coen's "Macbeth" or "The Tragedy of Macbeth" to give it its full title, so should we expect a medieval "Blood Simple" or perhaps even a Big Mac, (and that's probably not the last time you'll hear that attempt at a gag)? Well, Coen's version, (sans brother Ethan), is certainly different but then we always knew that it would be; abridged, shot in black and white by the great Bruno Delbonnel and in the Academy ratio, in what, if this were the theatre, you might call a blank stage and it's magnificent.

Denzel Washington is Macbeth and his missus, naturally, is Joel's missus, Frances McDormand. It matters not a jot that they are Americans speaking in their own accents or that Denzel is an African-American, just as Macduff and his entire family are African-Americans. This is Shakespeare, after all, and Shakespeare has no boundaries especially when it comes to interpretation and this is Denzel's show; he really has got inside Macbeth's skull and he can do more with his voice and eyes than most actors can do with their whole bodies.

Frances, however, is less impressive as Macbeth's not-so-fair lady. There's something of the frumpy American housewife about her, a reader of 'Ladies' Home Journal' with ideas above her station and who's more than a little embarrased by her husband's behaviour. Everyone one else, however, is just fine with Kathryn Hunter, playing all three witches as one, walking away with her every appearance.

How does it compare to other versions? I still haven't seen Polanski's but it certainly knocks the Kurzel and Welles versions for six and it may even better Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood". Coen clearly knows that this is a medieval film noir out of James M. Cain and that's the way it should be treated and bringing out the inner Cain in no way diminishes the Bard; indeed this is one of the greatest of all filmed Shakespeare's. Do we really need another 'Macbeth'? Of course, we do.

So many caught on the race.

[williamroyce-93806 · 7/10 · 15 January 2022]

Great adaptation in this film. Actors acting out a script and people are mad that there's a black Scottish king but are ok with a white Cleopatra, Jesus, Hebrews, Captain Marvel etc. Get over your hate and white is right mindset.

Nothing new

[darkreignn · 5/10 · 20 January 2022]

The story of Macbeth is a classic one, told time and time and time again. You've probably seen the 1971 Roman Polanski adaption; you may have even seen the 2016 version starring the one and only Michael Fassbender - in short, you know the tale, and you know the tragedy of one Macbeth. So on a very surface level, you know that with Joel Coen's "The Tragedy of Macbeth," you're not necessarily getting anything new.

Shot entirely on sound stages, the movie looks visually interesting; filmed in black and white, Coen adds some flair that at least makes the film engaging to look at. This stylistic decision also lends itself to some slightly creative action sequences, which are also elevated due to Denzel Washington's unhinged performance - notably, a sword fight toward the end of the film that took place in a throne room looked especially fantastic. The actors, too, all do a serviceable job. Denzel is always entertaining, and adds some tenacity to the lead role; Kathryn Hunter as the three witches is probably the best performer here, absolutely stealing the show every time she is on screen. Frances McDormand is fine with what she gets to do, which admittedly isn't all that much.

Visuals aside, "The Tragedy of Macbeth" isn't that interesting. You have to probably be a die-hard Shakespeare fan to enjoy this, because everyone is speaking lines from the original play, lines that can be hard to decipher, especially in today's day and age; all I have to say is, thank God the theatre I went to had subtitles. The dialogue is stilted, and with the brisk running time, the movie moves fast - perhaps too fast to let anything simmer. It feels like Coen was sprinting to the finish line as soon as the movie started, which doesn't bode well for audience engagement. The movie feels very rushed, and as a result, very emotionally distant. You won't find yourself caring about what's happening or who it's happening to because the film itself isn't interested in spending time to create any emotional resonance toward its plot or characters.

While the story is timeless, this adaption is, frankly, pretty boring. There's nothing really new here besides the visuals, and what is here has been done better before. I did enjoy the diverse cast, and Denzel's leading performance - other than that, I can confidently say that I will never watch this movie again.

new Macbeth

[Kirpianuscus · 15 January 2022]

The premises remains what can expect from a new version of Macbeth. Sure, for me, to see Denzel Washington, Frances McDormand or Brendan Gleeson in the roles who I know. To discover the vision of Joel Coen about the Shakespeare's play . To expect , in fact, nothing , because what can be said was , in wise, brilliant and precise manner said by previous adaptations ?

The result - impressed by cinematography , having new proof about the admirable artistic skills of Denzel Washington, the precise portrait of lady Macbeth created by Frances McDormant, beautiful Banquo of Bertie Carvel ( maybe, too much make up )

Brilliant - off course- for the flavors of old BBC adaptations, for the illusion of animation in few scenes, for black and white clash , for a Macbeth, Seyton, Angus and Macduff in dark skin and the thought to an Othello acted by an Albino actor.

Admirable for cinematographic solutions and for the certitude than Denzel Washington deserves his Macbeth with high measure. Because he gives just the great force to his role.

The music is inspired, the solutions - the case of witches - admirable animated by Kathryne Hunter is good example are the source of appreciation, in same measure.

Short, I admitt - it is a film who I love. For great use of cinematography, for solutions for details, for poetry of locations, for the wise reflection of each crumb of tension.

A technical masterpiece; but missing a spark

[DanLawson146 · 6/10 · 22 January 2022]

POSITIVES:

1) The film looks and sounds superb. The direction, set design, sound design etc are all brilliant and deserve awards recognition. Filming in black and white added a lot too I thought 2) The film is haunting. The scenes featuring the three witches will stay with me for a long time; and the repetitive thudding of blood dropping on the floor or trees smacking against the window was very impactful. The black and white colour palette added to the haunting nature of the film too 3) I think the three leads of Washington, McDormand and Gleeson are all terrific. I've seen Washington getting some criticism for the way he reads Shakespeare but I thought he was near flawless here and his soliloquies are some of the highlights of the film

NEGATIVES:

1) I think the film struggles to ever make you feel like you're not just watching a stage play. The Justin Kurzel film did a much better job of feeling like a film rather than a play. Also, the fact that the Kurzel film is still so fresh in the memory makes this film feel a bit unnecessary 2) While the three leads were great, other members of the cast didn't perform as well in my opinion. Corey Hawkins comes to mind as one that seemed to stick out like a sore thumb 3) The film is quite quiet and without a score for large portions, certainly in the first half. Some of those sections left me struggling to stay engaged 4) It's difficult to explain why, but a lot of the character interactions felt awkward to me, and not in a deliberate or good way. I don't know why but it just really stuck out to me that a lot of interactions felt awkward and uncomfortable. That's part of the reason why Washington's soliloquies were such a positive highlight for me.

Probably the best adaptation of Mcbeth

[evelthonchapesis · 9/10 · 5 December 2021]

Exceptional cinematography, the film has a truly astounding look!! The choice for minimal sets makes the film have a feeling of being in a theatre, the script, direction and acting are 10/10. Probably one of the best uses of shadows in any film!! My only tiny issue was that the mix old English and very fast talking made me miss some dialogue, subtitles would greatly benefit the film.

Not into Shakespeare but love me some Denzel.

[subxerogravity · 8/10 · 28 December 2021]

Give Joel Coen the credit. What he succeeded in doing is adapting the play into a very basic movie. He could have taped the play and tried to pass it off as a movie, but what he did was take the play and transformed it into a film at its raw.

It could have been some elaborate cinematic gesture filmed in some expensive location and using a CGI army, but he did not do that. As a result, Coen made something that grasped me visually.

Which is good cause I'm not a Shakespeare person. I give credit to all the actors for modernizing their tone which made it easier to go down but getting to focus on the beauty of the production design was great.

Denzel was Denzel, that's a given but I like a lot of the performances of the other actors in the film as well. Then again, it's more that I'm impress by how easy some of these dudes can recite this stuff without me giggling over how they sound.

On top of the visuals, it also helps that this is one of Shakespeare's tragedies. A lot of messed up stuff happen in the flick, and I must admit that made me interested in watching as well.

I did enjoy what I saw greatly.

A 6.5 but underwhelmed by the staged film production

[tm-sheehan · 6/10 · 15 January 2022]

My Review- The Tragedy of Macbeth

My Rating 6.5/10

On Apple +

I found this Joel Cohen version of " The Scottish Play." a little underwhelming while I thought Frances McDormand's casting by husband Joel Cohen inspirational I can't say the same of Denzel Washington's casting as Macbeth .

He is a fine actor but I thought he mumbled a lot and just didn't match the intensity of Frances McDormand who steals every scene she appears in.

I missed the fire and brimstone of other versions stage or screen and Denzel's Macbeth seemed to passive for my liking.

I must admit I'm spoiled as we saw Derek Jacobi years ago in 1993 as Macbeth at the RSC Barbican with Cheryl Campbell as Lady Macbeth and it was truly a sensational and unforgettable performance.

Of course this new Cohen adaptation is a film not a play but it really does look like a film of a play and I'm looking at it as a movie not a play.

There are some fabulous visual moments like Lady Macbeth in silhouette on the precipice of a cliff face and the approaching army that camouflages itself with tree branches from Birnam Wood on their march to Dunsinane fulfilling the witches prophecy that "Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him".

Some film critics say Cohen's concept is new and original but it's not really very different in look to the 1948 black and white Orson Welles version . This Cohen version is narrow frame aspect and also monochrome.

This worked superbly in The Lighthouse (2019) a Robert Eggers film which I rated 9 because it perfectly captured the stormy bleakness and dark emotional aspect of the story but in The Tragedy of Macbeth just looks arty and a little contrived.

The sets are totally minimalist and stagey but do lend themselves to the shadows and film noir ish monochrome effect that's reminiscent of the famous Ingmar Bergman Max Reinhardt and Fritz Lang monochrome movies.

The costumes by Mary Zophres are also simple but effective and compliment the simple geometric set designs by Nancy Haigh.

The score by Carter Burrell is effective but not very noticeable apart from the end credits.

Shakespeare is often performed by ethnically diverse casting but I doubt the famous Othello portrayal by Laurence Olivier in black face would be even tolerated today in the new era of colour blind casting.

However it seems perfectly acceptable in reverse for traditional Caucasian characters to be portrayed by black actors?

This colour blindness I found overdone in this Macbeth as most of the main Scottish characters except Lady Macbeth are black actors from Macbeth Denzel Washington to the MacDuff's with Corey Hawkins and his lady Moses Ingram plus Sean Patrick Thomas as Monteith .

Remember all the recent publicity blurbs about the cast of West Side Story being ethnically accurate at last with a Puerto Rican cast ? It worked beautifully helping to portray the characters and giving the film an authenticity . Imagine the fuss if Will Smith's character in King Richard was cast with a white actor or heaven forbid Barack Obama being played by a famous white actor like Leonardo de Caprio both totally unimaginable and silly suggestions.

As unimaginable perhaps as Jodie Turner - Smith becoming the first black actress to portray Anne Boleyn in a new drama series about the final months of Anne Boleyn's life.

As long as the most suitable Actor gets the role no matter if they're black white straight gay male Trans or female it's ok with me I don't think this is the case in The Tragedy of Macbeth the colour blindness just seems overdone and contrived.

Shakespeare often doesn't work well in the film medium for me with some exceptions including Max Reinhard's 1935 A Midsummer Nights Dream, Franco Zeffirelli's The Taming of the Shrew 1967 Romeo and 1969 plus Hamlet 1990 , Derek Jarman's The Tempest 1979 , Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing 1993 .

All these in my opinion successfully took the plays off the stage and transformed them into film a medium Shakespeare could never have dreamt of .

Joel Cohen's Macbeth while interesting was not innovative enough for me but worth seeing for the brilliant Frances McDormand's portrayal of the most calculating and ambitious wife in theatre history and it's lovely to see her with a hairstyle that suits her.

A perfect storm

[guskeller · 10/10 · 26 December 2021]

The Tragedy of MacBeth is a technical marvel. The film is truly high art because the cinematography is impeccable, the production design is captivating, and the audio design is chilling. Together, this creates a mesmerizing journey of light and sound. The tight aspect ratio, stark lighting, and precise framing combine with surreal set compositions to produce a dazzling stream of masterful imagery. Meanwhile, the sound is consistently symbolic and pulsing, evoking motifs of paranoia. All told, the technical aspects of The Tragedy of MacBeth are genuine craftsmanship and serve the spirit of the film in every way.

What's more, The Tragedy of MacBeth is built around classic drama. Staying true to Shakespeare (aside from some savvy streamlining) is always a safe bet. The story captures haunting descents into madness, and the dialogue is hypnotically rhythmic. Denzel Washington is brooding with bursts of rage, and McDormand steals the show as she mentally unravels. Plus, the score is menacing, the transitions are smooth, and the effects are stylistic. From top to bottom, this is a detailed work of art. The Tragedy of MacBeth might not be popcorn entertainment for wide audiences, but it's a perfect storm of skill.

Writing: 10/10 Direction: 10/10 Cinematography: 10/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 9/10 Sound: 10/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 10/10 Casting: 9/10 Effects: 9/10

Overall Score: 9.5/10.

Feels like homework

[acj-65004 · 6/10 · 23 March 2022]

If you are someone who never enjoyed reading Shakespeare, then you probably are not going to enjoy watching this movie. The old english dialogue does not do it any favors. The Romeo & Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio got away with having all that blabber, because they innovated when it came to the time period and modernized it, so it didn't feel like it was such a dated story.

This movie does none of that, and to me, it was just too much Shakespeare. I would have liked to have seen it be a mingling between old and new, but it is not. That's why I say it feels like homework. Like something your literature teacher would make you watch and then have you write a report on; which would, admittedly, still be better than having to write a report on the actual text itself.

The movie itself looks really good. The production value is high and the acting is top notch. The dialogue is just not for me. I can understand what they're talking about, but after every line, it just feels like I'm back in school again, and not in any sort of good way.

Your Great-Great-Grandfather Is Not Your Cousin

[boblipton · 10/10 · 15 January 2022]

To discuss Joel Coen's edited and directed version of Shakespeare's most quoted play -- every two lines has been plundered for at least three titles -- is a waste of time. Let it stand that Denzell Washington makes a fine MacBeth, Frances McDormand a fine Lady MacBeth, and that Coen and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel have shot a fine, spooky black-and-white story of a man struggling against his fate, full of fog and expressionism, Dutch angles and angst.

Anyone who looks at this will come away thinking of it as a fantasy. Indeed, Coen's version may well be one. Shakespeare's play was not. Witches were a fact of life in Scotland back in the day, with the Witchcraft Act of 1563 offering the usual remedy. When James VI (and later I of England) returned to Scotland with a bride, he brought over a raft of them, and the North Berwick Witch Trials followed. This being the Enlightenment, James wrote a treatise titled "Daemonologie" in which he laid out why this was all a great idea. Over 175 years, Scotland put 3837 people on trial for witchcraft, and convicted two-thirds of them.

You will be pleased to know that this sort of petered out almost 300 years ago. As I write this, there is discussion of pardoning them. This must be of great comfort to any that were hanged by mistake.

MacBeth, with its fates, prophecies, ghosts and witches is clearly one of the ancestors to what we call fantasy these days. It's one of Shakespeare's history plays, and no more fantasy than Julius Caesar is alternate history because there's a clock in ancient Rome. Arguably, fantasy began to coalesce in the 18th Century, with writers like Walpole, and became a pulp genre in the 20th: a not particularly successful one. It took Judy-Lynn Del Rey to turn it from an occasional best-seller by Thorne Smith into the stolen-from-Tolkien thing that pimply teenagers love. But it's no more a fantasy than Julius Caesar is a murder mystery, even of the Columbo-style howcatchem variety. Come to think of it, there's a ghost there, too. And a augur uttering prophecies.

A sincerely made movie on a classic play

[madanmarwah · 7/10 · 18 June 2022]

I am not particularly fond of photographed stage plays because there is an extensive use of the static camera which I don't like much. As expected the movie has a fair share of long shots, long duration shots and scenes with extended dialogue. This movie based on a celebrated play of Shakespeare will be appreciated by English literature loving people and discriminating audiences. The dialogue as far as I could make out is original stuff and though sitting through the serious scenes was quite challenging, it took me back to school days when the characters uttered the following famous quotes.

1. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

2. When shall we 3 meet again, in thunder, lightening or rain 3 Fair is foul and foul is fair, hover through the fog and filthy air.

It would help a lot if one reads the play before seeing this movie which is what I did. All the high points still evoke interest like the prophecy of the 3 witches, Banquo's ghost haunting Macbeth, the sleep walking by Lady Macbeth etc.

Full marks to three main people associated with this movie namely director Joel Coen, Denzel Washington ( Macbeth), and Frances McDormand (Lady Macbeth) for their outstanding contribution towards bringing to life this classic tale of ambition, jealousy, deceit and murder most foul. Probably one of the earliest stories propagating the axiom that "crime does not pay". Considerable research must have been done on the production design and costumes and it shows. However general audiences not into Shakespearian plays are advised to keep away, since they would be bored stiff.

Like listening to people have a conversation on the phone

[FreakNumberOne · 3/10 · 2 August 2022]

The cast deliver their lines so nonchalantly and with so little emphasis, It's as though the dialogue means nothing to them. So much emphasis seems to be placed on making the prose sound like natural dialog, but why? They seem to just recite words as they walk through the stylish but hollow production. Visually beautiful and totally forgettable.

A classy contribution to the best movie of the year.

[JohnDeSando · 2 January 2022]

Joel Coen, sans brother Ethan after about eighteen collaborative ventures, triumphs with his new Tragedy of Macbeth. Coen keeps essential lines (it is Shakespeare's shortest play anyway) and doesn't let the magnificent set design overpower the first-rate performances.

While Denzel Washington as Macbeth lacks the grace and sonority of Olivier or Fassbender, he is the appropriately weary wearer of the heavy crown. He plays Macbeth right by being vigorous before he slays Duncan but drained after. He refrains less from being henpecked to accepting his Lady's (Frances McDormand, Coen's wife) advice through her twisted logic and, famously, the witches' supernatural, duplicitous urging.

Like Welles's Othello, he is a military man who follows the logic of defense and destiny. Once committed to a cause, blind obedience to fate is the only route. Like Colin Powell, he is wrong and fate will brook no other route than infamy.

For her part, Lady Macbeth is more into working it with a slow force that makes them more a business team than a tag team. The stark, minimalistic set design, with its Wellesean towering ceilings, sharp edges, bare walls, and menacing bright and dark interiors punctuated by light shafts that concentrate evil on its protagonist, has the power and purity of an avenging angel, a lonely film-noir ambience tracking the road to dusty death.

The lighting and 1.19:1 aspect ratio, almost square, echo the stark, unrelenting world of Dreyer, Bergman, and Welles' 1948 Macbeth cinema.

The iambic pentameter and its accompanying perfect wording are there, and you may miss some, but, hey, he's civilization's greatest writer. Washington's contribution is making this rich language clear and comprehensible. The words of Tomorrow and Tomorrow resonate today for, say, leaders who at the end realize their greatness is an illusion trampled by relentlessly-marching time.

A classy contribution to the best movies of 2021 and Shakespeare's glorious tragedies.