Archive for Fargo

Grey Box

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 20, 2022 by dcairns

Really enjoyed Joel Coen’s THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH. By some special dispensation it’s called that. Polanski’s film, according to its main title, is also called THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH, IIRC, but it’s only ever called MACBETH. So I guess that helps us keep our Scottish usurpers sorted out.

What the Coen film has is a really good look (and sound). It finds a balance between the theatrical and the cinematic, a necessary thing for this sort of subject, I think. It goes further towards theatre than either the Welles or the Kurosawa (I don’t entirely consider THRONE OF BLOOD a version of Shakespeare’s Macbeth so much as a version of the story — if you don’t grapple with the dialogue, you’re not actually filming Shakespeare). What really helps it, I think, is the framing, in that round-cornered 1:1.33 box — the way characters talk almost right into the lens when they’re addressing someone out of frame, it makes everything ALMOST a soliloquy. The POV shots travelling very straight towards a geometric vanishing point — the influence of Hitchcock, apparently, though I kept thinking of the terrifying tracking towards the execution posts in Kubrick’s PATHS OF GLORY.

Performances are strong. Stephen Root can’t quite make the Porter seem other than a mentally-ill intruder from another cinematic universe, like the brawling cowboy’s bursting onto Buddy Bizarre’s musical set in BLAZING SADDLES, but that’s at least partly the playwright’s fault. There’s really outstanding work from Corey Hawkins, Bertie Carvel, Moses Ingram, Miles Anderson… Kathryn Hunter as all three witches is simply uncanny: an unholy trinity, a three-in-one contortionist Gollum.

I do have quibbles. Could have done with less CGI — the CGI I liked was the stuff I couldn’t be sure was CGI. I think there’s imperfect chemistry between Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand. Each is separately very good. But I have questions. Why does Macbeth want to be king? I get that his wife wants it, I totally believed that. Washington plays the man’s doubts well, but the excitement that the throne may be destined to his… well, it’s a very laid-back performance, which is refreshing in its way. Though he does sudden shouting, too, which everyone seems to need to do when they act Shakespeare.

Once he is king, the motivation should be easy: he has to kill all his enemies to stay alive, or so he believes. But Macbeth fretting over the fact that Banquo’s son will become king, and not his, would make more sense if there were any prospect of the Macbeths producing an heir of their own. It’s one thing you never question in the Polanski or Welles.

McDormand has to contend with The Missing Scene. Dame Edith Evans claimed Lady Mac was an unplayable role, because she disintegrates so rapidly — the sleepwalking sign is the first sign of weakness, and “she was perfectly fine at supper.” Evans phrase became even funnier to me when I realised that Lady M actually SAYS she’s “perfectly fine.”

Just read a great piece by Daniel A. Amnéus speculating that there’s textual evidence of just such a scene. In brief, he examines the Macbeths’ exchange here —

SHE: Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: what’s done is done.

HE: We have scotch’d the snake, not kill’d it:
She’ll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice
Remains in danger of her former tooth.

— and finds they make more sense as a consideration of Banquo’s murder and Fleance’s escape — which haven’t happened yet at this point in the play — than they do as a discussion of Duncan’s assassination. (He suggests that Lady M wouldn’t speak of the regicide as being without remedy, since she still regards it as “her greatest triumph.”

Coen and McDormand come up with a bit of business — Lady Macbeth suddenly starting to lose her hair — to try to foreshadow her sudden disintegration. This strikes me as both too much and not enough. Given the cinema’s ability, and right, and indeed requirement, to invent visual material, I think more could have been done. You can suggest that Lady Macbeth is not as perfectly fine as she claims. (This is quite well handled in the Polanski.)

There are some terrific inventions in this movie — Macbeth’s second visit to the witches is played as a dream — there’s nearly always a dream in a Coen Bros film (they even deleted one from FARGO, and one from THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE involving flying saucers) — and it’s tremendous. I don’t think the spectre at the banquet scene is reimagined as well as it might be. For one thing, inserting the raven, symbol in this film of the weird sisters, seems to imply that Banquo’s ghost is a production of sorcery, rather than Macbeth’s guilty conscience, a blurring of what I take to the play’s meaning. Playing the whole thing at a run, abandoning the banquet table, robs the scene of much of its awful, mortifying social dimension — a dimension that would allow McDormand, playing party hostess, to show more strain. Francesca Annis’ Lady M doesn’t suffer much from missing scene syndrome in the Polanski; Fraces McDormand’s much tougher interpretation of the part has a wider emotional gulf to traverse to get to the sleepwalking scene, and the tuft of shed hair, unconnected to anything else that happens, doesn’t get her there.

But my quibbles aside, I really dug this — I think the semi-theatrical look is achieved even better here than in Olivier (the stripped-down sets of his HAMLET seem like an unacknowledged influence). Because of the camera’s role. And the theatrical look is definitely a better choice than Polanski’s hyperrealism, though his approach does make his film an easy distance from the hallucinatory, a distance crossed when Jon Finch visits the witches for the second time.

Joel without Ethan seems to have moved into a more extreme stylisation, returning to the expressionistic and eclectic manner of his earliest work — this may all be due to the source material he’s tackling, but it’s an interesting direction regardless. And the trademark Coen snark is gone: he’s said he regards the Macbeths as sympathetic characters, asides from being murderers. OK, that very statement may contain some trace of snark. But I think he means it, also.

THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH stars Malcolm X; Marge Gunderson; Translucent; Jonathan Strange; Stobrod Thewes; Dudley Dursley; Poseidon; Lt. Nystrom; Jolene; Mrs. Arabella Figg;

THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH stars Malcolm X; Marge Gunderson; Translucent; Jonathan Strange; Stobrod Thewes; Dudley Dursley; and Mrs. Arabella Figg.

Holy Ghost-hunters

Posted in FILM with tags , , , on August 6, 2013 by dcairns


When I wrote my review  of James Wan’s THE CONJURING for Electric Sheep Magazine, I was under the impression it was a simple work of fiction. This in spite of the warning at the beginning of the movie saying “based on a true story.” The hep Edinburgh audience laughed at that, all of us assuming this was simply a piece of FARGO-style hucksterism.

Apparently it isn’t — the Christian ghost-hunters depicted in the film are real people who claim this stuff really happened, and they’ve got the family depicted in the film believing it too. Which makes the movie’s slightly worrisome fundamentalist subtext slightly more worrisome. So when reading the review, please add italics in your mind to the more critical passages to try to intensify the concern.

Cold and silly.

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , , , , on June 23, 2008 by dcairns

Apart from Shirley Clarke’s THE CONNECTION, which I’ll be writing on elsewhere, one highlight of Sunday was certainly cinematographer Roger Deakins in conversation with Seamus McGarvey. I am now very VERY psyched to see THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (I’m tired, I initially typed “ROBERY FRODO”) which looked stunning.

The concept of “poor man’s process” was raised, but not explained. Fortunately for us all, I’m clever and have worked it out. Process photography was most commonly used back in the Golden Age, for travelling shots in cars. It went out of fashion when colour and wide-screen rendered it less technically convincing, and location filming became far more common, rendering it less convincing by comparison. But it’s come back to some extent now that green-screen has advanced in popularity and technical perfection.

“Poor man’s process” is when you’re pretending that a stationary car is in motion, but you’re not actually rear-projected or front-projecting or matting or green-screening anything at all into the background. As Deakins put it, you just film in a shed. The background will be black, as it would be in the country at night.

Substantial parts of the first killings in FARGO were filmed in a shed, anything that’s just about cars and people in and around them. Because to do it outside, as Deakins attested, would be “too cold…and silly.”

I had just seen a rather different example of poor man’s process in Bunuel’s DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID. As Moreau is driven to her new job in a horse and trap, the vehicle jolts and jounces enthusiastically in the foreground (assaulted by stagehands) while a line of trees stands completely still at the far left of the ‘Scope frame. As long as you’re looking at the actors, as you should be, it isn’t a problem at all. I was sat at the front and my eyes were still getting used to the wide frame, so I clocked it, but it was rather sweet. And it tied in nicely with Mr. Deakins’ comments a day later.