Pictures of Scotland.org Canadian Amazon Store

For some strange reason these days, Shakespeare's plays are beginning to make sense to me, and the Elizabethan English is less unintelligible. If I had watched Shakespeare, maybe I would have made better grades!

I love this version. It's a British film, and the acting was good enough for me. I absolutely loved the witches, dressed as modern day, homeless hags who camp out at dumpsters, and divine the future from discarded tv's! I loved the ending too when the chariot's of fire theme is quietly played after Macbeth's death and his body is brought to the very same village trash heap! That may sound silly, but the acting is quite serious, and the modern setting makes the story timeless, in a way, suited for any age, not just 1040-1057 A.D., (time of Macbeth's reign). Shakespeare wrote Macbeth in 1606 or 1607.

In Act II, Scene III, when Duncan's murder is discovered by MacDuff, Duncan's youngest sons discuss privately fleeing Scotland. For some reason, I remembered a similar story involving the Earl of Arran's sons, John and Claud Hamilton who fled to England and Flanders following the murders of Murray and Lennox. It seems they might have actually been involved in the murders, but a lot was at stake, and English nobility, mostly the Tudors, were vying for more control of Scotland. Those events surrounded the death of Mary Queen of Scots in 1542. I'm trying to figure out who's who etc. at that time, but it gets confusing. And for Scottish history, it seems to me, one's understanding of history depends on WHO tells the story!

Interestingly, upon surfing the web, I discovered a site containing Holinshed's Chronicles at UPenn, where it's mentioned that Banquo was an ancestor to the Stuart line of kings; therefore, the witches' prophecies about Banquo are actually true today. Since King James (Stuart, Mary Queen of Scots' son), James I of England, James VI of Scotland, the Stuart's have ruled Britain. Princess Diana and Prince Charles are descendants of King James.


Minimal production value added, but fantastic acting.   January 26, 2004
This Shakesperean adaptation is not like the big budget "Romeo + Juliet" staring pretty-boy Leo DiCaprio. Though it is similar in the sense that it's set in a modern (or post-modern) environment, "Macbeth" was obviously filmed on a much smaller budget by BBC television. It looks as if they wished to mimic other adaptations of the bard's work in order to make it more "relevent". Though I personally prefer Shakespeare in it's historical context and setting, a "modern" version helps me as a teacher to make the play more understandable to high school students with minimal attention spans.

"Macbeth" takes place in a post-modern industrial setting; Macbeth's castle looks like an old abandoned factory or warehouse. The costumes are a militaristic hodgepodge and one gets the sense that this story is taking place in the ruins of an older, recently extinct, society (e.g. our own). One of my students compared the movie to "Mad Max." The background music is repetative and distracting, almost like bad techno, and it took a while to get used to it.

Where this movie is superior to the DiCaprio "R+J" is in the acting. While my students initially ridiculed the movie because of the landscape and the music, these distractions were forgotten midway through the film. I was very impressed by Sean Pertwee. His portrayal shows how unchecked ambition leads to Macbeth's eventual fall from grace. Greta Satchi is more than convincing as the duplicitous Lady Macbeth who, consumed by guilt, is driven first mad, then to suicide.

When I first reviewed this film, I was concerned the production value would cause my students to ridicule it, comparing it to what Hollywood has churned out. Turns out I shouldn't have been worried at all.


forget literary snobbery and enjoy this   November 15, 2001
I saw this version of Macbeth a couple of years ago on PBS and have been seeking it since. My favourite of all Shakespeare's works, I have delighted in reading Macbeth throughout my life both in mandatory education and for sheer pleasure so I tend to be rather critical of "Macbeth for the movies". I don't believe I have seen a performance, on stage or film, that caught my imagination like this production. Perhaps I have unusual taste but my advice is buy it and enjoy the difference.


Signifying Nothing?   October 22, 2000
Well, given that the Goddess, Greta Scacchi, was in it my hopes were high indeed. And, she is remarkably good as Lady Macbeth though clothed for once in a blue moon. She shows a real intensity with the the part. Pertwee is fine in the lead though Tim Roth or Gabriel Byrne would have preferable. The transposition to a "Mad Max" future is a rather heavy handed attempt to make the play's timeless themes appeal narrowly/dogmatically to modern day cynics of the post-Industrial Revolution. At times, the set design has a vaguely "Dr. Who" look to it that is distracting. One can only wonder what a film could have been made with the great Greta and somebody like Kenneth Brannagh directing. AS for my high school students, I think they'd prefer the gritty realism of Polanski's take much more.....Maybe I'll just show clips of Scacchi's monlogues?


IT'S JUST WHAT WE NEEDED!   September 27, 2000
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

My colleagues and I have searched high and low for a version of Macbeth that was true to Shakespeare's language and characterization and, at the same time, entertaining to high school juniors. I have finally found it. This film combines excellent acting with a post-modern setting, too surreal for students to recognize yet not specific enough to find unbelievable. I was impressed mostly with Greta Scacchi's and Sean Pertwee's depictions of the lead characters; they deliver Shakespeare's lines with the correct intonation and expression helping students understand meaning. Also, the director chose appropriate special effects, such as the "witches" disappearing upon Macbeth's interrogation, and avoided ones the kids tend to find ludicrous, like floating daggers. My only critique is the director's decision to have over half of Macbeth's monologues delivered as voice-overs rather than Pertwee talking to himself. The actors are mostly unknown, but highly talented; the cinematograpy is low-budget, but decent and daring; and the film is edited down to 87 minutes, but true to original content. My final thought: think Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet with a smaller budget and unknown, but MUCH BETTER, actors-- if you enjoyed it, you'll love this.