Print
  • Share/Bookmark

Macbeth (BBC, 1983) starring Nicol Williamson

buy Region 2 DVD on Amazon

© 2005 John Murphy

Nicol Williamson’s voice curiously combines the sound of a rumbling train and a hissing snake. I mention this because it’s borderline distracting, and only adds to the suspicion that Williamson has been beamed in from another planet. John Osborne claimed he was the greatest actor since Marlon Brando, and both thespians unquestionably share an exclusionary eccentricity. Williamson doesn’t seem comfortable in his elongated body; his hangdog face stays mostly immobile as his eyes dart about feverishly, and his breath comes in start-stop bursts. No one could accuse Williamson of cribbing his delivery from any other Macbeth that I know of: his voice seems to shift octaves at random. Yet Williamson’s performance is effective because Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s most insular characters, a powerful warrior who nonetheless tends to be top-heavy, dwelling anxiously on the painted pictures of his “heat-oppressed brain.” In other words, the part doesn’t suffer from being infused with a quirky, off-kilter quality.

Compared to Williamson, Jane Lapotaire is a somewhat more conventional Lady Macbeth, but it’s not a problem. She certainly looks the part: sharp cheekbones, high-arching eyebrows, and raven-black hair. She’s shrewd, sexy, and two-faced. For these usually tame BBC productions, I was surprised by the overt sexuality of her reading of the famous “Come, you spirits, that tend on mortal thoughts” soliloquy, a reading punctuated by the heavy breathing and satisfied smile commonly associated with the tail-end of an orgasm. Is that what she calls being “unsexed”? Unexpected, but it works. Certainly got my attention, at least.

The more productions of Macbeth I see, the more I’m convinced that the play is not only about the ill-effects of ruthless ambition, but also the crumbling of a once-passionate marriage. This subtext came across most strongly in the recent Sean Pertwee Macbeth (a very good version that I highly recommend), and is present here as well. As Macbeth’s power grows, and his guilt concomitantly, he resents the role his wife played in egging him on to the blood-soaked throne. Rejected, she goes insane and Macbeth becomes the fiend-like monster his wife once seemed to be.

This is a solid, if not inspired production of an incredibly dark play. The acting’s not as good as in Trevor Nunn’s version and the visuals can’t hold a candle to Welles’ fever dream vision of 1948. Its main strengths are the two lead performances and the fact that the text survives on screen virtually uncut. However, you’d be doing yourself a disservice if you didn’t check out Trevor Nunn’s late 70’s Macbeth starring Ian Mckellen and Judi Dench. That’s the darkest and most emotionally draining interpretation of the play I’ve seen. It’s a must-see, while this is more of a curiosity piece.

  • Share/Bookmark

Macbeth (1971) directed by Roman Polanski

buy DVD on Amazon

© 2002 John Murphy

It is difficult to watch Roman Polanski’s haunting Macbeth and not be uncomfortably reminded of the gruesome circumstances that inspired it. In the late sixties, Polanski was shit-hot off the success of Rosemary’s Baby. He had a beautiful wife, an expectant child, and a posh house in Beverly Hills. Then the gravy train derailed with the brutal, senseless murder of his pregnant wife and three friends at the hands of would-be messianic wacko, Charles Manson, and his gang of devotees. What this did to Polanski, already a childhood survivor of the Holocaust, is anybody’s guess. One can be sure, however, that his choice of source material for his next film was not a coincidence.

Polanski’s next project, financed by Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner, was an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Polanski does not impose his own pessimistic vision of the world on the play, as some have supposed. Rather, the “Scottish Play” itself is already a moody masterpiece of violence and viscera, dark incantations and spectral visitations. Dainty productions showcasing high diction and affected poses miss the point entirely. This is a bleak, almost overtly nihilistic piece-of-work. No one listening to Macbeth’s famous “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow” speech could doubt that. The play is one of Shakespeare’s shortest, and shoots like an arrow at its target: a dark vision of a world “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

So what does Polanski bring to the table? Plenty of sound and fury, as it turns out. This version is a far cry from Orson Welles’ stagy, highly stylized noir Macbeth. Polanski favors a brutally realistic, down-and-dirty approach to the text. The Northern Wales location provides a constant torrent of rain and an empty gray landscape that seems almost lunar. The witches are dirty, ugly hags from a Bosch painting. Pigs scurry through the muddy ground of Inverness. Characters look hygiene-challenged. I like the moment, for example, when King Duncan and Macbeth embrace early in the film and a cloud of dust flies off the well-traveled Macbeth’s cloak. And when the time comes for Duncan’s summons “To Heaven or to Hell,” the scene (offstage in the play) is played as comically horrific. Duncan writhes and twists, trying to fend off Macbeth, who repeatedly jabs at him with his dagger. I didn’t know whether to laugh or wince. Same with Macbeth and Macduff’s penultimate battle: Their fight sequence is clumsy and stupid-looking. Kind of like a real fight.
In other words, Polanski doesn’t grovel before a sacrosanct text. He wrestles with the words, and brings his own not insignificant talent to bear on the source. Polanski’s vision has a catalyst in the performances. Macbeth, as played by Jon Finch, possesses a hypnotically brooding gaze and an intense delivery. Despite his young age (a different spin on the part―usually Macbeth is middle-aged) he seems perpetually tormented, both before and after gaining the crown. Though physically slight for the warrior-poet he is purportedly portraying, I found his performance gripping and his command of the text impressive. His weary reading of the “Tomorrow” speech, done mostly in voice-over, is affecting.
A weak point of the movie is Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth. Polanksi opts for a younger, less manipulative variation on the theme of the infamous Lady M. Annis resembles the blonde-waif heroines of Polanski’s previous films (think Mia Farrow and Catherine Deneuve), but it just doesn’t work. Lady Macbeth is a strong and calculating prototype femme fatale, not a wispy, breathy-voiced non-entity. When Macbeth tells his wife “We shall think no further on this business” (i.e. let’s not kill Duncan) Lady Macbeth bursts into tears and speaks her lines with a halting, whimpering delivery. The effect is laughable, not convincing. Annis is by no means a bad actor, but I can’t see how this interpretation holds any dramatic water. Finch has too much gravitas in his performance to seem appropriately whipped by a fussy Lady Macbeth. And her by now infamous nude sleepwalking scene (a source of controversy at the time of the film’s release) seems both tame and gratuitous. I don’t see the point of it, unless it was to appease the movie’s producer, Hefner. Annis rallies for one stunning scene, however, her last in the film and a departure from the text. After Lady Macbeth has already started to lose her grip on reality, Polanski creates a scene where she reads the letter Macbeth wrote to her earlier in the play (informing her of the witches’ prophecy). She is visibly cracking under the guilt of her actions: her voice trembles and her hands shake as she reads Macbeth’s words to her, his “Dearest partner in greatness.” It is a chilling scene, and an effective alteration of the original.
Polanski falters when he veers away from his naturalistic approach and attempts stylistic flourishes. The “Is this a dagger I see before me” sequence is a particular howler. The dagger of Macbeth’s mind is a sparkling, chintzy-looking bit of special effects that elicits groans from the viewer. Equally groan-inducing is the appearance of Banquo’s ghost at Macbeth’s dinner table. Banquo’s ghost spews buckets of blood from its wounds as it pursues a retreating, horrified Macbeth. The effect is ridiculous, not terrifying.
“Terrifying,” however, is the best word to describe the slaughter of Lady Macduff, her children, and servants at the hands of Macbeth’s lackeys. This is the scene that must have hit closest to home for Polanski, since it is virtually a re-enactment of his own wife’s murder by the Manson “family.” Polanski pulls no punches. Having already witnessed the murder of her son, Lady Macduff runs through her castle in an attempt to escape. She sees the rape of one of her servants and stumbles into a room with the blood-smeared corpses of the castle’s other occupants piled together. The effect is truly horrifying and eerily authentic.
Polanski ends the film with a grim epilogue representative of his pessimistic outlook. Macbeth has been defeated by the forces of good. Macduff has exacted his revenge and the noble Malcolm has been restored to his rightful place as King of Scotland. All’s well that ends well. Polanski here inserts a brief, wordless sequence of Donalbain, Malcolm’s brother, visiting the Three Weird Sisters. It’s a haunting reflection of how Polanski perceives man’s true nature. The forces of order and goodness cannot last long when pitted against man’s innate cruelty and ambition. Polanski’s vision is nihilistic, if not anarchistic. I can’t help but imagine how Macbeth’s chilling words must have resonated with the long-suffering auteur:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

  • Share/Bookmark

Macbeth (1998) starring Sean Pertwee, directed by Michael Bogdanov

buy DVD on Amazon

© 2005 John Murphy

Mad Max Macbeth

From the back of the box: “Sean Pertwee plays the painfully ambitious royal who schemes to murder so he can ascend to the throne in this superior version of William Shakespeare’s literary classic. Spurred by the pressure exerted by his equally power-hungry wife, Lady Macbeth (Greta Scacchi), the Thane conspires to kill, but is so overcome with guilt that he’s unable to wash the blood off his hands — literally and figuratively.”

I was aware of Sean Pertwee long before seeing his Macbeth. I first encountered the sandy-haired, gravelly-voiced actor as the honorable Hugh Beringar in the Cadfael mystery series starring Sir Derek Jacobi, and later as the eerily detached “Father” from the excellent (and criminally overlooked) action movie Equilibrium. My mom and two sisters took a fancy to his rugged features and mellifluous voice and so this movie was a must-see.

Macbeth as a post-apocalyptic action flick? Why not? It works. Though I confess I had to stifle a laugh on first seeing Macbeth and Banquo zooming about the blasted heaths on motorcycles. And after their encounter with the three witches, the weird sisters quite literally dissemble into the air, transformed via homemade computer graphics from grimy bag ladies into kitsch computer pixels. Again, I politely stifled a laugh. Ergo, I was pretty skeptical for the first twenty minutes or so, but was ultimately won over by the quality of the performances and the production’s cohesive vision.

Greta Scacchi dominates the first portion of the movie as the woman of “undaunted mettle,” Lady Macbeth. Scacchi plays Lady M as on edge from the get-go, a neurotic and highly combustible force of nature. She’s sexy when she needs to be, but can turn on a dime and become a shrill-shrieking banshee as the occasion calls for it. Scacchi looked appropriately exhausted and spread-thin during the Act II, scene 2 nocturnal murder of Duncan. “My hands are of your color,” she says, heavy bags beneath her eyes, “But I shame to wear a heart so white.” And to a certain degree, she’s right. Up until that point, Lady M’s been wearing the pants in the family.

Sean Pertwee struck me at first as a dull and unconsidered Macbeth, too ball-busted by his wife, too much posturing in Bono shades and leather jackets. A solid Macbeth, if not inspired. But Pertwee’s initially lackluster quality proves to be a canny, calculated move on his part. Because it’s not until Macbeth has killed Duncan that Pertwee really steps up to the plate and knocks it out of the ballpark. Suddenly, the tables have turned. Macbeth has found his manhood (heretofore questioned by Lady M) through killing Duncan. He transforms from a meat-and-potatoes soldier under the thumb of his better half into a tyrannical Nihilistic monster. Pertwee, likewise, comes alive in the second half and commands the screen with his new found intensity. Even Lady M looks almost sick to hear her formerly “infirm of purpose” husband say later (in reference to the death of Banquo).

Come, seeling night,
Scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day,
And with thy bloody and invisible hand
Cancel and tear to pieces that great bond
Which keeps me pale! Light thickens, and the crow
Makes wing to the rooky wood.
Good things of day begin to droop and drowse,
Whiles night’s black agents to their preys do rouse.

Creepy. Macbeth’s transformation from loyal soldier to nihilist poet is complete.  Meanwhile, Macbeth’s wife, neglected, takes to pill-popping and drinking to fend off impending madness. There are highly visible character arcs in this production. It’s a fresh and fascinating interpretation, and probably the most lucid reading of the relationship (read: power struggle) between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth that I’ve seen on film.

The director, Michael Bogdanov, puts different spins on canonical scenes. The ghost of the murdered Banquo appearing at Macbeth’s dinner party is given a classic treatment. Rather than cowering in fear and horror of the ghost, as in most versions I’ve seen, this Macbeth leaps onto the dinner table, pulls a gun, and starts unloading rounds at the specter. I half expected him to say, with de Niro-like relish, “You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me?” When the ghost disappears, Macbeth turns and says to his horrified wife, “Being gone, I am a man again.” That line leapt out at me like never before, and made sense like never before.

Threatened masculinity becomes a central theme in this production. Macbeth tells his wife early in the play, “I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares do more is none.” Lady M acidly responds, “When you durst do it (murder Duncan), then you were a man.” The noble Macduff, Macbeth’s foil, learns of his family’s slaughter at the hands of the tyrant and openly weeps. Malcolm, true heir to the throne, tells him, “Dispute it like a man.” Macduff answers, “I shall do so; but I must also feel it as a man.” This production highlights the theme of manhood and threatened masculinity better than any others I’ve seen.

Appropriately, then, Pertwee plays a macho, swaggering Macbeth, determined to prove his masculinity. Macbeth’s last stand in the final act resembles Al Pacino’s gun-wielding Scarface, going down in a glorious blaze of bullets. High school teachers and university professors teaching this play, in search of good film adaptations, should take note of this production’s accessibility and relevancy. As a male college student, I can vouch for being compelled by all the gunplay and macho posturing, as well as Macbeth’s rock star fashion accoutrements and a pseudo-techno soundtrack. Though I love both Orson Welles’ and Roman Polanski’s versions of the play, and think the Trevor Nunn/Ian McKellen production best all around, this adaptation would play very well for younger audiences.

What the movie lacks in decent special effects it makes up for with intelligent and convincing characterizations by the actors and the visual imagination of the director. Like Welles’ equally money-strapped 1948 Macbeth, this version appears to have been produced on the relative cheap, but compensates with a vim, vigor, and imaginative vitality that sweeps the audience along. Clocking in at a lean 90 minutes, this Macbeth breezes by in a flurry of sound and fury. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

  • Share/Bookmark

BardVids from Ian McKellen's 1978 Macbeth

Here are a couple of wonderful vidclips from Trevor Nunn’s 1978 Macbeth, starring Ian McKellen and Judi Dench. The video quality isn’t great, but it should give you an idea of what this wonderful production has to offer, starring two of the greatest actors of our time:

“It was the owl that shrieked…”

YouTube Preview Image

The Banquet Scene:

YouTube Preview Image

Click here to read our review of Trevor Nunn’s 1978 Macbeth, starring Ian McKellen and Judi Dench

  • Share/Bookmark

Macbeth (1978) starring Ian McKellen & Judi Dench, directed by Trevor Nunn

buy DVD on Amazon

buy DVD on Amazon© 2005 John Murphy

The set is sparse, dark, perpetually fog-filled. A Caravaggio-inspired lighting scheme picks out the actors’ faces from the deep shadow around them. Shakespeare’s words, in this context, take on a visionary vividness. As with Kevin Kline’s filmed stage production of Hamlet, the words in Trevor Nunn’s Macbeth are emphasized and given life by some of the finest actors around. This is essentially a filmed version of the legendary stage production put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1976.  Despite the absence of many requisite “cinematic” elements, this is by far the most satisfying adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth (not including Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood) that I’ve seen. Considering the success of the Kevin Kline Hamlet and now this, I’m beginning to think a bare-bones approach is the way to do it. With actors the caliber of Ian McKellen and Judi Dench, lavish sets and props would be an afterthought, even a distraction. Instead, they control the screen with their fierce, combustible passion.

Through his actors, Nunn preys on the audience’s imagination. Instead of spoon-feeding us a steady, predictable diet of horror show gore and carnage, Nunn emphasizes the imagistic poetry of Shakespeare’s language. The language, channeled through such superior interpreters as McKellen and Dench, takes on an expressionistic life of its own. “Full of scorpions is my mind,” Macbeth confesses to his wife. The horror is internal, not external, and Shakespeare’s words have a terrifying immediacy that only the imagination can do justice. I felt a chill down my spine as Macbeth says, “Light thickens, and the crow makes wing to the rooky wood. Good things of day begin to droop and drowse, whilst night’s black agents to their prey do rouse.” The barren set, then, is a mindscape, a blank canvas on which the audience paints its own fears.

McKellen brings a forceful vitality to a difficult role. This is a warrior, after all, and McKellen walks a razor’s edge with his performance. This warrior is tightly strung. His watery eyes bulge and face contorts with each newfangled creation of his “heat-oppressed brain.” Macbeth is doomed to be “bound up in saucy fears” by his own overwrought imagination. Guilt for him is a visionary construct, an “air drawn dagger” and the bleeding ghost of his former friend, Banquo. McKellen gives a dynamic performance, full of movement and nervous mannerisms. When Macbeth is consumed by a paralyzing nihilism in the fifth act, the sudden stillness of McKellen’s body language is striking. He delivers the “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” soliloquy with a scary sense of calm resignation.

Earlier in the play, he hung on his wife as if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on. The camera hovers within inches of their faces, and the effect is discomforting, voyeuristic. Judi Dench is hardly the best-looking Lady Macbeth I’ve seen, but she carries herself with such commanding swagger that it’s not hard to imagine why Macbeth is so smitten. Yet for all Lady Macbeth’s ball-breaking, Dench understands that eventually her character goes insane with guilt. When she says in the beginning, “Come you spirits, that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,” the words are spoken as a true, and truly dark, incantation. So dark, in fact, it rattles even Lady Macbeth’s steely nerves. She breaks off her words and retreats, seemingly shaken. Gathering her strength she crouches down once more and finishes what she started. It’s a bravura delivery, matched later by her performance of the famous sleepwalking scene. This is where many actors falter, because the transition from cold-hearted bitch to guilt-stricken lunatic can be jarring. Dench handles the transition seamlessly. She lets out a primal scream during this scene that is so emotionally naked I could hardly watch. And yet I couldn’t take my eyes off her.

That pretty much describes the impact of this production. It’s ironic that of all Macbeth versions this is the least explicit, least violent, but is the most difficult to watch. I felt drained by the end. McKellen and Dench give such powerhouse performances the effect is of watching the complete mental disintegration of two people happen before your eyes. Impenetrable shadows surround the characters, literally and figuratively. Nunn strips the play of all extraneous trappings and what is left are the words. When the author is Shakespeare, that’s not a bad way to go about it.

click here to watch video clips from Trevor Nun’s 1978 Macbeth

  • Share/Bookmark

Macbeth (1948), directed by and starring Orson Welles

buy DVD on Amazon

© 2004 John Murphy

Harold Bloom called Macbeth Shakespeare’s most “Expressionistic” play. It is only appropriate, then, that America’s most Expressionistic filmmaker, Orson Welles, settled on “The Scottish Play” as his first foray into Bard adaptation (later followed by Othello and Chimes at Midnight). Macbeth was an appropriate choice for the auteur, considering some kind of curse had apparently befallen the once wined-and-dined star of theatre, radio, and film. After the tour-de-force debut of Citizen Kane in 1941, Welles’ star dimmed quickly. A series of debacles followed his precocious masterpiece, and by 1948 Hollywood suits had labeled the one-time prodigy “box-office poison.”

Yet bloated budgets and smooth edges are not prerequisites to good filmmaking. No one knew this better than the perpetually money-strapped Welles. Once he’d been ostracized from the studio system, the faded Wunderkind spent the majority of his career making pseudo-masterpieces from funds scraped together by the odd acting job.  Despite the monetary constraints, Welles proves that, for a director, a little imagination and visual verve can make up for a tight purse.

Macbeth was produced on the relative cheap (about $500,000), filmed at a breakneck pace (about twenty days), and the result is a haggard, stylized tone poem. This is Shakespeare as lurid film noir. The messy quality somehow makes it more compelling, mostly because Welles’ unsurpassed visual imagination compensates for the low-end production values. He embraces the supernatural aspects of the play: stylized sets serving for blasted heath and dank castles blanketed in fog and lit in high contrast B & W. Askew angles and Welles’ signature deep-focus photography make for bold, innovative compositions. Gothic flourishes like the silhouetted Weird Sisters seem fever-dream induced. Plenty of sound and fury to be found here. Even a master stylist like Kurosawa borrowed liberally from Welles for his own Macbeth adaptation, Throne of Blood. Check out both films’ “Not ’Til Birnam Wood come to Dunsinane!” sequences and see how Kurosawa compared notes with Welles.

The performances follow Welles’ film noir aesthetic. Jeannette Nolan understands that Lady Macbeth is among drama’s ultimate femme fatales and plays her like a vampish shrew with a boot of a face but a killer body. She moves with a robot’s efficiency, and always seems to tower over her whipped husband in the early portion of the film. Welles proceeds to diminish her place in the frame as her power wanes and she descends into despair and madness. Nolan’s strong performance and Welles’ equally solid turn in the title role are the foundation of this movie. Their theatrical Scottish brogues are occasionally cringe-inducing, but the intense love their characters have for each other is palpable. As Bloom also pointed out, M. and Lady M. are the happiest married couple in the Bard’s canon. Welles highlights Macbeth’s egomaniacal tendencies in the latter portion of the play, an interpretation the actor/director seems well-suited for.

The supporting cast is largely negligible, but the interest here lies in the hallucinatory intensity of the images. The nightmarish world Welles creates, a world of overt nihilism oddly coupled with doomed fate, makes the skin crawl. Though the text is gutted and some of the acting too shoddy to make this anywhere near a definitive version of Macbeth, Welles’ endless sense of invention carries him through. This is a must-see for anyone with more than a passing interest in Orson Welles or Shakespeare’s most feverishly intense play.

Here’s a vidclip of the film’s opening:

YouTube Preview Image
  • Share/Bookmark

A Glance Back at OSF 2009

Equivocation, photo by Jenny Graham

Equivocation, photo by Jenny Graham

Notwithstanding the gorgeous production of Death and the King’s Horseman starring Derrick Lee Weeden, the hugely entertaining Music Man starring Michel Elich, the side-splittingly funny Servant of Two Masters, and a wonderfully inventive production of All’s Well That Ends Well that actually made me, at least for two hours, actually like that ornery problem play, when friends visiting Ashland asked me last summer which plays to take in at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, my answer was invariably, “see Equivocation first”. And this from a playgoer notorious, when limited by time or pecuniary considerations, for choosing yet another Othello production over some new play, however loud the general buzz.

And the general buzz for the world premiere production of Equivocation, written by Bill Cain and directed by OSF Artistic Director Bill Rauch, was very loud indeed.

With a cast of six playing an exhausting number of multiple parts, led by Anthony Heald as Shag (Shakespeare), it was a marvelous production that confirmed me in a growing suspicion that Bill Rauch has a nearly pitch-perfect theatrical sense. Productions need to be intelligent, to be sure, and Rauch is certainly that; but he’s also one of the too-few directors who understands that the worst sin in theatre, at least from the audience’s standpoint, is to be boring. Especially at live theatre prices. I’ve yet to see Rauch deliver a ho-hum show, and this one was edge-of-your-seat stuff.

My favorite moments in Equivocation: just about any of them with Jonathan Haugen as Robert Cecil — would I love to see him do a Richard III! Then there’s John Tuft’s “wee Jamie of Scotland”, and the riveting what-if concoctions featuring Gregory Linington as a Black Legend caricature of Fr. Henry Garnet-by-way-of-Macbeth. (“How now, you secret, black and midnight priest!) Delicious, that.

As for the play itself, Equivocation is intriguing and often brilliant, with sparkling, funny dialogue. It is flawed in my view, however, by the playwright’s attempt to shoehorn some gender-equality, by way of a subplot involving Shakespeare’s daughter Judith, into what is otherwise a rip-roaring guy-thriller about the Gunpowder Plot as it might have been staged by the Bard at the command of Robert Cecil. There was, moreover, one moment, in many ways the thematic “climax” of the show, which I’m afraid I simply could not buy, though I laughed anyway: the moment where Shag, wondering how the hell he can possibly tell the truth about the Gunpowder Plot without getting himself hung, drawn and quartered, , comes to Fr. Garnet in prison and begs him to teach him how to “tell the truth in difficult times”; i.e., how to “equivocate”.

Say, what? Since when did the Maestro need remedial assistance on talking out both sides of his mouth…on taking away with his right hand what he’s just given you with his left? (See the paragraph below beginning with, “As for the little produced Henry VIII…)

Anyway, flawed or no, I saw Equivocation three times, met several people who had seen it five times, and there’s been Pulitzer Prize buzz about it to boot, so who am I to quibble?

Besides, in the end Equivocation also re-launched my longstanding interest in the “Catholic Shakespeare” question, a subject which has been getting more and more scholarly attention of late. (Go here for an interview I did a few years back with Claire Asquith, who wrote a popular book on the subject, Shadowplay.)

But while we’re on the subject of the Catholic Thing and the Gunpowder Plot, in a canny bit of season scheduling, Macbeth and Henry VIII were also on the 2009 OSF roster. I wasn’t a huge fan of the Macbeth production, to be perfectly frank. A friend of mine opined that the Macbeths (Peter Macon & Robin Goodrin Nordli) seemed to be in a different production than the rest of the cast, and I personally preferred the half with Kevin Kenerly as Macduff and Rex Young as Banquo. I did, however, adore Macon’s breezy turn as the Duke in Much Ado About Nothing and Nordli’s over-the-top bawdy in Don Quixote, starring Armando Duran in one of his loveliest OSF roles.

As for the rarely staged Henry VIII, though a weak play by Shakepsearean standards, the OSF production was well worth seeing, particularly for the gorgeous costumes and primo performances by Vilma Silva as Katherine, Anthony Heald as Wolsey, and Michael Elich as the doomed Buckingham. The show also lended fascinating context to Equivocation, not only as historical background to the origin of the Protestant Reformation in England, but as a perfect example of Shakespeare’s own genius for “equivocation” — i.e., his neck-saving propensity for monarchical arse-kissing counterpointed by elusive and subversive double meanings…and the occasional politically incorrect zinger, such as the following exchange in Act II between the Chamberlain and Suffolk on the subject of the King’s marital melancholy:

CHAMBERLAIN:

It seems the marriage with his brother’s wife
Has crept too near his conscience.

SUFFOLK:

No, his conscience
Has crept too near another lady.

Ouch. English historian David Starkey, who is an atheist, by the way, put it this way:

The old high-Protestant English view, that Henry was operating out of high moral motives and had profound high moral scruples about his first marriage, is manifest nonsense. He decides to marry Anne first and then, afterwards, decides to develop moral scruples like a bad case of German measles.

To top it all off, our Bard makes Catholic Queen Katherine the heroine and martyr of the play — how he got by with that in James I’s England, it would be interesting to know.

A wonderful season. Can’t wait for February, 2010!

  • Share/Bookmark

Roland Emmerich's upcoming De Vere-was-the-Bard movie vs. Bill Cain's Equivocation and the-Bard (Will)-was-a-Catholic stage play

anthony_heald_equivocation

photo by Jenny Graham

I know, I know, the Identity Question can be a real pain in the tuchus, but this looks like fun:

Film director Roland Emmerich, who has given us huge planet-killing flicks like 2012, has announced his intention of directing a different sort of (forgive me) what-if fantasy, this one forwarding the so-called “Oxfordian” theory that the author of the Shakespeare Plays was really Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Go here for a mini-interview with Emmerich on the subject.)

With a name like Murphy, I suppose I may be forgiven for having come to think that all the little mysteries and conundrums surrounding the Bard’s life, “hidden years” and famous religio-political slipperiness are more elegantly answered by the theory, steadily gaining ground among Shakespeare scholars, including Stephen Greenblatt, that Shakespeare’s roots and sympathies were Catholic at a time in England when that was a potentially dangerous attitude to express.

For more on the latter, see the new Bill Cain play, Equivocation, recently premiered at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. An exploration of the influence of the infamous Gunpowder Plot on a wizened Shakespeare who can’t quite shake his Catholic roots, even when commissioned by master Machiavel Robert Cecil to write a play on the Plot imbued with governmental spin,  the rip-roaring OSF production, directed by OSF artistic director Bill Rauch, was a huge hit. I saw it three times and have talked to at least two people who saw it five times. The OSF production has since gone onto Seattle, another production has opened in Los Angeles and a third is  in the works in New York. Indeed, Equivocation has evoked such a buzz—the word “Pulitzer” has been bandied about on more than one occasion—that I suspect ir will soon be produced all over the country.

(N.B. I’m working on an article on the subject of Shakespeare-as-Catholic, what it might mean and what it doesn’t mean, using Equivocation as a point of reference.)

  • Share/Bookmark

Patrick Stewart on playing Macbeth

Patrick StewartAmerican Theater Wing, founder of the Tony Awards, has posted an audio interview with Patrick Stewart, who is currently playing Macbeth on Broadway…put money in my purse!

For those of you who, like me, alack, cannot afford the plane & theater tickets, the link to the interview, at least, is here.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Moral Order of Macbeth

macbeth-dvd.jpgThere’s a very thoughtful commentary on Macbeth by Harry V. Jaffa over at the Claremont Institute. The essay investigates the declining morality of Western civilization vis-a-vis three of its literature’s most memorable anti-heroes: Macbeth, Raskolnikov of Dostovesky’s Crime and Punishment, and Camus’ Stranger, Merseault.

The message—I am tempted to call it the moral—of Macbeth, is the inexorability of the moral order. Macbeth’s soliloquy in act 1 tells us with perfect clarity why the murder must fail. The action that follows bears out the truth of that soliloquy. Not only does the plot fail, but neither Macbeth nor Lady Macbeth is allowed one moment of enjoyment of the fruit of their crime. Their punishment begins almost immediately with the murder. The crime is therefore in every sense self-defeating. The moral order, accordingly, is more powerful than the evil spirits that Lady Macbeth called upon. The moral order, according to The Stranger or Crime and Punishment, lacks any such power. Both of these works record the declining power of morality in Western civilization, and in this sense they record the decline of the West. Yet Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address reaffirms the same power of morality as Macbeth. Perhaps that is why Lincoln said that “nothing equals Macbeth.”

Read the whole essay here.

  • Share/Bookmark

Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4648 access attempts in the last 7 days.