Showing posts with label Frances McDormand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frances McDormand. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

The Tragedy of MacBeth - Settling for Great

It’s been a common theme with a lot of the later Coen films that I don’t have much to write about them. They are all fine, and I like them, but I don’t know what to say. They developed such a unique film language that by the time you get to something like Hail, Caesar!, it’s par for the course. But par for the Coens is a double bogey for most filmmakers (if you’ll excuse my baffling golf metaphor). And when excellence becomes expected and standard, what else is there to say or do? If you're the Coens, it might mean it’s time to split up. 

“Split up” sounds like a relationship ending, but from what I’ve read that is not the case. Ethan felt burnt out after Scruggs (take all this with the biggest grain of salt you can find because I have not done any actual research about this, and I’m just trusting that the dudes on the Blank Check podcast had good research when they said all this stuff I’m using), and he simply wanted a break. Joel didn’t. (I’ll get into the Ethan side of things when I cover his two solo efforts at some point, hopefully soon, but no promises.) Apparently, if there was anything goofy or fun in their filmography, it was from Ethan, because Joel decided to make a pitch black (and white) adaptation of MacBeth


When this project was first announced, I was very excited. As a former teacher, teaching MacBeth was one of the highlights of my year (yes, I know how sad that sounds). I always enjoyed showing my students the most unique adaptations of Shakespeare’s work (like Mean Girls for Julius Caesar or the Ethan Hawke Hamlet, etc.). So I assumed Joel Coen would make something more like Scotland, PA (my favorite adaptation of the play), and less like the Orson Welles version. Imagine my surprise when the first trailer was released, and it looked like a straight up remake of the Welles adaptation.


This is a bare bones, stark, bleak, brutal take on the play. Aside from casting Kathryn Hunter as all of the witches, this is about as traditional as you can get. Which is fine, by the way. If I was still teaching (I took a factory job ten years ago because the low pay finally got to me), this would replace the Welles version my students slept through immediately (I would have loved to use Scotland, PA but it was way too R-rated for a school viewing, even with seniors). But I couldn’t help feeling a bit disappointed. O Brother is the Coen version of The Odyssey, but this is what we get for MacBeth?


Once I get past that self-imposed hurdle, it’s easy to like this film. Washington is great, and the supporting cast is great. McDormand is okay as Lady MacBeth, and I did like the portrayal of the MacBeths as an older couple, as it accentuates the pointlessness of it all since they have no heirs, or possible future heirs, to inherit their ill-gotten gains. 


MacBeth is one of Shakespeare’s darkest, most miserable plays, and the stark style that Welles and Coen used is apt. Scotland in this film feels like a post-apocalyptic hellscape. It adds to the theme of the film: what does it mean to be king when this is your kingdom? This obsession for power that only took the slightest bit of suggestion from the witches is so blindingly stupid it’s hard to believe anyone would be this evil for it. Adaptations like this make you long for a prequel. What was MacBeth like before the witches planted the idea of being king in his head? Was he normal? Happy? It’s clear he was trusted, but someone who can turn on a dime like that and become viciously evil must be giving off weird vibes throughout their life. 


This is my problem with the play, in general. MacBeth has to be this stupid shell of a man who only goes down this evil path because of witches and his wife’s ambitions. It almost seems like no decisions are actually made by him because everything he does is either at the urging of someone else or because a prophecy claims it will happen. Being an evil pawn in life breaks MacBeth mentally (“full of scorpions” and all..). Once you accept that you are simply an instrument of the world, then evil is just a side effect of your actions.


MacBeth is one of those annoying people who thinks the world is conspiring against them. He’s a fucking loser that cannot take responsibility for anything. Don’t get me wrong, luck plays a big factor in life, and a lot of people end up with shitty lives through no fault of their own. But when you start actively doing terrible shit and turn around and blame the world for it, then you can go fuck yourself. MacBeth might be the character I hate the most in Shakespeare’s canon, and that’s saying something because he wrote about plenty of scumbags. 


None of this has much to do with this particular movie, though, aside from doing a great job of exposing the annoying evil of MacBeth. In that regard, The Tragedy of MacBeth is a success. And stylistically it’s beautiful. But it’s not a film I enjoy, exactly. It is a film that is great for sparking thoughts about the source material, however. So a great movie to show a classroom of kids that will inevitably be disappointed by the black and white choice. 


This is all fine, but when it comes to Coens, single or together, I expect something special. Because of that, this adaptation doesn’t rate very high for me in their filmography. But that is a testament to their greatness. An adaptation like this would be a decent achievement for most directors. For Joel Coen, it’s an already mostly forgotten oddity. Here’s hoping Jack of Spades, the upcoming Joel movie I know almost nothing about, is a more unique film. I’ll settle for something just great, though.


Tuesday, July 3, 2012

"Moonrise Kingdom"

Directed by Wes Anderson, written by Anderson and Roman Coppola, starring Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman - Rated PG-13


"I love you, but you have no idea what you are talking about."
This review might be pointless.  I’m not doubting my critical skills (I’ll leave that to you, the reader), but reviewing Wes Anderson films in the traditional sense just doesn’t make much…well, sense.  Here’s the thing: If you like Anderson’s previous work then you should at the very least watch Moonrise Kingdom; if you hate his movies, then definitely skip it.  He has certainly not changed his style.  So this review is pointless if you don’t like his films.  If you are like me and you very much enjoy the majority of his work, then keep reading; I might have some thoughts that interest or anger you.

I am not the biggest Wes Anderson fan out there, but the films of his that I do enjoy, I enjoy immensely.  My favorite films, in no particular order, are Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and Fantastic Mr. Fox.  That list alone might get an argument started with cinephiles because of a title or two that’s included and one or two that is left off.  The important thing is that I am a fan of Anderson’s style, both the visuals and the dialogue.  It’s just sometimes the story doesn’t work for me or it seems a bit pointless.  The point of all this is that I am happy to say that Moonrise Kingdom can be added to my favorites list. 

Moonrise Kingdom has the style you’ve come to expect from Anderson in that it is set in 1965 (nearly all of his films look like they are set in the 60s, but this one actually is).  The production design and soundtrack are great as usual, so no need to delve into details, other than to point out that it is funny to see a few of the actors dressed as boy scouts.  It’s all very quirky and amusing, and I am being sincere.  I’m usually one to say that the aesthetics of Anderson’s work are just there for the sake of quirk, but in this case it is more about homage.  Apparently this film is influenced by the Jean-Luc Godard film Pierrot le Fou.  I must admit ignorance when it comes to Godard’s films, but I am definitely going to check out a few now, if only so that I can appreciate this film a bit more.  It’s obviously not required viewing, though, since I enjoyed it very much and I didn’t know about the influence until after I had seen Moonrise Kingdom. 

Having an influence isn’t what made the style completely worth it for me, though.  The story and the characters are touching and humorous, and that is what makes some of Anderson’s films great.  (I need to clarify that this film was co-written by Roman Coppola, so Anderson didn’t do all of this on his own.)  Moonrise Kingdom is essentially a love story about two young people who don’t fit in.  Sam (Jared Gilman) is an orphan with “emotional” problems who wants to escape from his khaki scout troop and run away with Suzy (Kara Hayward), a “troubled” girl who wants to escape from her family.  They travel all over a New England island, engaging in amusing conversation and awkward first love.  It’s all very sincere and you really want things to work out for them.

Nearly everyone else in the film tries to keep the two apart.  This group consists of the heavy hitters of the cast like Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, and Edward Norton.  These actors, along with Jason Schwartzman, are the faces you’ll see in all of the promotional material for the film, but they are supporting players.  They all do a fine job and it’s really just about personal preference when it comes to picking favorites.  Simply the idea of Bruce Willis appearing in a Wes Anderson film is funny to me, so he was definitely my favorite, especially since he gives a heartfelt performance that we haven’t seen in a long time. Norton and Schwartzman were a close second and third because of their sincerity.  Norton is channeling his gee-whiz performance from the under-seen Death to Smoochy to great effect and Schwartzman seems to be picking up right where Rushmore left off with equal success. 

The whole khaki scout aspect of the movie was great.  I thought it was funny how the scouts were basically run like a military organization.  An impressive tracking shot revealing the workings of the camp near the beginning of the film fits in perfectly within the Anderson canon.  The scout stuff also lends to plenty of interesting visuals (my personal favorite was the tree house that was far too high). 

Visually speaking, this is one of Anderson’s most beautiful films.  All of the outdoors scenes allowed him to try something new as far as setting is concerned and he shot in some great locations.  On top of that, a storm near the end of the film (this isn’t a spoiler since the narrator lets the audience know about right from the start) created some great moments as well.

Moonrise Kingdom isn’t anything new for Anderson, but that isn’t such a bad thing.  What’s wrong with a guy knowing what his style is and sticking with it?  If you don’t like his style, don’t watch his films.  Simple as that.  If you are a fan of it, then definitely check this one out.  You might not count it among your favorites but it is very unlikely that you’ll be disappointed by the film because it is about as Wes Anderson as Wes Anderson can get.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Since he wasn't in any previews or in the opening credits, I'm guessing Harvey Keitel's appearance is meant to be a surprise.  I just wanted to point out how funny it was to see him pop up in this film, only to promptly blown up.

I really like the title of the film and thought it fit in perfectly with the tone of the film.  The actual Moonrise Kingdom was a very beautiful spot in the film as well, and there's something to be said about the fact that it has disappeared after the storm. 

Another very Anderson aspect to the film: The kids seem to know exactly what they want, while the adults are the truly lost characters who need to change and grow by the end of the film.