Question: Do you think the dagger should be visible to the audience? What about the ghost of Banquo?
I think that the dagger shouldn't be visible to the audience. If the actor is looking into space, it gives the audience the impression that Macbeth's mind and his ambition to obtain power is controlling his decisions. The audience will fully understand that Macbeth's ambitious mind is controlling the decision to kill King Duncan. Similar to the dagger, I also believe that the ghost of Banquo shouldn't be visible to the audience. In this scene, Macbeth's guilty conscience is clear through his outburst and hallucinations. Making the ghost of Banquo invisible to the audience will showcase Macbeth's guilty conscience.
Write your thoughts about at least 2 of the selections above.
Analyzing the different interpretations from the scene, "Out, out damn spot" has taught me the importance of the costumes, the expressions from the actors, and the voice inflection used. Polanski and Dir Rupert Goold interpreted the lines of Lady Macbeth in their own ways, each showing some similarities and some differences. For example, Polanski decided to have Lady Macbeth be nude to show her fragile metal state, while Goold dressed Lady Macbeth to resemble a patient in a psych ward. Also, the expression were quite different between the two actresses, even though they were reciting the same lines. Polanski's film showed a more remorseful side of Lady Macbeth, constantly looking at her hands. As an audience you felt sorry because she is admitting to all of her crimes in a regretful and sorry tone. While Polanski seemed regretful, Goold's was acted to seem more angry at herself and the Lady Macbeth seemed more mentally crazy. Pouring acid on her hands was effective as an audience member to show her mental state. Finally, as mentioned before, one film felt more remorseful while the other angry, Polanski's actress used her voice to mimic a mental breakdown, as if she's about to cry. Goold's actress expresses her anger at herself by crying in pain and screaming.
Which production did you feel was most effective, and why?
I thought that the 1971 production of Macbeth by Polanski was the most effective in portraying the story. However, this is probably bias because I was able to watch the entire movie verses seeing clips from different remakes. I thought that Polanski's version was the most effective because he chose to showcase Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as two people who let greed and power dictate their actions. I almost felt sorry because they had deep and harsh consequences, internally, for their actions.
Which bothered you, or didn't seem quite as effective and why?
The 2005 version of Macbeth was one of the movies that didn't seem right and bothered me. The movie opened with the three witches, as men, who were in a van in a landfill. I was bothered by the interpretation of the opening scene because there was no resemblance to the original. The ideas of witches and the feeling of the opening being mysterious was gone.
If YOU were in charge of a film production of Macbeth, what techniques would you use? How might you make it appeal to modern audiences (with the rule being you can't change the dialogue).
If I were to create a film of Macbeth for modern audience, I would change certain elements such as the type of power Macbeth yearns for, and I would make the costumes and setting fit into a modern day society. For example, I could make the story modern by having Macbeth become a CEO (by killing the former CEO). Also, if I were to create a film around this idea, I would dress the actors in suit and ties to represent a business atmosphere. Finally, I would set the movie in New York City, or a major city, where many major corporations are located.
Comentários