1. Read the two existing reviews above and compare/contrast. What things do you agree or disagree with, after having seen the film?
The review on AV Film contained opinions I both agreed and disagreed with. Pauline Kael’s description of some of the most chilling and hard-hitting parts of the film made me recall how I felt a similar way during those scenes. While they were hard to watch, I think Polanski had a specific reason to portray these scenes as he did. As a result, I don’t think he should be criticized for it as he was in some of the other reviews I read. However, Polanski’s talent in bringing out subtle details and choosing to highlight certain scenes over others made for a film with a slightly different feel than the classical play. Comparing the book to the movie, I found that there were many aspects of the movie that made it more dramatic and appealing to a wide audience. This review also said as much, stating that Polanski put a twist on the traditional portrayal of the story while preserving classic and unchangeable parts of it. As for the Roger Ebert review, the general idea being maintained was that Polanski’s film brings the characters closer to real life, so to speak. Instead of placing Macduff on a pedestal and making Macbeth out to be a tragic hero as is usually done, Polanski illustrates all the characters are ordinary human beings. Human beings with flaws and triumphs and foolish urges, simply reacting to events in their life as they go along. The reviewer also brought up an interesting observation about the characters in Macbeth being similar in nature to Charles Manson. I hadn’t considered the idea before and this was an eye-opening viewpoint. I loved this reviewer‘s interpretation of the world of Macbeth and everyone in it.
2. What kinds of things could the medium of cinema provide that a stage production could not? What are the disadvantages of a film version? Comment on use of costumes, sound/music, lighting, character appearance, and locations / sets.
Weighing all the aspects of different mediums, cinema allows for quite a few positive changes that other mediums cannot create. For one, in the film, all of the internal dialogue was a voiceover without Macbeth actually talking. There would be no way to do this in a play; likely, the actor would just have to say the lines which wouldn’t have the same effect. A film would also be able to set a scene much better, as the filming could be done in a location that looks very similar to the one described in a story. This makes it easier for an audience to connect with the story, as opposed to props and man made backdrops. However, because so many films already exist, it is difficult for a particular film to stand out. People have already seen this and that done before, which can cloud their perception. There is the struggle for a director to set himself/herself along with the film apart from others. In terms of technicalities, shooting on location is also difficult because the actors might not always be in a controlled environment and have to deal with elements such as the weather, other people, and nature.
3. What artistic liberties did Polanski take, as you compare the written play with his version?
Most notably, Polanski was able to expand the horizons of the story. One example in particular is the details he chose to add for each scene. Polanski was able to literally “paint a picture” for each scene as he saw fit. In the play, it is never mentioned specifically what happens as Macbeth kills Duncan. However, in the movie, Duncan is brutally murdered–presumably in a way that reflects the death of Polanski’s wife around the time the film was being made. It is an artist’s choice what they want to convey and how they go about doing so in a film. In my opinion, Polanski’s Macbeth is polarizing as are many contemporary counterparts of traditional works of art. It is up to each individual to decide whether they like it or not, but the film itself does not change.
4. What do you think went well with the film? What would you have changed if you had been the director? Would you defend Polanski's decisions to make this so gory?
The story behind any work of art must always be taken into consideration when looking at it as a whole. Subsequently, my position on the film is that it is unique and effectively portrays all the important parts. I am not the type of person who likes gore or overly-violent scenes in movies. If I were to direct a movie on Macbeth, I would want to focus more on parts of the play that delve deeper into human nature as opposed to the actual acts of murder or crime. However, I am not the person who made the film. Being as this is Polanski’s creation, it is his choice to do what he wants with it. Overall, Roman Polanski’s Macbeth was an unapologetically bold and personal rendition of a classic Shakespearean tragedy. It was detailed without dragging or being boring and I feel that Polanski made full use of film as a medium to tell a story. It helped me see the lines and scenes in the book as one big picture that I could immerse myself in, I would definitely recommend watching it.