chaswe-28402 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.

Syl I actually prefer Nicol Williamson's Macbeth to Sir Ian McKellen. He is far more believable in the role. I believe Williamson to be one of the better Shakespearean actors. Even Jane Lapotaire's Lady Macbeth is better than Dame Judi Dench's performance. Perhaps Dench and McKellen just lacked the physical chemistry Williamson and Lapotaire appear more likable to me. I believe them more as a couple. While I enjoy all the actors mentioned above, this version is more than just a stage version. There is no audience. The costumes and art direction could be better overall. Still the BBC kept true to William Shakespeare's words. This version could do well in high school classrooms since this play is part of the curriculum. I prefer this version overall to the recorded Stratford version. If I had to choose between this version and Roman Polanski's film for the classroom viewing experience, I would take this version because it is more faithful overall.

tonstant viewer The good news is that the sets, costumes and lighting are close to the top of the BBC Shakespeare series. Simple, powerful and expressive. The witches are shown at the Callanish Standing Stones in the Western Isles, and the castle is distinctly Highlands. Wonderfully evocative.The bad news is, everything else.Macbeth has the shortest text of Shakespeare's tragedies. But not here. This is endless. Much of the line reading is slow and straight into the camera, presumably on the assumption that American schoolchildren need underlining. No thanks. In this series, only the "Pericles, Prince of Tyre" is delivered more slowly. And that one's unbearable.Theatrical tragedy is defined as a man or woman with noble qualities who is brought down by an act of hubris. Nicol Williamson is unable to convey any positive qualities to the character of Macbeth even when mouthing noble sentiments, and gives us a psychotic thug who just deteriorates. Unlike Lear or Othello, he has no transfiguring flash of insight when facing death - in defiance of the text, this Macbeth appears to have learned nothing.Williamson gave interviews at the time of his calamitous Hamlet saying he got no joy at all from performing Shakespeare. Indeed his Macbeth is glum, trapped and looking like he was being forced to take some very nasty medicine. He makes the verse sound as ugly as possible, and his rudimentary classical acting technique consists of opening his eyes very wide and counting up to 257 under his breath.Jane Lapotaire's Lady Macbeth is a simpler matter. She oscillates between orgasm and tantrums, with occasional rest stops at wheedling. She is every bit as baroque as he. Things got so weird that by the time we got to Banquo's ghost at the banquet, I thought I was watching the Pod People - I fully expected their heads to pop off and little "Mars Attacks" heads to rise up out of their shoulders.Ian Hogg is a sympathetic Banquo, but he's no warrior. Tony Doyle has a good, solid moment as Macduff when he gets the news of the murder of his wife and kids. But he is unable to sustain interest, and the rest of the cast is notably weak, ranging all the way down to a pitifully incompetent Donalbain. Just about any other BBC Shakespeare video has a more effective supporting cast than this.The major value of the BBC Shakespeare series is in less familiar plays. "Much Ado About Nothing," "Cymbeline," "Twelfth Night," "Henry IV," "Troilus and Cressida," "Love's Labour's Lost," "Henry VIII," these are great, life-enhancing experiences and are worth seeking out. It is a pity that so many people will never see these, only a middling "Julius Caesar," a weaker "Hamlet," an oddball "Lear," a clumsy "Romeo" and this outright disastrous "Macbeth."

mmcpartl Although this is a rather dark film, Macbeth was written as a dark play and therefore is very fitting.The way that this film was done reflects the difficulties of converting a successful and ageless stage production into a filmic production. It is filmed and acted in a way that expresses the actors' stage presence and ability while exercising the many capacities that cameras have.It is worth watching. I have had to view many different versions of Macbeth for many classes in the general ed and collegiate levels and this version does justice to the original text and to the stage origins of the play.