Thursday, February 15, 2024

Joel Coen | The Tragedy of Macbeth / 2021

a murder of crows

by Douglas Messerli

 

Joel Coen (screenwriter and director) The Tragedy of Macbeth / 2021

 

Any director who might wish to film Shakespeare is inevitably doomed simply by the history of the play, any Shakespeare play, and the various ways that its audiences, actors, directors, scholars, and so many others are convinced from either experience, interpretation, or mere personal preference about how the production should sound and look. Given the absolute richness of the Bard’s munificent contributions to mankind I might imagine that by this time we should all be open to the widest varieties of interpretation and representation, knowing as we do the long history of Shakespearean theater and film.

   

     But with every new production critics of all sorts, so-called professionals, and amateurs alike inevitably dive into the fray with their critiques. For Joel Coen—often toying, along with his brother Ethan, with being the bad boys of serious cinema—to take on one of Shakespeare’s most language-bound dramas Macbeth without even the help of his script-writing other seems more than audacious. And then to almost claim the authorship of the work—the credits read “Written for the screen as directed by Joel Coen,” based on the play by William Shakespeare—is nearly impudent, as if he were asking for all the pent-up emotions of so many individuals who feel that they alone might imagine the perfect production.

      Richard Brody of the New Yorker jumps right into the cauldron of shaming, in his very first paragraph beating him down to the size of a man he imagines with the largest of egos:

 

“Joel Coen’s The Tragedy of Macbeth is the kind of movie that a hero of the Coen brothers, Preston Sturges, mocked eighty years ago in his great film Sullivan’s Travels, about a famous comedy director who strains after relevance by turning his attention to a super-serious social drama. Macbeth, however, is more than a serious drama; it’s a ready-made showcase for inspired actors, and Coen’s cast is filled with some of the best. It’s a special form of cinematic torment when great performers are stuck in a misbegotten production, because the intrinsic pleasure of seeing them is overshadowed by a sense of waste, of artistry neglected by directorial willfulness or vanity. Denzel Washington, as Macbeth, and Frances McDormand, as Lady Macbeth, fit their performances to the movie’s narrow view of Shakespearean cinema, which reduces grandeur to petulance and poetry to decoration. The over-all effect is of a striving toward a high style that isn’t achieved—and that undercuts the mighty import of the play.”

 

     Basically, Brody argues, Coen’s Macbeth is centered upon its theatrical set at the expense of all else, particularly the language.

   

      There is no doubt that the architecture of Coen’s film is most certainly awe-inspiring, but not at all, it seems to me, as an attention-getting device or to create a presence larger than the actors and even Shakespeare’s language. What Coen has done in emptying his fog-hidden Scottish fens and glens of nearly all but its intruders and stripping the concrete castles of nearly every piece of furniture, tapestries, and personal objects is to create a stunningly abstract stage on which we might attend to character and language alone.

      If he cannot help but take his camera zooming in and out of the outrageously cavernous spaces of Macbeth’s castle in which human beings are utter diminished even before him (in this case Washington) and his loving wife (McDormand) increasingly determine to reduce life to something close to having no value, who can blame him? As any great director—and no matter what you think of his and Ethan’s gallery of cinematic rogues over the years, anyone who loves film has to recognize the Coens as significant filmmakers—might be tempted to, Coen swoops his camera up, down, and around, the vast spaces of his set in an attempt to see his figures from all perspectives, catching in the process, the shadows and their vaulted arches and arcades that, not just so accidentally, remind us of paintings by Giorgio de Chirico and other artists of the scuola metafisica.

 


      And yes, he has cut down the Shakespeare play to get to the grit of the story and language. Coen’s Macbeth, unlike Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (1957) is not about warfare but about a man and a woman so possessed by a notion of fate, foretold almost like the promise of a lottery ticket by a shapeshifting crone (all three witches played in this case by the amazing performer Kathryn Hunter) who enigmatically proffer Macbeth the role of the King and his fellow soldier Banquo (Bertie Carvel) a future of producing later rulers of the country for which they have just done battle.

      In Coen’s version of the play, those two predictions quickly come to wipe away all other realities from his purview, particularly the fact that he might be simply celebrating for his wartime feats and his sudden title of the Lord of Cawdor, focusing instead on his plotting with his wife how to rush into the future by murdering their royal guest, King Duncan (Brendan Gleeson). It is as if the possibility of power has made him suddenly mad, an affliction which perhaps any generation can recognize in their own leaders; the only difference between Macbeth and someone like Donald Trump being that the Lord of Cawdor is still a man of some conscience and recognizes his own treachery, which later damns both him and Lady Macbeth to a life in their prison of guilt.

       Say what you will about Coen’s paring down of space and action, about his shift away from mimesis and logic, the abstract world which the characters now inhabit lets us totally attend to the true core of the work, its language.

        Given that few of these actors are trained in Shakespearian elocution, I would nonetheless argue that they mostly give remarkably credible readings of the play that for many contemporary viewers surely must still sound, despite the director’s and actor’s attempts to move the language from set speeches into the realm of everyday conversation, like they are speaking in a foreign language.

       Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian captures quite nicely what Coen has achieved:

 

Director Joel Coen...has delivered a stark monochrome nightmare, refrigerated to an icy coldness. With Shakespeare’s text cut right back, it’s a version that brings us back to the language by framing the drama in theatrical, stylised ways: an agoraphobic ordeal in which bodies and faces loom up with tin-tack sharpness out of the creamy-white fog.

.... And McDormand is of course Lady Macbeth here, a role she was born to play, bringing a hard-won domestic authority and her own sort of military determination to the plan to kill King Duncan.

     Macbeth is Denzel Washington, who portrays the Thane as already exhausted by his great triumph in the King’s cause at the very beginning, a moment at which he might be expected to look forward to retirement. Washington’s signature rolling swagger looks careworn, but his Macbeth submits to both the duplicitous supernatural promises and his wife’s demands like a soldier taking his orders. And then, angry and paranoid, he escalates his fanatical rule with a series of pre-emptive murders while McDormand’s Lady Macbeth retreats into horror and despair.

 

      To be honest, as much as I loved both McDormand’s and Washington’s performances, I found them at moments working somewhat out of their range. McDormand is perfect for the dark and detailed plotting, the cynical vision that paves the way for Macbeth’s increasing paranoia, but is not as good working at the full shrill pitch that her anger with her husband’s shockingly public admissions he makes under the spell of darkest moments of his growing insanity. Her own guilt, which becomes quickly operatic, sometimes takes McDormand—a true artist of the brutal understated quip—over the top, as if she perhaps stumbled into the mad scene of Lucia di Lammermoor instead of the steep concrete blocks which he is forced to descend and ascend in her sleep, and, in this version, apparently jump, as if from the turrets, in her despair.

      Washington is his best at performing in a low register of carefully inflected niceties that betray an unimagined world of chaos, but as a tyrant forced to madly bark out his orders to kill Banquo and his eldest son Fleance, and later to demand the immediate death of Macduff’s wife and children, he too moves out of his natural range.

       But then both of these actors are so brilliant that even when possessed by unthinkable language pouring from their tongues, we believe that they truly have been possessed by the evil spirits of which the black ravens give constant evidence. “Something wicked” has truly come their way and nothing they can do can any longer contain it. Power not only has completely corrupted them, but contorted them to unrecognizable beings whose behavior is no longer quite credible.

       Brendan Gleeson plays the too trusting King Duncan quite expertly, and if Harry Melling as Malcolm seems, at moments, a little ill-at-ease and even diffident in his role, so too is the future King, who Macbeth originally dislikes with good reason. Malcolm does not demonstrate a kingly mien, and does show the wisdom of his father, even though it is he who finally wins through the struggles of Macduff (Corey Hawkins) and the alternating betrayals of Ross (Alex Hassell).

       The Times’ Scott goes even further in his praise of the cast.

 

“And Coen’s version is, above all, a triumph of casting. By which I mean: Denzel Washington. Not only him, by any means: the ensemble of thanes and wives, hired killers and servants, witches and children is pretty much flawless. Kathryn Hunter is downright otherworldly as all three of the shape-shifting, soothsaying weird sisters. Stephen Root, in a single scene as Porter, lifts the grim, forensic business of regicide and its aftermath into the realm of knockabout farce. Alex Hassell plays Ross as a perfect paragon of courtly cynicism, always obliging and never to be trusted. Bertie Carvel’s Banquo and Corey Hawkins’s Macduff carry the burden of human decency with appropriate feeling.”

 

       Hawkins is particularly moving in his lamentations of the murders Macbeth has inflicted upon his family. And the only major action of the film comes in the form of his revenge of those murders with Macbeth’s almost willing participation. By this time Macbeth is tired of living in the tyranny he has created not only for others but for himself.


    But even that battle seems, in Coen’s telling, almost incidental. The real heart of his film lies in the personal relationships forged between individuals, the love of Duncan for Macbeth and Banquo, the perverted love story of the Macbeths themselves, Macduff’s relationship to his wife   (Moses Ingram), and finally, Ross’s strange protection and, at work’s end, seeming adoption of Macduff’s spared son Fleance, the child wonderfully realized by Lucas Barker. In each of these intense relationships there exists both deep love and betrayal, often simultaneously. Coen’s version, more than any other of productions I’ve seen of Macbeth opens up the question of why the betrayer of all the individuals, Ross, saves Fleance and carries him off at work’s close, particularly since he knows less than anyone what the witches have foretold. The final ride of Ross and Fleance into the deepening shadows of sunset is not in Shakespeare, but a creation of his own making, a kind of terrifying salvation of the throne. What is he, in the meantime going to do with this boy? The sudden blast of hundreds of ravens straight out of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds does not seem to suggest the good omen the boy’s salvation should have represented.

       Coen’s Macbeth may not be the Macbeth you’ve encountered previously, but it is a disturbing and profoundly moving version of Shakespeare nonetheless that deserves comparison with the cinematic Macbeths created by Orson Welles (1948), Kurosawa (1957), Andrzej Wajda (1962)   Roman Polanski (1971), Rosa von Praunheim (1971), and Justin Kurzel (2015)—and perhaps even the never realized, although planned and scripted version by Laurence Olivier. Of all of these, Coen’s is certainly the most beautifully realized work thanks to this director’s visual genius and the stunning cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel.

 

Los Angeles, January 7, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2022).

Tom Hooper | The King's Speech / 2010

finding a voice

by Douglas Messerli

 

David Seidler (screenplay), Tom Hooper (director) The King's Speech / 2010

 

Tom Hopper's likeable film, The King's Speech, focuses its attention on the private problems of a very public figure, King George VI of England. For whatever reasons—the movie suggests psychological and physical abuse by his first nanny, the distant imperiousness of his father, King George V, and possibly even the mockery of his defects by his brother, Edward—"Bertie," as he was called at home, suffered a speech impediment of heavy stuttering. In an earlier age such a problem might have been well hidden, but in the growing industrial modernism of the pre-World War II years, radio and public broadcasts were growing in popularity, and the roles of the royal family increasingly imposed public speaking upon them.

 


    Seidler's script nicely overlays several events that force the future king to seek speech therapy. In fact, as early as 1925, Bertie began meeting with the idiosyncratic, Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, and by the opening address at Australia's Federal Parliament in 1927 he spoke "with only slight hesitations." For the film version, his therapy is understandably pushed ahead to the year of his brother Edward VIII's inheritance of the throne, which he abdicated in December 1936 in order to marry his American, twice-divorced mistress, Wallis Simpson—propelling Albert, renamed George, to the role as King.

   Similarly, preparations for the British declaration of war against Germany, which occurred on September 3, 1939, are apparently backdated three years (unless I missed a huge narrative swath of time in the movie), so that the important speech about war George VI is forced to make, representing his cure, takes place shortly after his coronation.

     I can well understand this collapsing of time in relation to the potential drama surrounding the film's major focus, but unfortunately writer and director do not take advantage of the immensity of these events, only hinting, with a passing reference to the resignation of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin—who had badly misread German determination to attack allies—of their full significance. It might have added a great deal of gravity and meaning of this film to contextualize the personal events within the failures of the next Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, to comprehend the insincerity of Hitler, and the importance of the King's later relationship with Winston Churchill. In all of these international situations, speech was of utter importance; had the King not been able to reduce his stutter, he might never have become the great favorite of the British people he was during those dark days of War, his daughter Elizabeth might never have come to power. Some advised that George's younger brother's son should inherit the throne.


     For all that, the marvel of this film is the superlative acting of all of its characters, particularly Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue (despite the fact that my ears could hear very little of an Australian accent in his performance). The two play off each in other in a manner so extraordinary that one often feels the movie is much deeper and profound in its character studies than it truly is. Rush plays Logue as an outsider, an eccentric commoner with little respect for or concern of royal distance and social separation, while Firth brings depth to his character by straddling the two worlds, maintaining his royal reserve, while simultaneously struggling against family secrets and even horrors. It is no wonder that the people felt close to him throughout his reign.

     The scene in which the reluctant King discovers he truly does have a voice, despite his impediment, is a perfect example of the acting skills of these two performers meeting up the wit of the script:

 

                                [Logue sits on the coronation throne]

              King George: Get up! Y-you can't sit there! GET UP!

              Logue: Why not? It's a chair.

              King George: T-that...that is Saint Edward's chair.

              Logue: People have carved their names on it.

              King George: L-listen to me...listen to me!

              Logue: Why should I waste my time listening to you?

              King George: Because I have a voice!

              Logue: ....Yes, you do.

 

    It is being in the presence of such actors and the marvelous ensemble that surrounds them that makes this film so close to great art, and the reason that I ultimately feel frustrated for its own temerity, for its refusal to incorporate the real world in which the lovely fable upon which this work is centered actually existed. 

 

Los Angeles, December 4, 2010

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2010).

Agnès Varda | Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse (The Gleaners and I) / 2000

leaving something behind

by Douglas Messerli

 

Agnès Varda (screenwriter and director) Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse (The Gleaners and I) / 2000

 

Part documentary, travelogue, personal meditation, a lecture on ethics, art exhibition, a series of interviews, and, at moments, simply a silly pastiche of film clips, Agnès Varda’s The Gleaners and I is nearly always entertaining and moving. Like its very subject, the act of gleaning, Varda’s film presents itself as a series of shots that come together as a kind of collection, drawing on images in various locations in France and even, for a few moments, pictures from the director’s trip to Japan. And in that sense, we can also perceive this work as a kind of demonstration of how a filmmaker—at least this filmmaker—puts together a movie.

 

     Beginning with Jean François Millet’s painting of the same name, Varda, mostly alone, sometimes with a small crew, sets out to discover whether there are still gleaners today. Do people still gather up the wheat and crops left behind after a harvest? Although some former women gleaners—it was once an activity exclusive to women—claim that such behavior is a thing of the past, we soon discover that large groups of men and women, including poor farmers, gypsies, and urban dwellers, still do gather up potatoes, cabbages, figs, apples, and grapes (although such activity in the grape fields is sometimes policed), along with whatever else they find left to rot. In cities, the poor and sometimes ethically-minded individuals gather at the food markets as they close each day to grab up the numerous tossed leftovers.



    Others, as we know, even in the US, are dumpster divers, mulling through the trash near grocery stores and restaurants to pick out still edible foods. At one such spot, Varda gathers together several street teens, a store manager who has sprayed his dumpster with bleach, and a judge who has sentenced the teens for vandalizing both store and dumpster after it was sprayed, trying to explain to each the problems with their behavior. The teens needed the free food, the store manager was outraged by the damage they did, and the judge was simply following the law, each presenting reality from their own viewpoints only.

     In the wine country in Provence, we meet a vintner, Jean Laplanche, who encourages gleaners to follow the grape harvesters, gathering up whatever is left behind. The kindly Laplanche, we soon discover, is also a psychoanalyst concentrating on theory.

 

    Back in Paris Varda meets with an ethically-minded young man who gathers food from dumpsters and markets simply to make a point of the society’s waste. Elsewhere, an award-winning chef explains that he uses every part of the animal, including bones for stock, and gleans his own herbs for the tables.

    Meanwhile, the film incorporates the filmmaker herself as an aging woman with a fascination with trucks (she frames them again and again through her wrinkled hands as if they themselves were a camera lens), art (she visits several museums to view other paintings of gleaners, and talks with artists, such as Louis Pons, who use found objects in their art), and animals. So do we gradually gather up various aspects and collect information on the director herself.

     In a small town she speaks to a man who collects small objects and furniture abandoned on the streets (the town provides a map and dates when such furniture can be left). And Varda, ultimately, gives us views of her own various “collections.”

     At another point, the director devotes a short episode to the “dance” of an attached camera lens which she has accidentally filmed on her hand-held camera, representing, I suppose, another kind of “found” art.

 

     Surely one of the most touching episodes in this picaresque of picking things up, is Varda’s encounter with a young man at the market who gathers up discarded vegetables, munching on many of them as he moves around. In a conversation with him, she discovers that he has a Master’s Degree and was a university assistant, but now cannot find a job. In the suburban charity house in which he lives, he is surrounded mostly by African and Asian migrants, whom, for free, he teaches French every evening. If there was ever an example of ethical behavior, this man most clearly expresses it.

       And so too does Varda in her unbiased conversations with the people with whom she meets. Her open humor and her obvious wonderment of the individuals she encounters bring to her pastiche a warmth that, without sentimentality or self-congratulation, sometimes brings tears to the eyes. This film is a non-judgmental work on people who survive or make their living on gathering up what others have left behind. Somewhat like maggots putting a corpse to good use, the “gleaners” are only too happy to take away what so much of the society wastes.

      Although I saw this film in early 2014—in connection with a Varda retrospective at the Los Angeles Museum of Art—I suddenly realized that it captured the very essence of what I had titled the volume about the year 2000 (“Leaving Something Behind”) the year the film was made—another example, surely, of the coincidences that have defined my life.

 

Los Angeles, January 8, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (January 2014).

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.