The New York Film Festival returns with The Tragedy Of Macbeth, the first ever Coen brother film
Joel Coen follows in the footsteps of Orson Welles and Roman Polanski with a faithful adaptation of the Bard
Film Features Macbeth
The 59th annual New York Film Festival kicks off tonight, and though the typically well-curated Main Slate selection remains the big attraction, the return of in-person screenings is this year’s major development. NYFF, along with most major film festivals, migrated online last year due to a pandemic that made it nerve-wracking to step into the grocery store, let alone a crowded movie theater. Virtual film festivals were a necessary makeshift solution to a devastating health crisis with ruinous economic consequences. By all relevant metrics, last year’s NYFF was an unmitigated success, effectively balancing an online platform with outdoor screenings, all while continuing to bring the best in world cinema to the Tri-State Area.
Many have argued that film festivals should permanently adopt a joint virtual/in-person approach to increase accessibility for vulnerable peoples, especially the disability community. Democratizing access might truly be the best way forward for international festivals. But speaking as someone burnt out on watching rigorous art films on his laptop or television for an entire year, and who is very much craving communal experiences that were once a regular part of life, I’ve welcomed the return of (fully vaccinated and masked) in-person screenings with as much good cheer as I can muster. Early wake-up times and lengthy subway commutes are a welcome trade-off for some semblance of normalcy, which is still in tragically short supply these days.
In fact, the best part of this year’s NYFF so far—aside from the films themselves, of course—has been how typical it feels. Yes, we all have to wear masks inside, but otherwise there’s a comforting, refreshing deja vu to filing into a line of familiar faces, all waiting to catch the latest from auteurs young and old inside the well-preserved Walter Reade Theater, home of NYFF’s press and industry screenings. (Though the venue now sports “an upgraded HVAC system with increased outside air and MERV 13 filtration.”) NYFF has certainly adapted to a changed world, but there’s also a concerted effort on the part of festival organizers and the programming team to maintain an established routine. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For me, the main difference has been attitudinal. If there’s been any major takeaway from the past 18 months, it’s not to take anything for granted. That includes the obvious, like good health and pleasant company and genuine human connection, and the things that seem frivolous, like the freedom to go watch a movie on the big screen surrounded by friends and strangers alike. It’s tempting to downplay cultural experiences in urgent times, and using overly reverent or romantic language to describe their power can inspire eye rolls even from acolytes such as myself. At the same time, I can’t deny that it’s been gratifying to be back in the swing of things, and a pleasure to watch the latest major films, projected in the highest possible quality, alongside the like-minded. These are things worth treasuring.
Over the next few weeks, I will be covering a small selection of NYFF’s Main Slate, including some highly anticipated titles, like the latest from Wes Anderson, Paul Verhoeven, and Jane Campion, as well as Todd Haynes’ documentary on the Velvet Underground and celebrated Thai filmmaker Apichatpong “Joe” Weerasethakul’s first English-language feature. And what better way to launch a festival that’s both the same as it ever was and a little bit different than with the very first movie from a Coen brother, singular?
For his first film in over 35 years without Ethan, Joel Coen sought out a Shakespeare classic that has been previously adapted to the screen by the likes of Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, and Roman Polanski. Still, any Coen fan can recognize Macbeth in much of their work. From Blood Simple through The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs, the brothers have routinely made films about crimes gone awry, spilled blood that can’t simply be washed away with water, and fickle men in way over their head desperately hoping their deal with the devil works out. Surreal, borderline supernatural manifestations of evil have also recurred, through wicked men (Raising Arizona’s biker bounty hunter Leonard Smalls, the infamous Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men) and haunted places (the eerie and malevolent Hotel Earle in Barton Fink). While the Coens have imbued their works with dark existential comedy, their films radiate bone-deep dread and cruel fate. In other words, Shakespeare’s bread and butter.
In the past, Joel Coen has defaulted to relatively loose adaptations. So it’s a slight change of pace to see him go so faithful with The Tragedy Of Macbeth, leaving intact both Shakespeare’s language and the play’s original thematic drive. He doesn’t incorporate distracting modern interventions or direct his actors to hew towards contemporary readings of the characters. The play is the play, and Coen never wavers from that directive.
I’m not sure there’s much point in detailing the plot of a 17th-century text that’s been a staple of high school English classes for time immemorial. Rest assured, Joel plays the hits. A royal military man (Denzel Washington) receives a prophecy about his regal prospects from a witch (as singular as Coen in this case, with Kathryn Hunter collapsing the three into one tripartite personality that recalls Andy Serkis’ Gollum). He informs his ruthless wife (Frances McDormand) about his potential future and she helps him scheme to obtain it ahead of schedule. Murder begets more murder and hastily conceived conspiracies quickly double themselves as Lady and Lord Macbeth slowly lose their minds. Invisible daggers are seen, damned spots can’t be outed, and eventually, Scotland gets a new king.
Coen’s reverential respect for the text isn’t stifling. His stripped-down, expressionistic approach to staging feels like a self-conscious throwback to early 20th-century filmmaking, albeit with Bruno Delbonnel’s clean, digital black-and-white photography a far cry from the spooky tactility of B&W celluloid. The Tragedy Of Macbeth exclusively employs sound stages and Coen emphasizes shadows cast by very limited light sources. The entire film has an oneiric quality that recalls the bareness of the stage but nevertheless feels beholden to the history of cinema, specifically the ways in which Weimar-era Fritz Lang and F.W. Murnau’s playfully sinister use of light and dark tease out the psychology of their subjects. The return of the witch(es) to reveal the confounding truth of their prophecies in Act IV, for example, has a chilling phantasmic quality: Hunter’s witch makes pronouncements perched above Macbeth, while apparitions appear in a pool of blood-sullied water slowly rising to his ankles.
As with most Shakespeare productions, the main attraction here is the ensemble, which is stellar across the board. From the supporting cast, Bertie Carvel shines as Banquo, bringing a stunning tenderness to the character and communicating a close relationship with Macbeth almost entirely through soft expressions and warm line readings; it’s a heartbreaking moment when his awareness of his friend’s betrayal finally bubbles to the surface. Similarly, Corey Hawkins infuses Macduff with honest anguish as well as righteous, urgent wrath. And Stephen Root briefly steals the film out from under a most impressive cast in his one scene as the Porter, delivering his dialogue at rapid speed and lending the film some outsized, much-needed levity. His performance feels like a cameo from a Coens comedy of yore.
Of course, the quality of the leads remains paramount. McDormand, quite frankly, was born to play Lady Macbeth. She brought it to life on stage in 2016, and though I did not catch her theatrical rendering, I can only imagine we’re seeing at least shades of it in her husband Joel’s production. It’s exciting to watch her shape the character to her strengths, bringing out a humorous smugness and a vacant wickedness crucial to her best performances (sans Marge Gunderson, of course), making it sing in a new-old context.
Meanwhile, Washington brings his trademark charm and bravado to the eponymous Lord, flaunting his power when Macbeth takes the throne in a manner that’s reminiscent of his Oscar-winning turn as Alonzo Harris running roughshod over the Los Angeles streets. At the same time, he also brings refreshing wisdom to the role, conveyed through greying hair as well as subtle, shattered expressions that find new depths in an old tale. Much has been made of Coen’s decision to cast two middle-aged actors as Lord and Lady Macbeth, as many contemporary productions and films have defaulted to younger actors for the leads, with the reasoning that older people tend to be too practical for delusional ambition. But together, Washington and McDormand impart a simpatico intimacy that nevertheless projects a lack of fulfillment that only a throne can resolve. They’re an old couple taking one last stab at what’s rightfully theirs, wise enough to know their actions are folly but young enough at heart to foolishly go through with them anyway.
It’s possible to feel underwhelmed by The Tragedy Of Macbeth if you’re strictly comparing it to past Coen works. This is very much a “straightforward” adaptation, the visual flourishes relegated to scene transitions and some minor effects work. Still, no one goes to a Shakespeare production to be surprised by the story. You want to see what the director does with it. There’s a certain thrill to watching a restrained, “mature” effort from a director whose films have largely exuded a youthful energy, even as his outlook has consistently projected the metaphysical cynicism of adulthood. The Tragedy Of Macbeth feels like a conscious break from the methodology and practice of Joel’s work with Ethan. It’s the work of someone eager to try out new tones and emotional registers—and maybe, some other new collaborators as well.
51 Comments
If I was married to Frances Macdormand, I would simply murder whoever she wanted me to
“I bet a fun way to commit suicide would be to cut in front of [Frances McDormand] in line and go “hey lady, RELAX!”
I tried to Google the source of this quote and now I’m getting referrals to emotional support resources.
“Were” and “whomever.”…I’m on the murder list now, aren’t I
Would that it were so simple.
“amn’t I?”
I read that Frances and Denzel kind of talked about the backstory between their characters, and Frances had the idea that they were in a Romeo and Juliet situation and managed to escape and become monarchs. That sounds like a good spin on it.
“Many have argued that film festivals should permanently adopt a joint virtual/in-person approach to increase accessibility… But speaking as someone burnt out on watching rigorous art films on his laptop or television for an entire year, and who is very much craving communal experiences that were once a regular part of life, I’ve welcomed the return of (fully vaccinated and masked) in-person screenings with as much good cheer as I can muster.”This reads as if you would oppose an option to watch remotely, even with in-person screenings available, because you crave a return to normalcy. At best, you worded this very badly.
The way you edited that passage makes it sound like the “but” is a disagreement with the first part; it’s not, and it’s pretty obnoxious to scold someone for “wording this very badly” when you’ve left out crucial wording. You removed a sentence in between: “Democratizing access might truly be the best way forward for international festivals.” It was very clear, to me at least, that the last sentence you quoted is simply saying “Even though it’s good that people have an online option [as the sentence that you removed said], I myself am really glad to be able to attend in person.”
I cut it down for brevity since my response was briefer still, and the article’s right there for anyone to read. Somehow I read the original passage to mean that remote access had ended despite people’s protestations; but looking back, I realise that isn’t specifically stated anywhere. I can’t find any information on online screenings though, which suggests there indeed aren’t any.
Yes, the article is right there for anyone to read, and I read it— so I was pointing out why your comment didn’t make any sense as a response to the original text. You may have thought you were cutting for brevity, but what you cut totally changed the meaning, in such a way as to give you a false thing to criticize; Murthi did not say anything at all to imply that he “would oppose an option to watch remotely”, and the only way to make it sound like he did was to cut out a sentence so that the “But…” would look like a response to a different part. I can’t tell if you really don’t understand this or what. I mean, even the sentence that you didn’t cut very clearly says that the reason he personally wants to go to in-person screenings is that he personally has had to watch a ton of film festival screenings online all year, which is part of the unusual role of being a film critic. It’s a huge stretch to take that as if he thinks other people shouldn’t have opportunities to watch online, and it makes you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder for some reason that has nothing to do with this article. NYFF didn’t do online screenings this year; you think that was a bad idea; OK. Murthi wasn’t talking about what they should or should not do, except to acknowledge that maybe people who want online screenings again are right. He just described his own personal experience of it.
I can’t imagine why anyone would oppose such a thing – people who want to festival are gonna festival given the opportunity, and the format opens these films up to far broader audiences than would otherwise have the chance to see them. I like the idea of an entire festival streaming on one of the platforms.
Ah – I said on a past post that I will be seeing this regardless but I hoped that there’d still be some Coens language in there. Great as Shakespeare is I’m sad we’re not getting some Coenization of the dialogue. Although it does feel like Ethan might be more responsible for that than Joel. Still, this looks and sounds great.
The next day, and the next, and after that,Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’ into the future. And so on, and so on. Then Anton Chigurh flips the coinAnd it comes up tails. Mark it zero, Smokey!It’s supposed to be for kids, y’know. But then this guy Can’t act his way out of a paper bag and I Think I’m gonna barf! So what did we learnFrom all this? Hell if I know.
Ah – I said on a past post that I will be seeing this regardless but I hoped that there’d still be some Coens language in there. Great as Shakespeare is I’m sad we’re not getting some Coenization of the dialogue. Although it does feel like Ethan might be more responsible for that than Joel. Still, this looks and sounds great.
This just screams Oscar bait which is odd from a filmmaker as critically decorated as Coen. Guess he wants to win one on his own without his brother. Go get those statues Joel, throw ‘em on the pile.
Funny, I saw this more as a ‘palate cleanser’ as he figures out a way forward without his longtime creative partner. I’m very much looking forward to whatever comes next.
Shakespeare adaptions don’t really win any of the major Oscars, though, do they? Set design and costumes, sure, but I don’t think a Shakespeare movie has won a major award during my lifetime, unless Shakespeare in Love counts.
Unless you were born before 1948 (Laurence Olivier, Hamlet), nope!(I was almost sure Kenneth Branagh had won for Henry V, but I looked it up and he was only nominated, as several other actors have been for Shakespearean roles.)
Olivier’s Hamlet won the Best Picture Oscar.
Olivier’s Hamlet won the Best Picture Oscar.
Thanks. Point proven. If the last time a Shakespeare movie won a major Oscar was 73 years ago, we can pretty much admit that they aren’t inherently Oscar bait.
Just about everyone who worked on that picture is long dead. And the Academy that so voted.
I would say that, in terms of Shakespeare movies being Oscar bait, there’s a difference in a movie being Oscar bait, and a movie being good (regardless of whether it’s Oscar bait or not).
There’s been plenty of Oscar bait movies that have been absolute trash, but because of how they were made, the type of films, the performers, the directors, they still constitute Oscar bait. Most of the works of Shakespeare are inherently Oscar bait, because if they get to the point of becoming a fully-fledged Hollywood production, they’re gonna strike all of the facets that denote an Oscar bait film.
Just looking at this adaptation, you have an Oscar-winning director and screenwriter, two Oscar winning lead stars (Denzel has two and Frances has three), and a notable work from arguably the most notable writer of all time, with a long lineage of great renditions and performances for decades, if not centuries. It’s literally Oscar bait from head-to-toe.
So, you can’t assume that failed adaptations of a famous work aren’t Oscar bait simply because they don’t win/get nominated for any Oscars. I’m sure plenty of people thought Baz Luhrman’s The Great Gatsby was going to get a bunch of noms when you consider all of the facets I previously stated (big name director of Oscar-winning movies, lead actor(s) with Oscars or Oscar noms, prominent reference material from a notable historical figure), and the only Oscars it received was for Best Costume Design and Best Production Design, and most technical Oscars aren’t considered when looking at whether a movie is Oscar bait.
‘… and most technical Oscars aren’t considered when looking at whether a movie is Oscar bait.’ A very good point, and I bet few filmgoers actually know that Mad Max: Fury Road won six of them, all technical, at the 2016 awards, the biggest haul of any film that year.
If we’re counting technical awards as “Oscar bait,” I guess ILM has baited more Oscars than Merchant-Ivory and oblivious white guilt combined.
Most of the works of Shakespeare are inherently Oscar bait, because if
they get to the point of becoming a fully-fledged Hollywood production,
they’re gonna strike all of the facets that denote an Oscar bait film.
Do they?Shakespeare has the costumes and scenery chewing, but nothing that allows the Academy to easily broadcast their politics or congratulate themselves on the transformative power of their chosen medium. Not everything that wins an Oscar plays to one of those two impulses, but everything trying to bait the Academy does.
They’ve certainly won Oscars, but maybe you only mean Best Picture or Best Actor ones. An Oscar is an Oscar, though. They don’t get smaller trophies for Best Costume Design and the like.
LOOKING AT YOU, NORBIT
It’s kind of funny to see someone all like “why would one of the world’s most talented filmmakers cast two of the world’s most talented film actors to film one of the best literary works in the English language, unless they’re gunning for awards?”
If I wanted to be cynical, I’d say this is (1) a vanity project for the wife and (2) a biting of the thumb at the brother and former creative partner who decided he’d rather be working in theater.But I don’t want to be cynical. Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand in a stylized but faithful adaptation of Macbeth is pretty much exactly the movie I want and need. If it happens to pick up a few Oscars, great!
I think it looks a bit too cold and arthouse-y to be full Oscar Bait, but then again I do think the definition of Oscar Bait has shifted in recent years. To me, something like The Eyes of Tammy Faye is what modern Oscar bait looks like now.
The Coens seem happiest tackling whatever genre tickles their fancy at the time. I’m guessing there’s little more than that going on here.And I don’t think they’ve ever made a movie with the intention of it being Oscar bait.
If “Jeopardy!” had been using their MERV filter, they’d never have hired Mike Richards.
I didn’t know I was waiting for someone to point that out, but, wow. Cue the final Jeopardy theme.
A royal military man (Denzel Washington) receives a prophecy about his regal prospects from a witch (as singular as Coen in this case, with Kathryn H…You got my hopes up for a second. I thought maybe it really was Agatha all along.
I was lucky enough to see Washington play Julius Caesar on Broadway in 2005 or so. I’m not much of a fan of Shakespeare (I wasn’t paying for the tickets) but he was magnetic.
Being magnetic was how he ended up with all those daggers stuck in him.
“I should have… given them… non-ferrous daggers… *urk*”
“In the past, Joel Coen has defaulted to relatively loose adaptations”Uh, have you read No Country For Old Men? It’s pretty much word for word what wound up in the movie.
I wouldn’t go that far. It’s fairly faithful, but the final confrontation with Chigurh in particular is quite a bit different in the movie than in the book. Personally, I think the Coens actually improved it, but they didn’t just film the book word for word.
This looks like Polanski’s Macbeth mixed with Throne Of Blood.
Looks much more like Welles’ version to me, but that’s not a problem. I’m not sure how you could do a reasonably faithful version of Macbeth that doesn’t resemble other versions of Macbeth at least a little.
Looking forward to this, which is playing in the London Film Festival in a couple of weeks. Interestingly a lot of directors drop the Porter scene, believing the comic tone doesn’t suit the rest of the drama. Those who want a rather offbeat interpretation should hunt down Joe MacBeth, an entertaining and quite inventive low-budget British pic which switches the action to 1950s gangland, adapted by screenwriter Philip Yordan.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048230/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_135
Also worth seeing is Scotland, P.A., a darkly comic take where the “kingdom” at stake is a burger joint in the 70’s. And Christopher Walken is Macduff!
And who doesn’t relish a chance to see Maura Tierney in a theatrical picture?
Anyone who doesn’t is a liar liar.
boooo
(bows) I’ll be here all week!
My first inclination was to be a dick about Vikram calling Washington (66) and McDormand (64) “middle-aged”. But, you know what? I will not hear of either of them not living to 130, so Vikram’s right.
It all sounds pretty good, but you had me at Stephen Root as the Porter.