User Reviews

Although there are a number of flaws in this production of Macbeth, it is worth viewing for several reasons. First, Nicol Williamson, though he fails to make this Macbeth work completely, is always interesting; probably, this is due to his intelligence. One can always see what he is getting at, even when he fails to get there or when we disagree with his interpretation (and I disagree with much of this one -- especially the "Tomorrow and tomorrow" sequence). The gradual shift from a heroic, conscience-concerned warrior to a cold-blooded and ruthless tyrant is clear if not always heartfelt.

Second, most of the text is clear and unadulterated (some minor changes, including the happy cutting of the Hecuba scenes, which are not by Shakespeare anyway, actually help move the play along). The cast and director have worked so carefully to illuminate the text, characters, and situations that this particular version might be the best choice for school use.

Finally, Jane Lapotaire gives a brilliant tour-de-force performance as Lady Macbeth. For one thing, she is sexy, which apparently some reviewers seem to find objectionable, but which is quite accurate for Lady M. Why else would she have to call on the powers of evil to "unsex" her? Also, she is clearly in love with her husband and not with her own ambitions. It is imperative in any production of Macbeth that the marriage is based in love and devotion; otherwise, the tragedy is lost! When this Lady Macbeth tries to calm her manic husband during the banquet scene, we can feel her anguish over the loss of their former relationship (and her part in causing it), anguish that easily turns to madness the next time we see her. The sleepwalking scene is beautifully built by re-living not only the text, but the actions of the Act 2 murder of King Duncan and its effects on the Macbeths. Lapotaire is one of the great post WWII actresses, trained in the great British tradition, and her presence in this production makes the viewing worthwhile in itself.

Don't miss it!

Although this is a rather dark film, Macbeth was written as a dark play and therefore is very fitting.

The way that this film was done reflects the difficulties of converting a successful and ageless stage production into a filmic production. It is filmed and acted in a way that expresses the actors' stage presence and ability while exercising the many capacities that cameras have.

It is worth watching. I have had to view many different versions of Macbeth for many classes in the general ed and collegiate levels and this version does justice to the original text and to the stage origins of the play.

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.

I actually prefer Nicol Williamson's Macbeth to Sir Ian McKellen. He is far more believable in the role. I believe Williamson to be one of the better Shakespearean actors. Even Jane Lapotaire's Lady Macbeth is better than Dame Judi Dench's performance. Perhaps Dench and McKellen just lacked the physical chemistry Williamson and Lapotaire appear more likable to me. I believe them more as a couple. While I enjoy all the actors mentioned above, this version is more than just a stage version. There is no audience. The costumes and art direction could be better overall. Still the BBC kept true to William Shakespeare's words. This version could do well in high school classrooms since this play is part of the curriculum. I prefer this version overall to the recorded Stratford version. If I had to choose between this version and Roman Polanski's film for the classroom viewing experience, I would take this version because it is more faithful overall.

Though Nicol Williamson performs outstandingly in quite a few scenes, his overall performance is somewhat uneven. Much of the time he delivers his lines with brio or with subtle astuteness, but he occasionally comes across as disengaged and bored. Especially disappointing is his delivery of the great "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" soliloquy. It is indeed, the worst rendition that I have ever beheld. Perhaps Williamson was seeking to convey Macbeth's ennui through his lackluster recitation of the soliloquy, but it falls badly flat.

Jane Lapotaire is excellent in her opening scene and in her final scene, but somewhat less impressive in the intervening scenes (especially in the scene with Banquo's ghost). She pretty badly misjudges a few of her lines, and she is too highstrung. Still, her overall performance is at a high level.

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 including most of the text. (The spurious III.v and the spurious bits of IV.i are of course omitted, as is the paean to Edward the Confessor in V.iii. Only a handful of other lines are omitted -- though I should note that all of those remaining omissions are gratuitous.) There are some pointless rearrangements of the text, but they are not confusing.

There are several directorial oddities, of which I will mention two here. First, in the third scene -- where Macbeth and Banquo encounter the witches -- the witches simply amble away after they have delivered their prophecies to Macbeth and Banquo. Contrary to what Macbeth and Banquo declare, the witches do not suddenly vanish. Given that the sudden disappearance could have been effected easily in a production made for television, the directorial decision to have the witches simply walk away is strange indeed. Second, during the scene with Banquo's ghost, there are two empty chairs rather than only one. There is the empty chair across from Macbeth, where Banquo's ghost appears. Clumsily, however, there is another empty chair at the very part of the table where Macbeth is standing. Quite unclear is why the director included that second empty chair, especially given that its position makes rather ludicrous Macbeth's question about the location of a vacant seat.

In short, this production is well worth watching even though it is marred by some shortcomings.

Ambrose video 1984. Part of "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" Produced by the BBC & Time-life Films. Produced by Shaun Sutton. Directed by Jack Gold.

There are many versions of this product and several beautifully illustrated and annotated books. Everyone has their favorite. Yet the only way to be a true favorite is to watch other versions.

This just happens to be one of my favorites as the actors do not outshine the characters. This is close to a minimalist stage production. This is close enough to the writing that it makes for a good classroom presentation.

It is best to know the story before watching the presentation. It starts with three witches that tell a Scottish general Macbeth (Nicol Williamson) that he will become king. Macbeth's wife eggs him on as suggesting that he kill the existing ruler and cousin Duncan to move the process forward. Little did Macbeth and Lady Macbeth (or we for that matter) suspect at the time that they would encounter more blood and supernatural forces to correct the situation.

You may find this a tad more layered than you think as we must decide if the hero Macbeth is the bad person as suggested by Malcolm and Angus.

Do not overlook the politics of the time as they are sometimes overlooked in other presentations.

We also get some of our best quotes as in Act IV, Scene 1" Double, double toil and trouble, fire burn, and cauldron bubble."

'Macbeth', known too as the Scottish play (have also heard Verdi's opera coined the Scottish opera), is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, with some of Shakespeare's most deservedly famous characters and lines/solliloquies. It is one of his most quotable/oft-quoted plays and one of his most accessible to study in schools, from personal experience and studying it twice (no other Shakespeare play had me studying it more than once at school).

The BBC Television Shakespeare series is of great interest and a must see for anyone wanting mostly faithful productions with talented casts, even if the quality of the production values throughout the series is variable and some productions are better than others. This 'Macbeth' has garnered a mixed response and that is understandable, particularly in regard to Nicol Williamson's Macbeth. To me it is neither among the best or worst of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, and is solid enough while a long way from being perfect.

Can completely understand the mixed reactions to Williamson's performance. For me, it was an inconsistent one, with some disengaged interaction early on and some intense moments veer on blustering. Worst of all agreed is the "Tomorrow" solliloquy, delivered far too slowly and is so under-acted that he looks bored. There are though fine moments, especially later on. He looks and acts genuinely spooked in the Banquo's Ghost scene and it's thrilling and did feel a lot of tension in the chemistry between him and Jane Lapotaire. The standout though was the "is this the dagger I see before me" solliloquy, one of the most chilling renditions of that part of 'Macbeth'.

Did feel that the witches were over-acted and not frightening or mysterious enough. The production would have benefitted from a tighter pace, it can drag and more detailed and more engaged interaction would have helped it.

On the other hand, to me 'Macbeth' is one of the better-looking productions of the series. The costumes and atmospheric lighting (especially at the beginning for the latter) are particularly good and while some may not share this opinion the austerity of the sets were perfectly fitting and didn't look cheap. The direction is not always consistent, but the scene where Macduff learns of his family's murder is very moving and the final scene is intensely vivid. The Banquo's ghost scene is problematic, have seen some amateurish staging of that scene and with touches that don't make sense but this production did a decent job with it, the psychological element of that scene is important and that was brought out. In fact, that the production has more of the psychological element of the play more than some other productions works in its favour.

There are some nice little things too, like the genuine terror in Lady Macduff's eyes (hugely telling and adds so much to the terrifying and emotional impact of that scene and something that one can't see on stage), Lady Macbeth's hands covered in blood as she pushes Macbeth towards the bedroom and Macbeth clearly showing nervousness with his hands behind his back. The sleepwalking scene is also spooky and the often brought up touch, also garnering a mixed response from viewer, didn't feel too gratuitous to me, and gratuity is a pet peeve of mine.

Music score is suitably haunting and the camera work is professional. Shakespeare's text is iconic and has a lot of impact throughout, this 'Macbeth' is notable for being near complete in its treatment of the drama and text, more so than most 'Macbeths', and is one of the more faithful in adaptation productions of the BBC Television Shakespeare series. The little that is omitted doesn't harm the production at all, and are some of the weakest parts of the play itself anyway. Forget to mention the rest of the cast. Jane Lapotaire is a bloodcurdling bat-out-of-hell Lady Macbeth, on the other end of the spectrum we have a noble Ian Hogg and very moving Tony Doyle. James Bolam is amusing as the Porter, the only "bad" performance was Tom Bowles' Donalbain but that was not enough to bring the production down.

Summarising, a solid if patchy 'Macbeth'. 6.5/10

Enter the myth of the tyrant and his end. The story is so well known that it does not surprise us any more. Macbeth is superstitious, so he believes oracles. But he is on the dark side of the moon, so he only accepts oracles from witches, the weird sisters who are three of course. More about it later. He is a military man, a soldier, a warrior, so he believes in violence, and yet he knows he should be cautious, so he hesitates, but once he has crossed his Rubicon, that is going to be his Styx he cannot come back at all and will go right through his fate. But he is weak in a way, in his very hesitation, and he needs some support that he finds in his Lady Macbeth, a very sly, neurotic and even vicious woman who ends badly since she started badly, thus expanding another title into "All's bad that ends bad." And it sure does.

We are in Scotland, with England in the background, as usual and as always. When will Scotland be of age and walk on her own feet? The old king is murdered by Macbeth who seizes the throne and luckily the two sons of the old king, Malcolm and Donalbain, have managed to leave before the assassination. They are accused of the assassination of course. And after that first crime Macbeth is on a killing road and he gets rid of his own associate Banquo and his family, and he will go on and on, including the whole family and household of Macduff. When you come to the end of the play you can count a good dozen, if not more, of assassinations of nobles and their families. If we counted the servants and household people we would probably come close to one hundred.

And that's when everything is getting sour because of the initial crime. The prediction or prophesy of the three weird sisters is of course sibylline. Macbeth is to be killed by a man not born from a woman and when Great Birnam Wood shall advance against Dunsinane hill. He will be killed by Macduff who was ripped out of his mother's womb and the coming army of Malcolm cuts branches in Great Birnam Wood and carries them in front so that the wood is moving to Dunsinane. But in the meantime Lady Macbeth had become completely insane with guilt, sleepwalking and washing her hands all the time, in fact rubbing them all the time. And she dies, commits suicide just before the final battle. Malcolm arrives in Dunsinane after Macbeth's death and is given the crown.

This production is contained mostly inside Macbeth's castle with essentially one outside setting for the three witches who work under a dolmen, or standing stones, finding in that a Celtic background. Yet these three weird sisters are not plain witches. They are a typical impersonation of the triple goddess Shakespeare likes so much. First the triple goddess herself, Hecate, the goddess of the underworld and death, who is here the "boss" of the three weird sisters, then Selene, the goddess of the moon and night, and finally Diana, the goddess of life in the forest and pregnant women. This triple goddess is often referred to as Demeter and her symbols are either a pinecone or a female wolf. Then you have the three Furies or Erinyes who are spinning, measuring and cutting the thread of our life. Then you have many others in Europe. For example the Germanic trinity of women — the three Beten. Their given names are Ambet, Borbet, Wilbet, standing for earth, the sun and the moon, respectively red, white and black goddesses.

What is surprising is the mention of these three witches in Elizabethan times. Shakespeare probably took advantage of the slight relaxation Elizabeth introduced concerning witches probably since her mother Anne Boleyn was accused of witchcraft. Unluckily for witches James I was to retighten the vice on witchcraft because he was really afraid if not superstitious about it. Is Shakespeare alluding to that fact? Difficult to know, even if Macbeth is positioned in Scotland. Yet the play was written in 1606, three years after the coronation of James I in London. In Shakespeare's days the connection must have been made. It would be interesting to find out what the reaction of the new king of England was.

The pattern of the elimination of all the protagonists except those who managed to escape Macbeth's clutch before he could catch them. The present production is slightly surprising by the appearance of a second young man, the age of Malcolm, the new king, in front of the people assembled at that time in a circle around Malcolm. This young man is outside the circle, between the circle and the dead body of Macbeth on the steps leading to the throne and the image turns reddish and fades out in that reddish shade. We can understand it may be the brother Donalbain with thus some insinuation from the director that the two brothers are going to recreate the Cain and Abel biblical myth. But I do not see that in the text of the play. That kind of situation is not common in Shakespeare, though I can think of two brothers in Titus Andronicus: of course Titus and Marcus, but there is no rivalry between the two, and Saturninus and Bassianus, the two sons of the dead emperor who are going to enter a conflict that will lead the elder son and brother to killing his younger brother. But this case is not common. There are many rivalries between couples of men but most of them are not brothers and not even relatives.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

The good news is that the sets, costumes and lighting are close to the top of the BBC Shakespeare series. Simple, powerful and expressive. The witches are shown at the Callanish Standing Stones in the Western Isles, and the castle is distinctly Highlands. Wonderfully evocative.

The bad news is, everything else.

Macbeth has the shortest text of Shakespeare's tragedies. But not here. This is endless. Much of the line reading is slow and straight into the camera, presumably on the assumption that American schoolchildren need underlining. No thanks. In this series, only the "Pericles, Prince of Tyre" is delivered more slowly. And that one's unbearable.

Theatrical tragedy is defined as a man or woman with noble qualities who is brought down by an act of hubris. Nicol Williamson is unable to convey any positive qualities to the character of Macbeth even when mouthing noble sentiments, and gives us a psychotic thug who just deteriorates. Unlike Lear or Othello, he has no transfiguring flash of insight when facing death - in defiance of the text, this Macbeth appears to have learned nothing.

Williamson gave interviews at the time of his calamitous Hamlet saying he got no joy at all from performing Shakespeare. Indeed his Macbeth is glum, trapped and looking like he was being forced to take some very nasty medicine. He makes the verse sound as ugly as possible, and his rudimentary classical acting technique consists of opening his eyes very wide and counting up to 257 under his breath.

Jane Lapotaire's Lady Macbeth is a simpler matter. She oscillates between orgasm and tantrums, with occasional rest stops at wheedling. She is every bit as baroque as he. Things got so weird that by the time we got to Banquo's ghost at the banquet, I thought I was watching the Pod People - I fully expected their heads to pop off and little "Mars Attacks" heads to rise up out of their shoulders.

Ian Hogg is a sympathetic Banquo, but he's no warrior. Tony Doyle has a good, solid moment as Macduff when he gets the news of the murder of his wife and kids. But he is unable to sustain interest, and the rest of the cast is notably weak, ranging all the way down to a pitifully incompetent Donalbain. Just about any other BBC Shakespeare video has a more effective supporting cast than this.

The major value of the BBC Shakespeare series is in less familiar plays. "Much Ado About Nothing," "Cymbeline," "Twelfth Night," "Henry IV," "Troilus and Cressida," "Love's Labour's Lost," "Henry VIII," these are great, life-enhancing experiences and are worth seeking out.

It is a pity that so many people will never see these, only a middling "Julius Caesar," a weaker "Hamlet," an oddball "Lear," a clumsy "Romeo" and this outright disastrous "Macbeth."

Nicol Williamson obviously belongs to the "Macbeth is Nuts" school of the Bard because he's virtually a drooling lunatic by the time he spits out "Tomorrow, and tomorrow...".

A shame that no one sought fit to sign up a rational human for the role, especially because the BBC series is so popular--this was the first word-by-word Shakespeare performance I saw...thank God I've seen others since.

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.

As with most of the BBC Shakespeare films, this Macbeth is a straightforward representation of Shakespeare's play, largely faithful to the text, but it is not without its flaws.

The acting style in this production is very subdued, often depriving the play of its energy.

The cast (with few exceptions) is singularly unattractive, including Lady Macbeth; she is, however, young, and her reading of the "unsex me now" scene is sexually charged.

Nicol Williamson's Macbeth is alternately dour, growling out his lines, and agitated, with the labored breathing of an asthmatic.

The Porter is not perceivably drunk and is certainly not funny.

The witches, however, are excellent; old crones in shabby, hooded cloaks, with gnarled hands, their lines are clearly articulated, not drowned by sound effects, as is often the case.

Macbeth is one of the best Shakespeare plays and this production looks nice,although it is not the best.The cast does a good job.The witches were over-acted and a bit strange and Macbeth was a bit strange and uneven.Despite this,it is still a good production of Macbeth,despite its flaws.Solid Macbeth,and while imperfect,it is worth a watch .6,5/10

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?'

Why is the otherwise lauded BBC series of the 'Complete Shakespeare Works' stopped dead in its tracks by the time they get to 'Macbeth'? Simple: An otherwise passable production with decent but not excellent casting is sabatoged by the ridiculous overracting of both Macbeths, man and wife.

This is not Orson Welles nor is it Roman Polanski. Clearly, because it is more a stage production that was filmed rather than an actual film, it suffers from the infamous "Macbeth Curse". You get the impression, in fact, that they probably yelled "Macbeth Macbeth Macbeth!" on the set a bunch of times. This is indeed, more Peter O' Toole mixed in with Denzel Washington's "Julius Caesar" in terms of quality. Not to mention the set design and production values are on the level of Sesame Street (did you SEE the blue day sky?). No, scratch that. Make that Eureka's Castle.

One wonders what could have happened had MacBeth been a less superstitious men and a less ambitious one how his life might have gone. He achieves his ambition and becomes King of Scotland in medieval days, but it all sure comes crashing around him. He could have used a less shrewish wife as well. Might have lived a long life as the Thane of Cawdor.

Nicol Williamson stars as the ambitious and brooding Scot's nobleman who thinks he could do a far better job as king than Duncan the current king who trusts MacBeth implicitly heaping all kinds of honors on him. But Jane Lapotaire as Lady MacBeth thinks it's all not enough. She's the really ambitious one and she goads her hubby into some serious action.

Not only does Williamson kill Duncan, he pushes his sons Malcolm and Donalbain aside and kills former friend Banquo whom he sees as a threat. A curious thing happens though. Lapotaire gets increasingly frightened and unhinged as she sees how her husband has changed. As for Williamson he now has a thirst for blood.

Williamson is a tall and regal MacBeth and while he's not Maurice Evans who is considered at least by many to have been the MacBeth of the last century Williamson gives a good account of himself. My favorite scenes are with the three witches whose counsel MacBeth seeks and who give him some enigmatic answers to questions that blow up in his face by the end of the play. Lapotaire isn't Judith Anderson who was Maurice Evans's Lady MacBeth, still she does well by the part.

Irish actor Tony Doyle plays MacDuff and gets the acting honors for the supporting cast. I always like how Bill Shakespeare liked in his plays to settle accounts in an almost Corleone like style. MacDuff is his agent here, just like Mark Antony in Julius Caesar or Laertes in Hamlet. These guys have a mission and there's no stopping them when they get started.

This MacBeth was part of the BBC series of all the Shakespeare plays. It's as good a production that you'll see.