When shall we three meet again?
by Allan Fish
(UK 1971 140m) DVD1/2
Out, out, brief candle…
p Hugh Hefner, Roman Polanski, Andrew Braunsberg d Roman Polanski w Roman Polanski, Kenneth Tynan play William Shakespeare ph Gil Taylor ed Alastair McIntyre m The Third Ear Band art Fred Carter, Wilfrid Shingleton cos Anthony Mendleson spc Ted Samuels
Jon Finch (Macbeth, Thane of Glamis), Francesca Annis (Lady Macbeth), Martin Shaw (Banquo), Nicholas Selby (Duncan I of Scotland), John Stride (Ross), Stephan Chase (Prince, later Malcolm III), Paul Shelley (Donalbain, later Donald III), Terence Bayler (Macduff), Andrew Laurence (Lennox), Bruce Purchase (Caithness), Keith Chegwin (Fleance), Diane Fletcher (Lady Macduff),
Those four words seem to be the most fitting way to describe Polanski’s film of Shakespeare’s Scottish play. One must put its making in the context of when it was made. It was Polanski’s first film since the horrific murder of his beloved Sharon Tate, another candle snubbed out before its time. In a way, Polanski’s film seems equal parts confession and expurgation, with just a hint of exorcism thrown in. This, to my mind, is his darkest film, because it shows that much more of his own soul in its running time than the rest of his work put together.
At the time of its release, critics didn’t know what to make of it. Purists decried it, paying special attention to Lady Macbeth doing her sleepwalking scene au naturel. Yet the same critics also denounced Polanski for having leads too young for the parts. Yes, the real Macbeth and Gruoch (never named by Shakespeare) were a generation older, but nor did the real Macbeth murder Duncan in his bed, but rather kill him in battle, while the real king also made a pilgrimage to Rome and was buried at Iona – hardly the end fitting a usurping traitor. What’s more, if authenticity is what they desired, then Annis sleeping naked was accurate for the time. More likely, it would not have been the subject of such vitriol, had not Tuesday Weld rejected the role because of the scene, thus drawing attention to it, and had not Playboy given backing to the film.
Negligees not common in 11th Century Scotland
Purists had other complaints, however, namely that the leads didn’t have the skill to reach up to the real poetry of Shakespeare’s soliloquies. It’s true they may not have had the oratorical command of say Maurice Evans and Judith Anderson on stage before them and Ian McKellen and Judi Dench after, but they give nonetheless superb, natural performances as the treasonous young couple. Annis was certainly never better than as the scheming Lady, while Finch nonetheless expressed a real sense of foreboding in not just a delivery but his very demeanour.
To many the most contentious decision was to have many of Macbeth’s speeches delivered as effective voice-overs, almost literal soliloquies in themselves. Yet the same critics perhaps forgot how Olivier used the same practice on the most famous soliloquy of all in Hamlet, and in many ways having the protagonist constantly arguing with his own mind perfectly captured the inner maelstroms of the character. To my mind, it’s Polanski’s greatest coup, though he is also backed up by the superb contributions of his designer Shingleton and costumier Haffenden, and particularly DP Taylor. Numerous images stay with you; several gorgeous sunsets, the first sunlit shot of Lady Macbeth in the castle courtyard, the rain-swept track where the witches lair lies, the advance of Birnam Wood over the horizon, the first appearance of Banquo’s ghost, the hideously naked witches incanting the immortal words over their cauldron, and of course the candlelit nude sleepwalking scene, which Annis carries off superbly well. It was accused of being over-violent, and was unfavourably compared to Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood. But that was merely a reinterpretation, missing as it was the entire text, and if it may not quite match the Japanese masterpiece, it’s still a vital, bloody, paganistic, and visceral take on the tale too long maligned by grossly mistaken critics. Over time, Polanski’s exorcism will come to be regarded as one of the great Shakespearean adaptations.
Fantastic review of a great Polanski film and one of the best Shakespeare adapatations.
Marvelous review, Allan. I’m an avid enthusiast for this film, one of Polanski’s finest hours in my estimation, wrought as it is with the demons that doubtless haunted him when he made it. The hideously violent sequence involving the extinguishing of Macduff’s wife and child is one of the cinema’s most nakedly, diaphanously illuminative portals into the dark recesses of the director behind its creation. This most intensely personal take on Shakespeare’s elegiac tragedy by Polanski certainly does rank as one of the greatest of Shakespeare adaptations.
Couldn’t agree more, Alexander. Hope you’re feeling better.
That is quite an answer there Alexander, you are surely the “master of the comment.” Glad to see you are on the mend, what with your fecund observations.
A great and bloody Polanski film.
Unfortunately the preponderance of corpses piling up in this over-the-top film prevents one from appreciating Shakespeare’s poetry. What horrors can you really imagine, when Polanski leaves nothing to the imagination? The film is admittedly well-acted, but it’s all black-and-white. I respect mr. Fish’s well-written review, but this film is no rightful “Macbeth” sad to say.
We’ll agree to disagree, Peter.
I don’t quite agree with Peter, but neither do I think that this is remotely the best Shakespeare adaptation, or even the best of this play. The Welles is superior, for one.
Have to disagree there, Joe, the Welles Macbeth is little more than mediocre. It’s not remotely within hailing distance of Othello, let alone Chimes at Midnight.
It’s not Chimes, this is true, but the Welles Othello is overated. And it is still better than the Polanski. (IMO)
………….great movie, terrific review……….