I get why there was never a thread about this. It's Apple, it's a story 9/10 of the remaining posters here probably know quite well, and most importantly...


Even if it's just one Coen, and their least favored DP, it can be surprising how blandly this movie was made. There's almost nothing romantic, tragic or even cute about this version of Macbeth, the B&W often feels more like a gimmick than something the lighting and costume designers had to account for...


But then you have to wonder, because all these people are theatrical masters - perhaps more importantly have performed this play from one angle or another - why this movie looks like this. If I may be permitted multiple bags, the only reason I'm not permanently in the Coens' is Paul Thomas Anderson does most of their thing without the stilted cuteness. Or maybe it's just this movie, or knowing the material, or both: in any case, Stephen Root's Porter is an example of a confusing character that makes as little sense on stage as the Porter drags the audience into the next act in a (stage) theater. But in that venue, it's fun. Here? Just bizarre.


So here's where I say my mom was a high school English teacher, and mostly did 9th grade and all you remember comes with it. But she also taught journalism and an AP course about Shakespeare, which lead to me being the asshole in 7th grade that kicked a Romeo & Juliet sonnet like I was just listing off the stars of the '90s Cowboys. Which is to say I've also seen a decent number of these literal Shakespeare adaptations - and have pretty much always preferred a Clueless, or at least the Baz Luhrmann Romeo+Juliet - because when you take these plays off the stage, no matter how powerful the line delivery some bland sets and standard shot/reverse sucks all the energy out of the thing. These were stories meant for peasants on the verge of every disease you can imagine, after all, not some art house theater with 40 seats.


But maybe I'm just being too harsh. I was extremely excited to see Denzel play this role after years of praise for his performances both on Broadway and, probably more importantly, in the UK, and even if Intolerable Cruelty was the huge misfire history demands it be and one brother doesn't have the well earned doubt and support of the other...even being in the position of knowing...KNOWING this play...


Am I in some weird place thinking this version of this story is pretty stoically bad? I had a moment where I thought maybe the sets were blatant homages to the epics of the 30s and 40s, but even then I'd circle back to thinking this movie pretty much looks like shit. To the point I wouldn't be surprised to be reminded this was specifically filmed in black and white (though I suspect it was altered in post, which if that isn't the case proves my point), but if that were true I'd be sad to think the crew with final cut liked how this looks.


Here's a fiery send off - the black & white Criterion re-release of Johnny Mneumonic has more interesting photography than this.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

>I get why there was never a thread about this. It's Apple,
>it's a story 9/10 of the remaining posters here probably know
>quite well, and most importantly...
>
>
>Even if it's just one Coen, and their least favored DP, it can
>be surprising how blandly this movie was made. There's almost
>nothing romantic, tragic or even cute about this version of
>Macbeth, the B&W often feels more like a gimmick than
>something the lighting and costume designers had to account
>for...
>
>
>But then you have to wonder, because all these people are
>theatrical masters - perhaps more importantly have performed
>this play from one angle or another - why this movie looks
>like this. If I may be permitted multiple bags, the only
>reason I'm not permanently in the Coens' is Paul Thomas
>Anderson does most of their thing without the stilted
>cuteness. Or maybe it's just this movie, or knowing the
>material, or both: in any case, Stephen Root's Porter is an
>example of a confusing character that makes as little sense on
>stage as the Porter drags the audience into the next act in a
>(stage) theater. But in that venue, it's fun. Here? Just
>bizarre.
>
>
>So here's where I say my mom was a high school English
>teacher, and mostly did 9th grade and all you remember comes
>with it. But she also taught journalism and an AP course about
>Shakespeare, which lead to me being the asshole in 7th grade
>that kicked a Romeo & Juliet sonnet like I was just listing
>off the stars of the '90s Cowboys. Which is to say I've also
>seen a decent number of these literal Shakespeare adaptations
>- and have pretty much always preferred a Clueless, or at
>least the Baz Luhrmann Romeo+Juliet - because when you take
>these plays off the stage, no matter how powerful the line
>delivery some bland sets and standard shot/reverse sucks all
>the energy out of the thing. These were stories meant for
>peasants on the verge of every disease you can imagine, after
>all, not some art house theater with 40 seats.
>
>
>But maybe I'm just being too harsh. I was extremely excited to
>see Denzel play this role after years of praise for his
>performances both on Broadway and, probably more importantly,
>in the UK, and even if Intolerable Cruelty was the huge
>misfire history demands it be and one brother doesn't have the
>well earned doubt and support of the other...even being in the
>position of knowing...KNOWING this play...
>
>
>Am I in some weird place thinking this version of this story
>is pretty stoically bad? I had a moment where I thought maybe
>the sets were blatant homages to the epics of the 30s and 40s,
>but even then I'd circle back to thinking this movie pretty
>much looks like shit. To the point I wouldn't be surprised to
>be reminded this was specifically filmed in black and white
>(though I suspect it was altered in post, which if that isn't
>the case proves my point), but if that were true I'd be sad to
>think the crew with final cut liked how this looks.
>
>
>Here's a fiery send off - the black & white Criterion
>re-release of Johnny Mneumonic has more interesting
>photography than this.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~
>"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
>http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
>Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

Maybe that isn't even the word. More than anything, it was neither fun nor engaging. I didn't say this then because I wanted to think about it some more, but as far as this rendition goes having Denzel in this almost felt like token stunt casting because little if anything else challenged the play. Again, I felt like the thing got flattened relentlessly by how dryly it was presented, from sets to frames.

'Cause don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say Baz Luhrmann's R&J was more art than novelty (at least not right now, I oughta watch it again) but if one of our generation's most creative directors and a rolodex of our best character actors can make MACBETH seem dull...I just gotta ponder why movies like The Lion King, Throne of Blood, 10 Things I Hate About You, etc. work so well yet with all the talent thrown into this thing it never rose above the kind of thing I imagine an 8th grade English teacher throwing on the portable TV rig if everybody turned their homework in on time in April.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

I guess I like stagey movies more than most, but great actors doing a classic story with cool lighting and visuals? It's not Throne of Blood, but it was a nice little streaming surprise to me.

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

>I guess I like stagey movies more than most, but great actors
>doing a classic story with cool lighting and visuals? It's not
>Throne of Blood, but it was a nice little streaming surprise
>to me.


I saw that shit on the big screen. It seemed short to me.

i would have been interested in seeing this but after your post not so much.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

Self-consciously avant-garde at times, but it's Macbeth. We hardly need a 'conventional' Macbeth film at this point. The woman who played the three witches was amazing. Denzel and Frances were great as well, especially Denzel.

As for the brothers: I don't think we really know if there was a falling out or if they just wanted to try some of their own things. Looks more like the latter, since they're already planning their next project together again.

Ethan has a solo movie coming up this September. Well, not solo, as he co-wrote, directed, and edited with Tricia Cooke, his wife, who's also done editing work for decades including most Coen movies. The movie is 'Drive-Away Dolls', an exploitation-style road comedy centered on two young gay women around y2k. Might be great (the trailer evokes Raising Arizona comparisons), or it might be shit (the last thing the brothers did in this broad comedy realm was The Ladykillers), but I'm looking forward to finding out.

From these two solo efforts, it looks like Joel is the artsy Coen and Ethan is the wacky Coen. I'm looking forward to the balance being restored.

happy to hear they will be working together again. ladykillers was kinda weak but i'm a huge coen brothers fan. Miller's Crossing and Fargo are probably my favorites but I love all their work.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”