MACBETH reviews... — Page 2

These reviews are pretty shocking to me. They describe a completely different show then the one I just saw and I really don't know how to respond.

I did not once think Cumming was lost on stage or just trying to fluff his ego. I thought he collaborated with a very strong director to turn one of Shakespeare's more popular plays into a chilling thriller with excellent production values and a clear vision. I thought, with the exception of the guard scene (Act II, Scene 4), that the play was very easy to follow. I did not see ego onstage. I saw a man committing to a strange and, quite honestly, ugly interpretation of a classic. The effect was strong and moving.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm just really surprised by the negative reviews. My only guess is that the opening stretch without any dialogue and a really garbled up synth score is too off-putting for too long for some people. I thought it was a beautifully moment of theater but I could see far more cynical writers than me losing their patience as two doctors evaluate a patient for a good chunk of time with words fading in and out of focus. I could go on at length about why those scenes are there, but I won't.

There's also the issue of expectation. People think they know what Macbeth has to be onstage. This is not that vision of the play. It's a very different interpretation of the text that outright challenges the literary consensus on what various elements mean to the structure and themes of the play. That could be enough to turn people off (like the comments wishing Cumming was playing Macbeth in Macbeth even though that's what they just saw).

I think Cumming still can't be counted out for the Tony Award. If the nominators/voters see the show, they're going to walk away knowing how much effort it takes to put on that performance eight times a week and how well Cumming handles the edited material. I think the reviews might mean that long shots, like original score or sound design, probably aren't going to happen. Director and Revival might even be out at this point. But I can't see a scenario play out where Cumming isn't at least nominated for this.

trentsketch, I completely agree with you. The night I saw it there were a LOT of walkouts, and I can't help thinking those people were just expecting Alan Cumming to be playing Macbeth in a traditional production of the show and were bewildered by what ended up playing out.

I personally really can't recommend this highly enough though, I thought Cumming was brilliant and the concept was incredibly well-executed by both director and actor. I'm not sure what show these critics saw, to be honest.

Also, I had no trouble understanding Cumming from my seat in the back of the orchestra, but you do have to be an active listener (which is part of the fun, at least I think so).

I thought Cumming pretty clearly established most of the characters. I could see a problem in the scenes where he's rapidly shifting between Macbeth and Banquo. When they first appeared together, it was standing straight for Macbeth and hip cocked out, playing with the apple for Banquo. He made a big show of the change the first time but didn't telegraph it as much afterward. Mind you, every time he was Banquo, his hip was out and he was playing with the apple, but it wasn't some huge signpost like Duncan and the throne or Lady Macbeth's over the top sexuality.

Or is the bigger issue the sons? Technically, they're all represented the same way. The context of the scene makes it pretty clear who is involved. You wouldn't expect MacDuff's son to be out riding with Banquo at night, so it's pretty clear who is in the scene.

Again, it think it's misplaced expectations and not the actual execution of the piece that is causing the bad reviews. This isn't Scandalous we're talking about here. We're talking about Shakespeare in a mental hospital, a conceit almost as popular as Shakespeare in modern military dress or Shakespeare at a cocktail party.

Quick question - I see that Alan is in a robe at curtain call. Is there nudity in the show?

---

If the nominators/voters see the show, they're going to walk away knowing how much effort it takes to put on that performance eight times a week and how well Cumming handles the edited material.

I agree with you, I just want to point out that he only does six performances per week, specifically because of how much effort it takes.

---

I saw this tonight and thought it landed somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum of this Broadway season. It is ambitious, for sure, and Alan Cumming is certainly a force to be reckoned with, but not at all of its ambitions worked for me, and while Cumming was certainly very good, I wasn't really in love with his performance. It was something I certainly admired and appreciated, but didn't really love. Isherwood hit the nail on the head when he said "while Mr. Cumming had persuasively differentiated all the key roles, he had not fully inhabited any one of them." If you aren't familiar with the play, chances are you will be so incredibly lost. Plenty of people around me were very confused throughout, asking questions, and trying to catch a glimpse of the summary in the Playbill.

Overall, the production looks and sounds excellent. I thought there were moments and segments which were pretty exhilarating, but not enough for me to say that it was really great. I wanted to love it, but it left me a bit cold. The reviews are pretty much in line with what I got out of the show. I actually expected to like it more than I did.

Updated On: 4/30/13 at 09:29 PM

"lets be honest, if you dont have a familiarity with macbeth before going into this production, your going to be alittle lost."

Well, clearly the same people who in high school English classes never learned the difference between "your" and "you're", and never learned what apostrophes are for in words like "let's" and "don't", and who never learned that Macbeth, being a proper noun, would be capitalized -- will be quite lost watching Macbeth as well!