It's interesting to watch various renditions of the same material to see how different directors envision the story. Especially in the case of a major classic like William Shakespeare's 'Macbeth,' so much of the foundations are already laid in - plot, scenes, dialogue, and characters, and so long as one isn't changing the setting, the root concepts for the costume design and art direction, too. All that is left is to shape these elements to one's will and hopefully leave one's own stamp on the world. It's noteworthy that (the extant form of) Paul Almond's television production is distinctly streamlined as some entire scenes and considerable chunks of verse are omitted from the telling. In this manner is the cast reduced, Lord and Lady Macbeth are more heavily centered, and the saga is stripped to a barer, somewhat simplified essence. More significant and worrisome than this, from one moment to the next the pacing even of scenes and dialogue is emphatically swift, an approach which in the very least serves at times to accentuate the artificiality. The core value remains and it's an interesting take in its own right, but these factors do have the unfortunate effect of diminishing the utmost richness of the Scottish play, and its spectacle, let alone the splendor of The Bard's language.
Say what one will of Almond's adapted screenplay, I believe it's just as if not more concretely regrettable how the cinematography frames the visuals for us. The camera almost always zooms in to depict actors from the waist up, if not from the chest up; just as often the frame is tighter still, and it's only an actor's face that we see. This is a decision of film-making that definitively shrinks the viewing experience, for we get little sense of characters' positions on the set, or movements, or the relationship between their positions and movements. The spotlight of actors' faces could feasibly have been employed to draw forth the psychological aspect to the tale, or at least focus on the heightened emotions that are involved; that's not what Almond did here, however, so the novelty only serves to shortchange the visuals. Even more to that point, we see little of Horst Dantz's costume design, including crowns that would be fit for a Witch-king of Angmar - and not nearly enough of Rudi Dorn's set design. The earnest simplicity of the sets is somewhat brutalist and beautiful as they are defined by sharp angles and blockiness; with shrewd use of lighting, the art direction lends an eeriness to the proceedings of the sort that would be a primary facet of Joel Coen's 2021 movie, 'The tragedy of Macbeth.' Or rather, this would be the effect, if not for how much the cinematography takes away from what we see of the sets.
'Macbeth,' as a play, is nothing if not a bloody tableau of murder, madness, and lust for power. Even on paper the narrative is characterized by harsh, buzzing energy, and the characters by thrumming vitality - the Lord and Lady not least. Something substantial would be sorely missing from any iteration of the play in which the performances were not marked by searing, fiery passion. Thankfully, this is not a shortcoming of Almond's picture, for the vibrancy of the acting is far greater than can be said of some more well known interpretations. Everyone appearing herein is terrific, and the portrayals may well be among the highlights; Sean Connery and Zoe Caldwell, above all, deftly command the lead roles, and to be honest I'd liked to have seen still more of them in these capacities. But ah, that's the crux of the matter: the cast is splendid, the sets and costume design are lovely, and the words of Bill Shakes are timeless. All these qualities are forced into very small, vexing corners by both the peculiarly restrictive camerawork, and maybe even more by Almond's direction which enforces the unseemly gallop, a heavy-handed gait that actually seems to increase in strenuous velocity as the digital timer advances. There is unyielding strength in every component part, yet the most fundamental building blocks of the construction here so desperately ill-considered that they siphon away that strength until this 1961 feature becomes but a fleeting shadow of its ideal self. To wit: Connery and Caldwell give great performances, but their scenes are robbed of the gravity that they should carry.
I don't outright dislike this. I think it's far lesser a title than it should have been, however, and the entertainment to be had therefrom is ultimately kind of middling. We get what we came for, sure, but it's hard to be more than partway satisfied with the end result. There are worse ways to spend one's time, and there are indeed worse realizations of 'Macbeth,' but there are also far better ways and far better realizations. Unless one has a specific impetus for watching this, there's sadly just not much need to bother seeking it out.
Say what one will of Almond's adapted screenplay, I believe it's just as if not more concretely regrettable how the cinematography frames the visuals for us. The camera almost always zooms in to depict actors from the waist up, if not from the chest up; just as often the frame is tighter still, and it's only an actor's face that we see. This is a decision of film-making that definitively shrinks the viewing experience, for we get little sense of characters' positions on the set, or movements, or the relationship between their positions and movements. The spotlight of actors' faces could feasibly have been employed to draw forth the psychological aspect to the tale, or at least focus on the heightened emotions that are involved; that's not what Almond did here, however, so the novelty only serves to shortchange the visuals. Even more to that point, we see little of Horst Dantz's costume design, including crowns that would be fit for a Witch-king of Angmar - and not nearly enough of Rudi Dorn's set design. The earnest simplicity of the sets is somewhat brutalist and beautiful as they are defined by sharp angles and blockiness; with shrewd use of lighting, the art direction lends an eeriness to the proceedings of the sort that would be a primary facet of Joel Coen's 2021 movie, 'The tragedy of Macbeth.' Or rather, this would be the effect, if not for how much the cinematography takes away from what we see of the sets.
'Macbeth,' as a play, is nothing if not a bloody tableau of murder, madness, and lust for power. Even on paper the narrative is characterized by harsh, buzzing energy, and the characters by thrumming vitality - the Lord and Lady not least. Something substantial would be sorely missing from any iteration of the play in which the performances were not marked by searing, fiery passion. Thankfully, this is not a shortcoming of Almond's picture, for the vibrancy of the acting is far greater than can be said of some more well known interpretations. Everyone appearing herein is terrific, and the portrayals may well be among the highlights; Sean Connery and Zoe Caldwell, above all, deftly command the lead roles, and to be honest I'd liked to have seen still more of them in these capacities. But ah, that's the crux of the matter: the cast is splendid, the sets and costume design are lovely, and the words of Bill Shakes are timeless. All these qualities are forced into very small, vexing corners by both the peculiarly restrictive camerawork, and maybe even more by Almond's direction which enforces the unseemly gallop, a heavy-handed gait that actually seems to increase in strenuous velocity as the digital timer advances. There is unyielding strength in every component part, yet the most fundamental building blocks of the construction here so desperately ill-considered that they siphon away that strength until this 1961 feature becomes but a fleeting shadow of its ideal self. To wit: Connery and Caldwell give great performances, but their scenes are robbed of the gravity that they should carry.
I don't outright dislike this. I think it's far lesser a title than it should have been, however, and the entertainment to be had therefrom is ultimately kind of middling. We get what we came for, sure, but it's hard to be more than partway satisfied with the end result. There are worse ways to spend one's time, and there are indeed worse realizations of 'Macbeth,' but there are also far better ways and far better realizations. Unless one has a specific impetus for watching this, there's sadly just not much need to bother seeking it out.