1. Read the two existing reviews above and compare/ contrast. What things do you agree or disagree with, after having seen the film?
I agree that it was violent, but I didn’t think it wasn’t as violent as was insisted in one of the reviews. One of the reviews focuses more on the violence and what was depicted in the film and the execution of the actors, and the other says more about the quality of the film and how it was directed. They both give praise for the film.
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?
The actors have multiple chances at getting it right in cinema. In a live stage production, they only have one shot. Also in cinema, it it easier to do stunts and killing scenes. It is easier to make the blood look real, and it is more convincing to audiences. The killing scenes can look more realistic in film than on a stage, and it is easier to use stunt doubles in film. On the other hand, you might not get the full effect from film as n stage. When it’s live, you feel more present, more in the moment. On a screen, you feel disconnected somehow. In a way, it’s easier to understand what the actor is feeling in a live show.
3. What artistic liberties did Polanski take, as you compare the written play with his version?
The part with the witches, where there were tons of them and they were all nude, I believe that was done for effect. He wanted to make them seem hideous and weird. I also liked the symbolism when Macbeth killed Duncan and they showed the crown hitting the floor because that was like saying his reign was over, that he is dead. I also like that he added the part about Malcom visiting the witches at the end when he becomes king. I like that it kept the audience wondering. I also like that it made the ending more dark and mysterious than the written play where they ended with Macbeth being killed, and Malcom and everyone in his army going to scone. The play ended happily, but the movie ending was dark. I think to see that contrast was interesting.
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?
I like that the film was gory and violent because it made it seem more real. It wasn’t exaggerated as some other films were. Yes, the play was iconic, but in movies it is easier to show a sword going through someone without actually hurting them. On stage if you were to do that, the actor would be dead.
Comments