Macbeth (1983)

Though Nicol Williamson performs outstandingly in the final scene, his overall performance is extremely uneven. At times he delivers his lines with brio or with subtle astuteness, but often he comes across as disengaged and bored. He too frequently resorts to snarling or to expressionless recitation, and only occasionally does he convincingly convey the tortured psyche of Macbeth. His delivery of the great "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" soliloquy is the worst rendition that I have ever beheld. On the whole, his performance drags down this production.Jane Lapotaire is excellent in her opening scene and in her final scene, but less impressive in the intervening scenes (especially in the scene with Banquo's ghost). She pretty badly misjudges a few of her lines. Still, if her overall performance had been matched by Williamson's performance, this production would have been better than it is.Tony Doyle is generally excellent as Macduff, and James Hazeldine is quite good in the difficult role of Malcolm. James Bolam is considerably less entertaining as the porter in this production than as Touchstone in "As You Like It" (though the fault may lie with Shakespeare more than with the actor).Most of the other performances are pretty good, though there are quite a few other instances of misjudged renderings of lines. The sets and lighting are fine, and the production is to be commended for omitting very little of the text (apart from the spurious III.v and the spurious bits of IV.i). In short, this production is certainly worth watching but is disappointingly short of what it could and should have been.

This was my first viewing of Macbeth. I didn't really rate it. Williamson's delivery is always a bit Leonard Rossiter, which adds some welcome and not inappropriate humour to his Hamlet, but really doesn't work for this character. Sometimes his hysterical throes with Lady Macbeth put me in mind of Rigsby and Miss Jones.The two leads don't have much chemistry or sexual chemistry. Shakespeare cuts to the chase in this play; no sooner have the witches voiced his destiny, he's licking his lips and plotting, no sooner has Lady Macbeth been informed of this via letter, she's turning murderous! It may be that the surviving play is abridged, some say. But for this to be convincing we have to see something unpleasant or visceral in the two leads just waiting to be untapped by fate, and I didn't see it here. Like, Cherie Blair would be a good Lady Macbeth, and the ambitious Gordon Brown her husband (okay, that's an unlikely alliance!) Here, you don't get the sense that their personal chemistry is the catalyst for murder and downfall. You just think, 'Are they crazy? What are they playing at?'

Jane Lapotaire is a superb Lady Macbeth, as those who've seen her on stage would expect. Although the jury is often out on Nicol Williamson's acting in anything, I think he is brilliant in this - particularly in the banquet scene where Banquo's ghost returns. I'd probably bracket him with Ian McKellen when it comes to TV movie portrayals of what is essentially the portrait of a usurper gone mad.It has to be said though that the towering presence of these two actors somewhat overshadow the others in the cast. Special mention must go to Ian Hogg as Banquo, and the late Tony Doyle as Macduff, however, as they are both excellent.Jack Gold's production looks done either on the cheap, or in a minimalist way (or both!) but that would be my only quibble. This is my favourite of the BBC Shakespeares. Let's hope the whole series of them will be made available on video or DVD widely in the UK again soon.

WARNING: if you do not know the play Macbeth, I refer to the ending, so please do not read this if you wish to keep the ending a surprise!*****Most of the later, stylized BBC Shakespeare TV-films have impressed me to some degree. Not so, Macbeth. While the highly stylized setting was effective in parts, the actors seemed to misunderstand much of the play, the ironies and character development. Lady Macbeth was especially guilty of this, during the speech in which she asks the "spirits which tend on mortal thoughts" to unsex her. The point of the speech is that Lady Macbeth is asking to be made sexless, remorseless and resolute. This Lady Macbeth, however, throws herself onto the (convenient) bed, legs spread wide in an almost masturbatory speech. I began to wonder at this point if she had actually read the play, or was being given her lines scene at a time! Sadly, the performance only got worse. Macbeth was marginally better, although the use of the "evil" rasping voice for his murderous thoughts, contrasted with the "manly" voice in the parts where his conscience is awakened makes for a very two dimensional tragic hero. Yes, that's right, Macbeth is a tragic hero, who is bought to downfall by his ambition and paranoia. Instead, the interpretation Jack Gold has given the play turns it into something resembling a 19th century melodrama, with an evil villain, pious king and Malcolm, and a heroic Macduff, completely ignoring the irony of Malcolm's statement of Macbeth as a butcher (Macduff, carrying Macbeth's head is visually the only butcher on stage) and the fiend-like Lady Macbeth (who we last saw wracked with guilt, sleep walking, only to kill herself later out of despair in the knowledge of what they have done). The introduction of the Weird Sisters, who rise out of stone was impressive. It is a pity the rest of the production did not follow suit.