1. Read the two existing reviews above and compare/contrast. What things do you agree or disagree with, after having seen the film?
In the first review, I agree that Macbeth went crazy with the fantasies of ignorant superstition while his flimsy wife went mad. I also agree in the first review about Macbeth, how he is revealed as a scared kid. Macbeth had gotten what was coming to him since he rebelled and killed King Duncan which had started it all. The characters do seem to understand the dialogue Shakespeare has written. I disagree that "the banquet looks like a gang of highwaymen ready to wolf down stolen sheep." I think that the banquet looks more like a gathering to accept the new king and get to know one another. I disagree that "Macbeth should have been titled 'Polanski's Macbeth'"because even though it is not an interpretation, not all original films are named in honor of the film artist. I think the the "sword fight" between Macbeth and Macduff was just a fight to the crown, to see who is more worthy in a strength wise type.
In the second review, I disagree that Macbeth is the most film friendly overall though, it had many gory scenes such as showing Macbeth's head being cut off from his body and King Duncan being stabbed to is death by Macbeth. The narrative was one that was not too easy to follow by since Shakespeare had his own type of language. For me, Macbeth was a bit horrifying, but it was not really to the point of being shaken up afterward, just the thoughts of blood and gory killing scenes. I agree that the characters we are encouraged to look at from the way they think and process the information given to them as the characters in Macbeth. I agree that Finch told the speech of "tale told by an idiot" had been told with little sound and fury. I also think that the way the weird sisters had not disappeared and just entered an underground lair was as a wry joke.
2. What kinds of things could the medium of cinema provide that a stage production could not? What are the disadvantages of a film version? Comment on use of costumes, sound/music, lighting, character appearance, and locations/sets.
The medium of cinema could provide more believable scenes than a stage production could. A film version could have the disadvantages of experiencing being part of the play. The use of costumes, sound/music, lighting, character appearance and locations/sets were very real-like. The costumes matched the way the location of the sets were. The sound had also matched the feelings the characters were supposed to feel about the scenarios. The way the characters were introduced were in very interesting ways.
3. What artistic liberties did Polanski take, as you compare the written play with his version?
The way Polanski added deep thoughts and feelings and the way the characters had performed so made it all feel so real compared to the written play with his version. Polanski's play version had taken all the talking and jumbo into real life scenarios where it did not just seem like talking about what is happening, but taking the words and putting them to believing that all that is happening is really happening in that moment.
4. What do you thing went well with the film? What would you have changed if you had been the director? Would you defend Polanski's decisions to make this so gory?
I think that the way the actors had portrayed the scenes were performed really well and they made it all believable and understandable. If I had been the director, I would have changed how the witches were brought into the storyline and made their part more clear of what their actual purpose was. I would not fully defend Polanski's decisions to make it all so gory because it all seems overdramatic in this way he had thought of for the characters. I think that Polanski had overthought the idea of people being killed.