Seen any good films lately? [3]

{{{{“Oi watch it!”   Bloody ravens!    Wonder where they came from?    Even for ravens they are very dark, and is it all the buckie I gave them that made their eyes glow red or where they doing that already?    “Hey! Go find some more eagles to fight before the buckie wears off and you lose the mental!”    Still I seem to have shaken off Baingil, not seen her or her shoes in a while. Just as bloody well too. If I get caught before They tell everyone the Reason I'm buggered and no mistake.    I've seen the sub-clauses. Well, actually, no I haven't which is precisely what got me into this mess.

Bloody Reason.  

Anyway what the buggery am I here for?    I am so tired being on the run.  

Oh yeah I watched Fassbenders Macbeth. And I am going to review it, in two parts, two half's in fact.  

Why you may ask? Well for the very good bloody reason I've only watched half of it.

So you may daringly further enquire, why did you only watch half of it, was it that bad?

To which I would reply, no its because I'm on the run and bloody knackered, don't you pay attention?    Ask me another stupid bloody question and I'll introduce your forehead to the blunt end of Mr Buckie Bottle!    Muppet!  

So if there are no more hypothetical rhetorical questions to answer -the review- warning spoilers for the plot of Macbeth and in particular in over analysed crabbit detail, this version of it, from beginning to end, um, middle.}}}}

Macbeth (2015) starring- Michael Fassbender , Marion Cotillard

A (very long, getting drunk first is advisable   - warning may be lengthy outbursts of crabbit scrutiny ahead and may get out of hand   ) review by Mind Your Own Bloody Business!  

Its rare these days to have a version of Macbeth that is both set in the right time period (its long been the fashion to relocate Shakespeare to other times or no time at all) and features a cast of people sounding Scottish.

However a glance at the cast list will also reveal that Macbeth is played by a German and Lady Macbeth by a Parisian. And a suspicious Scot who has been down this Mel Gibson clad road before may get a sinking feeling at what is likely to come.

So the first thing I will do is give Fassbender the highest praise I can give him, if I didn't know beforehand he was not Scottish I would not suspect from watching this (yes occasionally there is an odd emphasis but nothing that a non-scots resident would pick up on) that he wasn't Scottish.

Its the best Scottish accent from a non Scot I can think of since Eward Woodward's in the Wickerman.

As for Marion Cotillard her French accent does make a few appearances, but it works in her favour historically as for the time period Scots ruling class often were raised and educated in Europe, and France in particular, and both nations were regular sights at each others Courts and in marriages. So you can either view her as a French Lady who married into the Macbeth family and has been there long enough to pick up an accent but not lose her original entirely, or as a Scots Lady who was educated in France and has been back long enough for her Scots to reappear over her French- it works either way.

You may think this a particular obsession to have of a film but there is nothing surer to take you out of a film than appalling accents- I saw Costner's Prince of Thieves in the cinema, and from the moment he gets out the boat and kisses the ground espousing his love of England, in what to UK ears sounds exactly like a thick American accent it becomes a comedy, at the end when King Richard, King of England, turns up played by Sean Connery, and he speaks before you see him, the entire audience I saw it with had already descented into uncontrollable laughter myself among them before his face was on the screen.

Putting aside the merits of Prince of Thieves even a good film can be ruined by really bad accents and make a native audience unable to take the material seriously.

However this film does not fall into this trap, it sounds Scottish.

And Scotland features a lot. Like Polanskis version the bleakness of the landscape is used to heighten the sense of doom and misery- this is not Scotland basked in summer sun, this is Scotland like it more often is, misty, grey, bleak hills of nothing but heather, a lot of browns.

But, and here another native nitpick- the entire section from when Macbeth is reunited with Lady Macbeth to after the assassination is set with Glencoe as a backdrop.

Bloody Glencoe   - you'll probably recognise it, you should- from Highlander to Skyfall, and a host of other films inbetween, in fact seen a film set in Scotland? you've probably seen Glen bloody Coe.  

And more annoying than that, rather than this section being set in Glamis castle its set in some sort of settlement around a church in the middle of Glencoe- and the settlement is largely made up of tents!

Fucking tents!  

Anyone who knows that area knows you wouldn't last a winter in a tent. And if you somehow did manage to survive having your balls frozen off the bloody midges would have them for breakfast, lunch and tea all summer.  

Its a completely implausible settlement- so much so it seems like its just makeshift, a temporary camp along the way to Glamis- and that would be fine- but the Church seems permanent, as do a lot of the people living around there.

So what's the church doing there? So Lady Macbeth has somewhere private to be to read Macbeths fateful letter to her, and so it can juxtapose her seeming outward piety with the inner ambition to be Queen and her husband King (    one must always consider Lady Macbeth's options at this stage I feel in her motivations, a married woman of her time had no natural course of further advancement unless her husband advanced also- this is why Shakespeare makes sure to advance Macbeth first before this to Thane of Cawdor and for the letter to tell her this, and has the King directly promise further honours upon her husband directly to her, that way we know its not just ambition but outright greed for the top prize- clever chap that Shakespeare you know   ).

The question has to be asked though if its necessary to create an entire implausible settlement just to have her in the church for the letter?- and Glamis would have a chapel anyway why not just have the scene there? Did they really need to get Glencoe in there that badly? Is there a special secret contract the Scottish government has written up saying every film made in Scotland must feature Glencoe?  

You may think this is not reviewing much of the film, but again its a matter of immersion- the film goes out of its way in the lead up to these scenes to show the landscape, to emphasis its harshness, its bleakness, the unforgiving nature of it and everyone to this point looks wet, cold and miserable too.

To them plonk what anyone can see is a community that couldn't survive in this landscape they are at pains to show us the hostility of is oddly jarring. It just doesn't look right sittong out there in the windswept open moor.

And the question just keep arising as it goes on of why couldn't this be set in Glamis like in the original?

What new or inventive thing is it the film is doing here that necessities the change of location?

The answer is there isn't one.

It does nothing with the location that other versions have not done just as well in the castle. Its a change of location for the sake of it, at best for the sake of variety, and to get Glencoe in there of course which means its not varied at all it as it's in every bloody Scottish film.

Right, back to the start of the film you will be depressed to know.

It opens on a funeral- that of a child of the Macbeths, a baby in fact. Now this is something lifted from the subtext. That they have lost a child is never mentioned openly in the original, but many have argued that it is strongly hinted at in the subtext and I agree.

This is one of those things which is perhaps a matter of taste. Without any hint of offence it may be no bad thing for some less used to Shakespeare to have some of the things in the subtext brought to the fore and highlighted for them that they may otherwise have missed. But it does then hit that line, explained so well by Tolkien, of where the freedom to interpret the text as implying the loss of a previous child, or not, resides with the viewer or reader, or where it crosses over to where its dictated to you by the writer.

This is not the only instance where something which can be read into the sub text is brought into the main focus and made explicit.

It is also done with the notion that Macbeth is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

This is shakier ground than the lost child, and really is making a (fair) interpretation and running with it, and whilst they play it reasonably well in the first half at least it is a case of removing the freedom to decide for yourself why Macbeth acts as he does and straight giving you a reason for it instead.


After the funeral scene is the opening battle.

And if the images of people lining up, shouting war cries at each other and charging at each other waving swords about is not enough to have told you it was a battle, there is a pointless scroll before it starts telling you it is.

It contains no information not in the film itself within the first ten minutes save the nameof the battle, which they have made up.

I have a problem with the battle.  

The closest comparison to how they have chosen to shoot it is like 200- with bursts of changes of speed from fast to normal playback to lots of slow-motion. And like the scroll its pointless.

It doesn't really highlight anything save the reaction shots of Macbeth, both being the source of carnage and witnessing it (the post traumatic stress vibe emphasised in this telling). However as they use the changes of tempo for everything in the battle it seems, from throat slitting to general battle stuff, to reaction shots, there is no drawing attention to what is important.

If the idea was emphasise the roots of his later acts in his witnessing and taking part in these blood baths then they drop the ball by failing to separate the wheat from the chaff in editing or direction.

It looks pretty, balletic even at times, but feels shallow and pointless.

In fact throughout the first half there is a feeling of trying too hard to look artistic, to look worthy but with no other secure artistic aim in mind.

Its not just the initial battle, the shots of the bleak landscape are not exactly over done but more over flagged up, 'hey look how grey and bleak this is' it cries at you from the screen, 'get used to it because its staying that way'. And that's a problem too.

Polanski is again a good comparison here as his version also emphasis the bleakness of the landscape- but not all the time, he knows when to use different lightning, different weather to help tell the story- so in his version we go from the scene of the battle- on a beach where Polanski puts the first witches scene among the corpses and blue patches of sea and sky, to the grey and desolate misty meeting on the heath, from the hero of the battle and the point where he still has choice, to making the choice- from light and blues and clarity, to grey and bleak and misty doubt for the meeting.

Here you get grey and bleak, always, all the time, except when its night, when its just dark and lit like you'd expect.

And on the subject of the battle at the start- its not in the original, but it is in most adaptations of it- the film makers temptation to start with a bang. But should it even be there?

I mean Shakespeare may as in Henry V apologise to his audience first for the shoddy quality and ability they have to re-enact a massive battle on the Globe stage, but he was not afraid to still do it because people loved a battle then and now and Shakespeare had a theatre to run and pay for and live off and needed bums on seats against stiff competition.

But he didn't show this battle. He didn't open with a bang. Why not?

Well two very good reasons- one, it is hard to do and easier not do on the stage, but mainly reason two, we get the legend first. We don't see the battle, we get the report of it, and in particular the actions of two men, Macbeth in leading the forces, and his captain Banquo- we hear of their mighty deeds, how they turned the tide of the battle and how Macbeth sliced their leader from navel to the jaw. We see how much the King praises and honours and gives his love to him.

But we don't see the battle, we don't see Macbeth.

Because Shakespeare wants us to think we are meeting a hero. A champion of his King, loved by all, mighty in deed, honourable, loyal.

Macbeth and Banquo, the countries heroes.

And he wants us to hear that before he lets us actually meet the real man. He wants us to make that comparison.

When like here you show the battle, and particularly when you emphasise the violence, the horror, the carnage, the bloodiness of it in your editing you also don't show the legend, you show the man first and only. Gritty and real and bloody- which is where he should end up not where he should be first seen beginning. That ruins the set up. Idiots  

Like the implausible settlement you have to ask is it worth showing the battle at all? Particularly as here when its intercut with the scenes where the King is being given the report on the battle anyway?

Following the battle we have Macbeth and Banquo making there way back towards the King and to their encounter on route with the witches. This is where the viewer gets a chance to see the relationship between these two men before the shit hits the fan.

In most versions much of the dialogue is played with some camaraderie, a bit of banter quality between mates to it, a touch of dry sardonic knowing wit- for example after the witches seem to vanish in the original, but not in this one, Banquo comments that maybe they have 'eaten of the insane root which takes the reason prisoner'- the modern equivalent between two male friends being, “maybe we're just tripping our balls off here.”    

Now there is some foreshadowing in the text here, I mean beyond the obvious deliberate witches telling the future bit, I mean in the dialogue between Macbeth and Banquo, but here everything, like the landscape, is grim.

Every line seems to be delivered in deadly seriousness, where there is a hint of foreshadowing each character looks at the other as if they know they are foreshadowing something. There is little sense of warmth between them, of joking, smiles feel forced and as if hiding true feelings, and a sense that that they are each to some degree already wary and suspicious of the other.

Given the tragedy Shakespeare gives us here is one of these friends is gong to soon order the murder of the other and of his young son out of open ambition and a drive to hold onto what he has seized, to not show them as warmer friends, of of more companions on the weary road with a sense of dry wit and irony at their situations.

For example Macbeths first line, mirroring the witches dialogue 'So fair and foul a day I have not seen' basically means 'Great, we won but fuck is the weathers shit' in the original- here is its suborned to another task, here its said as Macbeth and Banquo pile up the carcasses of the dead, the 'foul' this Macbeth refers to here is the killing which will manifest itself in his pts later.

This may be fair use in adaptation, to move the context or meaning of  line to empathise some other feature, but it also mean its now devoid of any dry wit, any sardonic noting of their joint situation. It can't be said with a wry knowing smile in this new context.

And as the rest of the their dialogue is as equally stripped of such joviality among friends and comrades it loses a large aspect of the tragedy of how Macbeth betrays him. And why it haunts him so in the aftermath. More so even than Duncan's murder.

Another annoying thing is how this film shoots major dialogue scenes between two characters. It happens most often between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth- and it goes like this-

tight close up on the speaker, reaction shot, tight close up on the speaker, reaction shot- mid-shot for symbolic gesture to be seen, tight close up on speaker, reaction shot, repeat till end of scene.  

Whilst the battle and landscape shots seem to go out there way to try to be artistic the actual direction of much of the dialogue scenes is pedestrian, lacking in variation and inventiveness.

And so onto the three witches, sorry four witches.

Yup there are four, the fourth being a little girl- and they are all Bajorans    (sorry Star Trek joke there) they all have odd ridges above their noses. Why four? as I've only watched half of it I cant say if there is a reason yet or if they just thought fuck it why not put another one in there, we can make her a little girl and hammer home the loss child thingy a bit more, its not like 3 is a mystic number or anything or used by evil witches because its directly in opposition to the Trinity or anything, and everyone knows three witches bad, four witches, they might be White and have cookies but fuck it, four it is.

But maybe there is a reason, we shall see.

The witches scenes are a lot shorter in this than the original, don't expect any chanting or toil and boiling either, its very much down to business- prophecies handed out, lots of I know this bit is  foreshadowing so here's a foreshadowing dramatic look at my friend stuff from the two main characters, then off the witches pop- or rather don't.  

And this is another annoyance- things not visually matching the text- or the words of the film- after they vanish Macbeth says they 'vanished into the air', and Banquo says that 'maybe the earth has bubbles as the water does, and these are of them', or that they have eaten a hallucinogenic plant- in other words- they fucking vanish- so why does every version including this have them disappear in an ambiguous manner that could just be going off into the mist? Why put the ambiguity in when you keep the dialogue of them saying they just fucking vanished right in front of their fucking eyes?!!!!!!  

Its not the only time it does it either- during the battle at the beginning, at its climatic point we cut to the king getting the report that Macbeth slew the enemy by slicing him from the navel to the chops- whilst showing Macbeth chopping his head off instead!! And when the King is murdered in his tent they still say 'the life of the building has left' as if they are in Glamis when they are talking about a fucking tent!!!!  

Either change the dialogue to suit the new setting, or lose the dialogue, or keep the original setting- you cant just do both.




{{{{{Bollocks Im only half way half way through!! Oh dear guess this will be in, um instalments. Well don't blame me, blame Them, I'm bloody knackered being on the run, and obviously also drunk and as it took longer to write the review than watch the first half of the film its reviewing had I watched it all you wouldn't have this first half, ok, third, of this review!!! So don't complain if its in bits!!!}}}}}

I've recently watched:

Top Gun...kinda crappy

Flight...nothing special

Slumdog Millionaire...very good not great.

The Killing Fields...very very good, but perhaps a tad overlong

Natural Born Killers...very good, but not entirely sure how satrical it was trying to be

Troll Hunter...very good.

I'd been waiting to hear what Petty thought of the new Macbeth.
It appears I'll have to keep waiting....

Well hello Petty The phantom of the Buckie That was a stimulating review so far of Macbeth I feel Ive watched it thanks to your descriptions Whether I will or not I dont know ? I need a clear head to reason with Shakespeare

I don't know what review you're talking about Azriel. 

There's nought in here but us and the whiff of peppermint.

Which I am getting INCREASINGLY CRABBIT ABOUT!!!  

Actually there was a whiff of peppermint, a spew of Shakespeare with lots of jumping up and down and orneriness, then with a puff of peppermint it all disappeared again.

The whiff of peppermint is for old ladies, it helps disguise the smell of wet nylons

Anyone seen or plan on seeing this?

...

<See previous page>

ha ha TENTS in SCOTLAND!!?? In Winter?! What were they thinking?

I think I might do a top 10 most disappointing film adaptations from books I love right here in the wrong thread.
So sue me.

1. The Hobbit.
2. The Golden Compass.
3. Deathly Hallows 1&2
4. Neverwhere. (ok its tv but what the hey).
5. Percy Jackson: The Lightening Thief
6. All the recent Jane Eyre adaptations.
7. Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death. (Appalling casting)
8. The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. (terrible disappointment)
9. Eragon
10. Spiderwick Chronicles

{{{{Right, time Dave found out what I really think of Macbeth -2015 version then!}}}}


So the famous murder and its build up- this is such an iconic set of scenes in this section that I will quickly list them in order-the build up- the King arrives at Glamis (or in this case at tent world   ), there is a feast at which Macbeth decides he cant go through with it and Lady Macbeth convinces him otherwise by calling his manliness into question- Macbeth resolves to go ahead with it, he meets and speaks with Banquo and Fleance and on route he hallucinates a dagger leading him towards the king- the murder- Macbeth kills the King and returns to Lady Macbeth, she takes the dagger he has brought back to the scene of the crime and uses blood from the dead King to smear the drugged chamberlains of his 'tent' so as blame will fall on them, she returns to Macbeth they wash the blood from their hands, Macbeth is already having problem regards what he has done- aftermath- in the morning the kings men arrive to call on him, discover the body, Macbeth, claiming it to be in a moment of fury kills the seemingly guilty chamberlains before they can say anything, the Kings two male heirs decide that whoever did it will come after them too and agree to go separate ways to raise forces, one to England and one to Ireland (in this version there is only 1 heir, Macolm, Donaldbain is gone)- Macbeth takes the crown.

Now thats following the original play, and in fact most adaptations of it, except for the tents obviously, but not this one.
There is some altering of  the order in this version, and some new additions, and some new invention in how they interpret visually the scene.

But first here is as good as anywhere to discuss the actual use of the text itself.
The aim here seems to be to remove anything which is descriptive, self considering or  philosophical  or overly flowery, or references something obscure today but obvious to its original audience (bar a few you cant lose)- in other word most of the dialogue that is retained are the 'action' and 'reaction' lines, the lines which might naturally come to the lips in the moment and nothing else.

So for example lets look at the famous dagger scene- in the original Macbeth describes what he is seeing, he notes things about the dagger such as the blood 'which was not so before' that appears on its blade- here's the original dialogue-

'Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going;
And such an instrument I was to use.
Mine eyes are made the fools o' the other senses,
Or else worth all the rest; I see thee still,
And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood,
Which was not so before. There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes. Now o'er the one halfworld
Nature seems dead, and wicked dreams abuse
The curtain'd sleep; witchcraft celebrates
Pale Hecate's offerings, and wither'd murder,
Alarum'd by his sentinel, the wolf,
Whose howl's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace.
With Tarquin's ravishing strides, towards his design
Moves like a ghost. Thou sure and firm-set earth,
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear
Thy very stones prate of my whereabout,
And take the present horror from the time,
Which now suits with it. Whiles I threat, he lives:
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives. '


Here's the same dialogue and scene in the film-

'Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going;
And such an instrument I was to use.
Mine eyes are made the fools o' the other senses,
Or else worth all the rest; I see thee still
There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes.
Now o'er the one halfworld
Nature seems dead, and wicked dreams abuse
The curtain'd sleep; witchcraft celebrates
And moves like a ghost.
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Whiles I threat, he lives:
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives.


Now you can see here the descriptive tends to go when its related to a visual action, as too does some of the more floral prose, especially where part of its original purpose was to describe to am audience looking at a stage bathed in sunlight that it was supposed to be a dark night.

This version is as much notable for what it chooses to leave out as what it puts in.
I will come back to the dagger scene at there is another aspect to discuss, but staying on the subject of what is missing and where it most hurts the play I feel it is in the relationships, for example between Banquo and Macbeth.

The changes and cuts made here baffle me as to the why?

I have already noted that there seems a stiffness to their relationship, a lack of genuine warmth and friendship of two comrades of many years that is present in the original and other versions.

But in the build up to the murder in the original there is a scene between Banquo and Macbeth that shows Banquo's concerns that something is amiss with his friend ever since they encountered the witches. This scene is absent from the films- taken with the earlier presentation of them together it seems there is a deliberate choice to put some suspicion and distance between them from the off.

And I don't know why or what it is supposed to bring to the table.

The whole tragedy of Macbeth having his best friend murdered is that he is having his best friend murdered.

It doesn't work if he is not portrayed as his best friend.

The Banquo of this film is a nondescript character you don't really feel for.

The only reason I can think for doing this is an extra emphasis is put upon Banquo's young son Fleance in this version- the camera focuses more on him in the scenes with his father than it does upon Banquo- and this relates to the films ending, which I will discuss in due course.

But this shift of focus, coupled with the way the character of Banquo is played and Macbeth to him means as a viewer I didn't really care about Banquo when the time came for his offing- a scene which again focuses on the son not the father.

But I still do not see why that shift of visual focus in the father son scenes could not still have occurred and Banquo and Macbeth been portrayed as real friends.

If I didn't know already going into this film that they were friends I would not have guessed it from what is presented here.

Removing the scene between them in the build up tot he murder also quickens the pace, and this is true of all the sections leading to action, the tempo is upped often by the chopping down of dialogue, or by cutting scenes- and often it works in making the scenes flow with a natural pace, but also it sometimes cuts things which seem important, or lose too much of a relationship to make it still feel substantial.

The biggest problems lies here with the relationship between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth as things proceed.

So lets talk sex.

The King, having arrived is now at a feast hosted by the Macbeth's- and Macbeth is talking himself out of the murder.


This is the scene where Lady Macbeth convinces him to go ahead with the murder using her manipulative skills and her displaying her own, as she sees them, strengths of character in counterpoint to his cowardice to proceed.

She first taunts him that when he said he would do it, then he was a real man, now he isn't and from now on its this coward she will think of him as, after which she tells him that had she promised as he had to kill the king, to take the baby from her nipple as it was taking milk, and bash its head out on the rocks, she would do it, and so she shames him into the act.

So where's the bloody sex you promised to talk about you may be asking?

Well oddly enough its here, in this scene.

Now quite a few modern versions put a sex scene into their version of Macbeth, usually during the dialogue from the scenes where Macbeth comes home first with the news the King is coming to stay- and that's because its a bloody good place to put it- one of the things the original is quite clear on its sub-text is that Mr and Mrs Macbeth are the power couple of their day, they are on the rise, and they are a team. And they are really into each other- that passion is missing in this version between them, but the sex still appears.

In this case from the line 'screw your courage to the sticking place and we will not fail' she is humping him.

Worse as she reaches the peak of her argument to convince him he reaches his peak too.

Now Lady Macbeth is a manipulative smart woman, her aim here is to prime her husband up to commit a terrible murder- what she has actually done is produced a man who just wants to go for a kip.

Its an odd place for the sex scene.

And because we never see them just have a 'I  just really want to fuck your brains out because I cant keep my hands off you into each other sex' its association here is purely with manipulation.

And we lose the tragedy of the failing of their relationship, and going from a team to his self imposed isolation from everyone and particularly her as his mind crumbles under his own actions.

I mean yes in the text she is manipulating him and she is using his own self image, ideas of masculinity and femininity as contrast and shaming him through it to do what she wants, but this is really a place where the subtext did not need brought to the fore so crudely.

And so we find ourselves back at the dagger scene, and time to talk about that other aspect of it I mentioned. The post traumatic stress disorder in fact.

Usually directors pick between two ways to play this- either there is no visible dagger, the actor plays to the empty air as if seeing it, or there is some sort of floating/phantom dagger.

Here we see Macbeth on his won in silence preparing himself for the murder, intercut with flashbacks to the battle at the start- and in particular the slitting of the throat of a young boy on the battle field.

The dagger in this scene is therefore not floating in the air but in the hand of this boy.


On a nitpick in the flashback scenes the focus is on the boys face as he dies, and again on his face as Macbeth recognises him when he appears holding the dagger, but in the original battle the boys throat is slit from behind by Macebth, he never actually sees him face on.


Besides that point however this is a scene where this works very well for the modern viewer. It takes the dagger out of the realms of just general madness or witchcraft and places it in the realm of pts. It provides a rational explanation for Macbeth's hallucinations and or supernatural occurrences.
It also of course defines them as being caused by his pts and so removes the other options from the table.

But it does work well within its own context by giving the actor someone rather than something to address. And it works much better visually than a floating prop ever does however ell its done.

Lines such as , “Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going” said to the boy as he turns and walks towards the kings tent help lend an intimacy to the event that an inanimate object does not have. And looks visually much better than the actor following an invisible or a floating dagger.


The murder itself is gritty, brutal, bloody, as you would expect. Then inexplicably arty for no good reason when Macbeth after killing the King lies down on the bed next to him, intercut with shots of Lady Macbeth who is in the church.

At this point, as Macbeth sits now slumped beside the bed of the dead King the script takes a turn form the original and other versions.
.
The Kings heir Malcolm walks by and sees Macbeth slumped there, covered in blood, and holding the daggers in his hands. And dialogue taken from the morning scene when the body is discovered is moved here, with Macbeth telling Malcolm that his father has been murdered. And a line taken from something Macbeth says to the witches is moved here to make Macbeth seem to be passive aggressive- the word are all used with the aim of making it seem Macbeth is making thinly veiled threats.
Its clear thinking Malcolm knows who murdered his king takes the treats, and immediately takes to horse.


In the original there the blame is laid on the chamberlains of the king, who Macbeth kills before they can speak, but here everyone knows its Macbeth just no one calls him out on it.

Its an interesting change, and it does do away with a large chunk of the discovery of the body scene which is in part a short on the spot investigation of what happened before they decide to go away an talk about it and what is to be done.

The change essentially is that in the original he is known as a good, honourable loyal, heroic, man and when he takes power many still follow him because the idea it was Macbeth who did it just cant be true- he is not yet openly the Tyrant of Scotland. In this version he is from the moment he caught by Malcolm and its clear what he has done. Here Macbeth openly seizes power, in the original he is not openly guilty.

The famous washing the blood off the hands scene is intercut with Lady Macbeth returning the daggers and covering the intended guilty ones in the kings blood. And there is nothing on Lady Macbeth washing her hands- this is an odd change too, as her later speech before her suicide she is rein-acting washing the blood from her hands.

The change seems to be made because in this version her mental state, and his his is tied to the loss of their child buried at the films opening, and as this comes back into play regards the pre suicide speech, despite the dialogue about “Out, out damned spot,” that scene is about the child. Therefore there is no reason to highlight the hand washing here.

We also lose the odd stilted dialogue that follows the murder. Where Shakespeare has everyone speak in short sentences in-comparison to the norm, yes no answers. It creates a sense of shock, that having done the thing they are now realising that every thing has changed too. I always liked that bit, but it is not present here.

Also not present I the character of the Porter, the light comic relief who follows the murder event and herald sin the new day talking about buckie and its effects on the libido versus performance.
But there is no such fodder for the Groundlings in this version, its all high brow and dark and gritty and grim here so the porter gets excused his part entirely.

The scene with the aftermath of the discovery is brief, most of the dialogue either having been cut or already used elsewhere and thing proceed quickly from there to the revelation that the blame has fallen on Macolm having fled to England, and that Macbeth has been made named next King.

And so finally we reach Glamis Castle in this version for the coronation.


The particularly good thing about the aftermath here is we get a proper look at the character of MacDuff, but more on him later as he is the best thing in the final half of the film (which I have now watched- so I will I am afraid to tell you be continuing with this review further.

{{{{Sorry David!}}}}}

He can yap when he wants too !

I, for my sins, watched the reboot of "Fantastic 4" & I liked it a lot better than the Ioan Gruffudd version of 2005, ( blimey, 10 yrs ago !) To me it felt as though the comic I was reading was alive. I liked the atmosphere of it. It wasnt cheesy or cringe making as the 2005 version was in places. That version only had Johnny Storm to keep it going. This version had a better Ben Grimm,they were shown as boys at school growing up as friends & later "Ben" & "Reed" get spotted & head off for greater things. sadly Reed Richards wasnt stretchy enough, if at all. just got a glimpse of his elastic arms & legs. Saw more of Mr Fricassee fireballing about. But, it wasnt that bad. Its had critics slag it but I thought it was better than the 1st one. Victor Von Doom wasnt around long enough to be evil but....there might be a follow up ? who knows ?

Watched "Krampus" today If you liked The Burbs or Gremlins you will like this tho The Burbs is, I think, far superior. It had the family arrive at Christmas who youde really rather had not, the humour & the frantic cat & mouse chasing. It was cheesy in places but, I liked it :

Az, I loved Krampus! Glad you enjoyed it. It's definitely going into my holiday movie rotation!

Just got back from 10 Cloverfield Lane. Loved it. Don't want to spoil anything. Two thumbs way up.

Yeah I did enjoy Krampus Bungo Ive seen a trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane & Goodman plays it brilliantly Not in UK yet I dont think but deffo worth a watch !

haha this looks great. This small time crook falls into a river full of radiation waste and becomes an anti-superhero.    its based on a Japanese cartoon.


with subtitles
https://vimeo.com/153906155

I really enjoyed that.

I liked the look of it, just wished I knew what they were saying

theres a subtitled version Az. I am pretty sure its available.

https://vimeo.com/153906155

Thankyou Figgy that was kind of you

Watched "Dead Pool", loved it ! thought it was great ! The wise cracking banter was racing & Ryan Reynolds was thee guy to play it ! It had everything but the kitchen sink thrown in, so many nods to other xmen, himself even, it just rolled ! Worth watching !!

Deadpool was awesome!