Hugely disappointing -- for anyone who cares at all about Shakespeare

Rating: 1/10 (7 February 2016)

After all the really good, not to say rave reviews of this film I, who, like countless millions, think Shakespeare was a marvellous writer, was really looking forward to seeing it. My disappointment was total. Let me say first what I have no problem with. I have no problem with the fact that they obviously had only a small budget. The scenes were almost all shot outdoors, on Rannoch Moor or somewhere similar, in the mist. The costumes were fairly cheap, raggedy looking things, but why not? We are talking about mediaeval barbarians, and Scottish ones at that (no offence intended). I do not even have a problem with them pulling the play around a lot, chopping it up a bit and re-stitching it, provided they keep some sort of sensible narrative going. I do not really have a problem with them adding an extra scene, character, or line here or there, provided they keep the sense going. No, what ruined the film for me, made it very painful to watch from almost the outset and unremittingly thereafter, and what required of me an iron resolution to see the debacle to the end – which I needed to do if I was going to write a review – was the appalling handling, most particularly by the two lead actors, of Shakespeare's lines. Almost all the time Fassbender and Cotillard appeared to have little or no understanding of what the lines actually meant. She delivered most of the lines in a hushed, sibilant whisper, he in an uninvolved monotone. I do not ask that they should perform like Laurence Olivier or some such, but at least they could bring some inflections to the lines, bring out the meaning and make them interesting. These two seemed to have no intention behind their sotto voce recitation other than to get to the end of the sentence as quickly as possible. The fact that there was scope for some decent speaking should have been demonstrated to them so clearly by the excellent performance of their colleague, David Thewlis as Duncan. There is a man who, with his theatrical training, knows exactly how to handle Shakespeare, whether on stage or, as here, in front of the cameras. There were also one or two good performances in smaller parts, particularly from some genuinely Scottish persons, including an elderly actor, whose name I cannot give because I never discovered what the name of his character was. The long and the short of it is that your wonderful film stars are quite hopeless at speaking Shakespeare, particularly if they need, for artistic reasons, to speak quietly. They have not had any training in supporting the voice when speaking quietly, so that it comes out as a low growl, a whisper or a hiss, or a mixture of all three. This was what put me off right at the beginning, the Lady hissing and shushing through lines, which were virtually unintelligible. You get the same sort of thing in the world of music, where pop singers need all manner of electronic support as they alternate between whispering and screaming. A good example of what happens if you try to sing when you do not know how to support the voice was given by Anne Hathaway in the film of Les Miserables. How she could have received any praise for this effort, as opposed to her dramatic scenes, quite baffles me. The last part of her pathetic solo (pathetic in both senses) was no more than a hoarse whisper. She is, of course, not to be blamed for this, as long as neither she nor anyone else thinks of her as a singer. So, with the two lead performances flat as a pancake and largely unintelligible, how can I give the film any stars at all?