My thoughts on MACBETH (now with spoilers!)- Page 2

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:59pm

You never know who could get pissy about spoilers...there could be a person who emerged from under a rock and the first thing they did was check BroadwayWorld for reviews of Macbeth.

I've heard Stewart is more than happy to sign Star Trek stuff (not that I'd have anything for him) - I've read that he goes to conventions every now and then. I've also read that when he first started to do Broadway regularly, people would dress in costume and see the show. Nothing worse than sitting next to a Klingon during The Ride Down Mt. Morgan.

ETA: Actually, according to the Playbill, Hodges just understudies the kids. There's a Fleance as well as a Macduff boy. And 2 girls.
Updated On: 3/30/08 at 08:59 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:02pm

I think entrance applause is obnoxious, so I'm actually glad people aren't doing it. It would be inappropriate in this production, anyway. Let's interrupt the Shakesperean dialogue by loudly cheering cause we recognize a famous person onstage!

I mostly agree with what has been said here, but I'd like to add that I thought the staging of Banquo's murder was very ingenious. And though wasn't that crazy about the witches' "rap", I loved the overall concept of the witches' themselves. I also enjoyed a lot of the interpretations, like the aforementioned "sandwich" scene. And as an other example, I thought it interesting that one of the "witches" overhears when the King names Macbeth Earl of Cawdor. It certainly heightens the idea that they're manipulating the action, as opposed to being truly prophetic.
Updated On: 3/30/08 at 09:02 PM

[NYCtheater]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:25pm

Yankeefan - it does say Henry is an understudy in the Playbill, but he does perform the roles. In the next set of Playbills, it should be updated to say he performs, not understudies, Fleanace and Macduff's son. :)

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 11:45pm

Can you explain the banquet scene, and what makes it so good?

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 11:52pm

I'm also rather anxious, quite a bit...

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 11:56pm

Dammit, why did you have to post that Byron Jennings is in this? Now I have to go back and see it. (At BAM I left at intermission because I started having some insane spontaneous stomach pains). Granted I only saw the first act, but I felt the same way about the production... just kinda ambivalent. I really liked Kate Fleetwood's performance, but felt quite detached from the rest of the production, including Patrick Stewart's performance. I guess I'll go back, especially since they have student rush.

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 11:57pm

Spoilers, I guess:

The Banquet scene is done twice. First, at the very end of Act 1, in which we see Macbeth's perspective, and Banquo's ghost coming at him (It's actually VERY creepy in the way it's staged). Then, Act 2 begins with the same scene, this time from the perspective of the rest of the guests at the banquet (who only see Macbeth's reaction to the ghost). It's a really cool way to showcase Macbeth's unstable state of mind.


Updated On: 3/30/08 at 11:57 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:26am

Oh! I do like that!

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 6:54am

It's a chilling sequence, though not entirely necessary...like the song they all sing mid-way through the first act. What was that song?

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 7:41am

I agree it's not necessary, but it does enhance the characterizations, and, like I said, it's a really effective way to show both Macbeth's uneasy state of mind, and his increasingly troubled relationship with Lady Macbeth. (Her reactions during the sequence are chillingly good). It questions the nature of reality (is the ghost really there? Is Macbeth going crazy? Is it a little of both?) I loved it.

And ooh right, the song. Wasn't it some sort of revolutionary anthem? Or...something? I'd forgotten that. Yeah, some of the staging, or even the projections, were a bit distracting. Too much style over subtstance. Not that I minded it that much. I love this play, and this is the best stage version of it I've ever seen.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:52pm

Style over substance...my thoughts exactly.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 11:34am

Saw it last night and agree with a lot of your thoughts, Yankee. Fleetwood was indeed as outstanding as everyone has said. I liked the overall style of the production, but the second act did have some slow spots. (That Malcolm/Macduff scene seems particularly long and boring) But I liked the incorporation of the weird sisters throughout, the aforementioned "dual banquet scene" choice and the overall setting.

You know who else impressed me? That guy who played the Thane of Ross. Sorry, don't remember his name and don't have my Playbill with me. He took one of those amorphous plot-advancing Shakespeare characters and turned it into something memorable.

One thing I didn't understand: Why did Banquo get up and walk off the stage after he was murdered?
Updated On: 4/3/08 at 11:34 AM

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 11:37am

I didn't get that either. It would have been easy to just do a blackout to end the scene instead of having everyone stand up and walk off the train, including the now dead Banquo.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 11:43am

I would have overlooked it if they hadn't dragged the other guy -- the last one whom Macbeth kills -- off the stage when he died. Just a strange little inconsistency to me.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 12:48pm

It's his ghost getting up and moving away. I would have figured that with all the graphics and special effects, there would have been a way to convey that.

[cisic]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 12:54pm

I saw this show when it was at BAM, so some things may have changed. But here was the long report I wrote up about it. SPOILERS AHEAD.


I love when the intelligence of the director shows. I love when a director can cause an entire audience to react to something. There were many such moments in Rupert Goold’s staging of Macbeth. It was a well thought out, highly successful production. Gould gets the audience in the palm of his hand immediately. The productions opens the bleeding Sergeant giving a report of the battle that just occurred. The Sergeant is badly injured, and as he reports to King Duncan and the others, nurses bandage him up and see to his wounds. After the report is finished, and the other men have left the stage, one of the nurses pulls out a syringe, shoots something into the Sergeant, and we watch him convulse, cease shaking and die. No sooner did you think, “why did the nurse do that?,” than one of them pulls down her face mask and launches into, “When shall we three meet again?” A ripple of recognition when through the audience. Of course, there are three of them! Of course they are the witches! How did we miss that!

The perfect way in which the witches were handled proves to me that Goold “gets” Macbeth. Or at least, that I prefer his interpretation. Many productions fall into the trap of overdoing the witches, making them too important, or too distracting. In this production, it was like they were manifestations of Mabeth’s inner ambition, or of the side of him (and all of us) capable of doing evil. This was evident in another well staged moment. Intermission was placed during the banquet at the Macbeth’s, after Banquo’s death. This is a tough scene because Macbeth sees the dead Banquo. I’ve seen the scene ruined through cheesy effects and bad acting. The scene started and all, and then when it came for the moment for the first sighting, the actor playing Banquo entered, stepped smoothly up onto the banquet table, and crossed gracefully and quickly to the end where Macbeth was sitting (and the end closest to the audience). Macbeth sees him, reaction, blackout, intermission. It was so quick and well done that it was very chilling.

The play starting again at the beginning of the banquet scene, only speedier, and with the lines being done in silent. The first time around you were paying attention to what Macbeth was doing, because he was speaking. The second time around you got the sense of the awkwardness of the people sitting at the banquet waiting for Macbeth to sit and eat. This time around the actor did not appear. So the first time the scene was done, it was from Macbeth’s point of view, the second time, from the other characters. The witches appeared in this scene, serving the food. The first time around they were holding large knives, behind their backs, the second time their hands were empty. It was a very nice detail.

The play was set essentially in the cold-war era, but not specifically invoking historical figures. The set was a sparse, industrial room in black and white brick, that served as a hospital room, a kitchen, a field, a banquet hall.

One of the reasons Macbeth is not one of my favorites is the fact that I don’t find the supporting characters that interesting. First you focus on Banquo (well done by Martin Turner). At first Banquo is the foil to Macbeth, but then he dies, and Macduff (Michael Feast) comes out of nowhere to become the secondary focus. Plus everytime Ross appears, I’m always like, “who is this guy again?” Despite this, the supporting actors all did fine work. I found Scott Handy as Malcolm to be convincing as far as emotions and text go, but he was the oldest Malcolm I’ve ever seen, so that worked against him. When he claims that he hasn’t yet known a woman, you’re just like, “Really? At your age?” I would like to see more of him in the future.

Kate Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth comes on strong. At first I thought she was maybe too strident, but it worked in the end as we watched her completely fall apart. Her “unsex me” speech worked really well – as if she had doubts even in her own abilities to carry out the murder, and knew it would take a heartless person. She’s much younger than Stewart, so the character was a bit of a trophy wife, but smart and ambitious and knowing how to perform the duties that that station in life would require.

Patrick Stewart – I thought he was wonderful. I read a review that called him a remarkable uncharismatic actor. I can kind of see why one would say that. He’s not one of those larger than life people whose presence you are immediately drawn to when they step onstage. What he is, is incredibly skilled and detailed. He had the most well down character arc of any Macbeth I have ever seen. He was hesitant at first, though part of him liked the idea. You saw him scared, determined, unsure, resolute, etc. Watching the character become corrupted was just fascinating. Once Macbeth committed the deed and took power, there was no turning back. An ambitious, cruel side of him started to appear. But it was completely believable that this was the person we were seeing from the beginning. His ego grows and grows until he thinks he is unstoppable.

The ending was so well staged, and fit in so well with the interpretation of the piece. Macbeth’s ego and his desire for power is his downfall. But Stewart’s Macbeth had a wonderful realization moment. It suddenly became clear to him who he had become. Macduff didn’t beat him in fighting, he let him kill him. He uttered his last word, “enough” and gave up.

Rupert Goold’s direction was impeccable. I think a lot of productions fall into problems when they try to blame the crimes of the story on others. Some overplay the supernatural aspect, blaming it all on the tricks the witches play on Macbeth. Many overdue the “evil” of Lady Macbeth, playing her as temptress, an Eve to Macbeth’s Adam. These productions seem to forget who the title character is. Goold’s production, from beginning to end, remembered that this is the story of Macbeth, his rise and his fall, and the terrible acts he was ultimately capable of. It was chilling and effective.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 12:55pm

I had thought that, but it was so busy with everyone else on the stage, I wasn't sure. And even that doesn't make since, as it's pretty clear that only Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost, and he's not even in that scene. But a minor complaint.

Oh, and this production marked two firsts for me:
1) The first time I've seen urination on stage (that wasn't from livestock in a Christmas pageant, at least, or a scared kindergartner)
2) The first time I've seen a head prop that didn't look laughably ridiculous in a Shakespeare play (LCT Cymbeline, I'm looking in your direction!)
Updated On: 4/3/08 at 12:55 PM

[puppetman2]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 12:24am

While this is Sherrie R. Scott, it might apply to Stewart too. In a great video on Broadway.com interview in her dressing room she says that she does not want a picture taken after a performance when she looks bad after taking the make-up off and does not look her best. Anyone who had been in a show knows that you look tired and all the wrinkles show as you leave the theatre. Some performers are more sensitive about this than others.

Updated On: 4/6/08 at 12:24 AM