Pretty Good

Please don't spend money on this.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Though Nicol Williamson performs outstandingly in the final scene, his overall performance is extremely uneven. At times he delivers his lines with brio or with subtle astuteness, but often he comes across as disengaged and bored. He too frequently resorts to snarling or to expressionless recitation, and only occasionally does he convincingly convey the tortured psyche of Macbeth. His delivery of the great "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" soliloquy is the worst rendition that I have ever beheld. On the whole, his performance drags down this production.Jane Lapotaire is excellent in her opening scene and in her final scene, but less impressive in the intervening scenes (especially in the scene with Banquo's ghost). She pretty badly misjudges a few of her lines. Still, if her overall performance had been matched by Williamson's performance, this production would have been better than it is.Tony Doyle is generally excellent as Macduff, and James Hazeldine is quite good in the difficult role of Malcolm. James Bolam is considerably less entertaining as the porter in this production than as Touchstone in "As You Like It" (though the fault may lie with Shakespeare more than with the actor).Most of the other performances are pretty good, though there are quite a few other instances of misjudged renderings of lines. The sets and lighting are fine, and the production is to be commended for omitting very little of the text (apart from the spurious III.v and the spurious bits of IV.i). In short, this production is certainly worth watching but is disappointingly short of what it could and should have been.

In spite of the professionals involved, this production is inherently amateurish. The actors give an impression of simply reading their lines, not living them. Perhaps it's the play's fault. It's stuffed with even more quotations than Hamlet. The words are so familiar that it seems impossible for any stage performance to do them justice. Watching this version it struck me that I must virtually know the whole text by heart already, and the actors were not giving these passages the delivery they required. Most of the speeches need to be thundered out with heavy, over-dramatic emphasis, not self-consciously thrown away. Macbeth questions himself to start with, sure, until his wife screws him to the sticking-point, but once in for a penny he's in for a pound. That's the way it's written. The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon ! What happened to that line ? It seemed to be completely re-written and tamely paraphrased. Williamson is an odd and different actor. He's watchable, but sometimes strangely unconvincing. He was best in the Bofors Gun, and Laughter in the Dark, both stories where the main character is his own victim. Macbeth is not fully as determinedly self- destructive as Williamson makes him out to be, and as he is portrayed in this production. Macbeth, as the play's opening tells us, was a dynamic, decisive man, conned into his crimes by his wife and the witches. Outside forces. Shakespeare is frequently concerned with the question of free will. Was Macbeth fated to take the course of action that he did ? Had he a choice ? This topic also arises in other plays.

Although there are a number of flaws in this production of Macbeth, it is worth viewing for several reasons. First, Nicol Williamson, though he fails to make this Macbeth work completely, is always interesting; probably, this is due to his intelligence. One can always see what he is getting at, even when he fails to get there or when we disagree with his interpretation (and I disagree with much of this one -- especially the "Tomorrow and tomorrow" sequence). The gradual shift from a heroic, conscience-concerned warrior to a cold-blooded and ruthless tyrant is clear if not always heartfelt.Second, most of the text is clear and unadulterated (some minor changes, including the happy cutting of the Hecuba scenes, which are not by Shakespeare anyway, actually help move the play along). The cast and director have worked so carefully to illuminate the text, characters, and situations that this particular version might be the best choice for school use.Finally, Jane Lapotaire gives a brilliant tour-de-force performance as Lady Macbeth. For one thing, she is sexy, which apparently some reviewers seem to find objectionable, but which is quite accurate for Lady M. Why else would she have to call on the powers of evil to "unsex" her? Also, she is clearly in love with her husband and not with her own ambitions. It is imperative in any production of Macbeth that the marriage is based in love and devotion; otherwise, the tragedy is lost! When this Lady Macbeth tries to calm her manic husband during the banquet scene, we can feel her anguish over the loss of their former relationship (and her part in causing it), anguish that easily turns to madness the next time we see her. The sleepwalking scene is beautifully built by re-living not only the text, but the actions of the Act 2 murder of King Duncan and its effects on the Macbeths. Lapotaire is one of the great post WWII actresses, trained in the great British tradition, and her presence in this production makes the viewing worthwhile in itself.Don't miss it!

WARNING: if you do not know the play Macbeth, I refer to the ending, so please do not read this if you wish to keep the ending a surprise!*****Most of the later, stylized BBC Shakespeare TV-films have impressed me to some degree. Not so, Macbeth. While the highly stylized setting was effective in parts, the actors seemed to misunderstand much of the play, the ironies and character development. Lady Macbeth was especially guilty of this, during the speech in which she asks the "spirits which tend on mortal thoughts" to unsex her. The point of the speech is that Lady Macbeth is asking to be made sexless, remorseless and resolute. This Lady Macbeth, however, throws herself onto the (convenient) bed, legs spread wide in an almost masturbatory speech. I began to wonder at this point if she had actually read the play, or was being given her lines scene at a time! Sadly, the performance only got worse. Macbeth was marginally better, although the use of the "evil" rasping voice for his murderous thoughts, contrasted with the "manly" voice in the parts where his conscience is awakened makes for a very two dimensional tragic hero. Yes, that's right, Macbeth is a tragic hero, who is bought to downfall by his ambition and paranoia. Instead, the interpretation Jack Gold has given the play turns it into something resembling a 19th century melodrama, with an evil villain, pious king and Malcolm, and a heroic Macduff, completely ignoring the irony of Malcolm's statement of Macbeth as a butcher (Macduff, carrying Macbeth's head is visually the only butcher on stage) and the fiend-like Lady Macbeth (who we last saw wracked with guilt, sleep walking, only to kill herself later out of despair in the knowledge of what they have done). The introduction of the Weird Sisters, who rise out of stone was impressive. It is a pity the rest of the production did not follow suit.