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.
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.