
AP Photo
It’s the role that, according to theatrical cliché, every actress dreams of playing at least once in her life: Lady Macbeth. The conniving, persuasive, power-hungry — and, finally, guilt-plagued — wife of the stage’s favorite tyrannical Scot has been played by everyone from Judi Dench to Simone Signoret to Vivien Leigh. But Natalie Portman — for now, at least — will not be joining that esteemed club, as Justin Kurzel’s upcoming new screen version of “Macbeth” has swapped one Oscar-winner for another. Marion Cotillard will now be crying “Out, damned spot!” opposite Michael Fassbender’s Mac. And, as far as I’m concerned, one of 2014’s most exciting projects just got a little more so.
I must admit, it’s been a while since I actively looked forward to a new big-screen Shakespeare adaptation. Ralph Fiennes’ “Coriolanus” — rarely filmed and intriguingly cast — got my juices going, but an umpteenth do-over of “Romeo and Juliet?” Fine, but what ground is left to cover? Joss Whedon larking about with “Much Ado About Nothing?” Why not, I guess, but it’s been done as a youthful romp, and better.
“Macbeth,” however, is another story. The superstitiously nicknamed “Scottish Play” may be one of the Bard’s most widely read and compelling works (as well as one of the most obviously cinematic) but it’s surprisingly under-filmed — especially compared to fellow high-school standard “Hamlet,” which seemingly comes up for screen renewal once a decade or so.
There hasn’t been a major, straight-ish screen adaptation of “Macbeth” since Roman Polanski’s appropriately bleak and bloody 1971 version — a film that remains under-valued, despite the relative lack of competition. Yet arguably, no film to date has captured the play more definitively than Akira Kurosawa’s vivid samurai spin, “Throne of Blood,” in 1954. (Several films have recontextualized the play since, including 2006’s Shakespearean-language, Sam Worthington-starring “Macbeth” set in the Melbourne underworld, but none has served its spirit more evocatively.)
So, in short, the time is ripe for a fresh “Macbeth.” And I can’t think of a more apt and exciting director to take on the task than Kurzel, a fiery new Australian talent whose startling debut, “Snowtown,” was one of my favorites of 2011: a stomach-knottingly brutal study of a small-town serial killer as viewed through the eyes of an impressionable teenager, it was a true-crime drama both unflinchingly candid and non-exploitative, cool and humane and repulsive all at once. If anyone can avoid a lacquered prestige-film treatment, instead taking “Macbeth” to its violent, tortured core, he can.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to think of a contemporary male star more physically, professionally and stylistically equipped to play Macbeth than Fassbender, an actor whose brooding physicality and emotional volatility has already seen him improve on Orson Welles’ Mr. Rochester in “Jane Eyre.” Welles gave cinema one of its most forceful Macbeths in his own 1948 film; can Fassbender take him on again? He’s pretty much the first actor I’d think of for the role, but sometimes the obvious choice is the right one.
Cotillard, however, is a more counter-intuitive choice — and, I think, a shrewd one. I was intrigued by Portman’s initial casting, while also fearing that the actress might be a shade too brittle for the part, and contemplating someone slightly older and more playfully seductive in her place. Cotillard has six years on Portman — a significant gap when it comes to this role, I think — and a full-bodied performing style that, to date, none of her English-language roles have quite tapped to the extent of “La Vie en Rose” or “Rust and Bone.” I can see Lady Macbeth bringing out that side of her, with Cotillard in turn bringing out the character’s often-underplayed romanticism. The fact that we haven’t seen her perform in this kind of classical context lends the casting a compelling unpredictability.
Kurzel said of the decision: “I feel extremely blessed that Marion is joining our film. She is one of the bravest and most compelling actors I have watched in recent years and I cannot wait to collaborate with both her and Michael in bringing to screen this very human and tragic love story.”
“Macbeth” will commence shooting in the UK in January, with producers Iain Canning and Emile Sherman (“The King’s Speech,” “Shame”) steering the project. Bring it on.
Are you excited for Fassbender as “Macbeth?” And whose Lady Macbeth would you prefer to see: Cotillard’s or Portman’s? Tell us in the comments.
I’m very happy to hear this. I like Natalie Portman a lot, but definitely not for this role. Marion Cotillard is certainly a step in the right direction, although I still think that Vera Farmiga would have been the perfect choice.
Mostly, I’m excited to see what Justin Kurzel does with the material. I had a few small qualms with “Snowtown,” but it was still a hugely promising piece of work.
I agree all around. Vera Farmiga would’ve been awesome I think, but Cotillard and Fassbender in a film together is also extremely exciting as well. I’m hoping Kurzel adapts the play similarly to how Cary Fukunaga brought to life Jane Eyre – making it more gritty and less flowery (or prestige-y), which I think Snowtown definitely showed that is more his style anyway. I hope this film is ready before the end of the year (in 2014) b/c it could be an interesting film in terms of awards prospects (depending on how it turns out.)
Love them both. I feared Portman was going to be a little too showy however, which doesn’t seem as big a concern with Cotillard in this role.
Still very much excited. Especially with Fassbender as Macbeth. Like you say Guy, he may just be perfect here.
No offense, Natalie, but hallelujah!
Another reason you’d expect much Macbeth on cinema – it’s the bard’s shortest play and perhaps the least verbally cumbersome.
Cotillard suits this much better than Portman, and you’ve done well explaining why. Hard to say if Fassbender is indeed “perfect” for Macbeth, considering how many possibilities there are. It’s as close to a dream role for an actor as I can imagine. Nevertheless, I think he will do well.
I wasn’t thrilled about Portman, though I thought she would do fine considering how much she impressed me in Black Swan. And I *adore* Cotillard as an actress. (I predicted she would one day win an Oscar after I first watched “Big Fish” if you can believe it. I was as shocked as anyone when I turned out to be right!)
But the huge drawback I see to her doing this film is the language barrier. Even native English speakers who are well educated can find Shakespeare’s language obtuse and forbidding. I’m concerned that she won’t be able to convey the subtleties of expression in the ways that make Lady Macbeth such a fascinating character. Truly great Shakespearean performers can often put a spin on a single line or emphasize just the right word to bring the message home to viewers, and I doubt that Marion Cotillard, for all her formidable acting talent, will be able to do that with her modest command of English.
I for one think Samantha Morton was born to play the role… but as I’m not casting the film, I can live with Cotillard. She may mar some of the poetry, but there are very few actors as capable of conveying the emotional arc of a character as nuanced as Lady Macbeth.
Macbeth is long overdue for a serious, artful film adaptation, and this project is certainly showing amazing promise to that end. The selection of Fassbender alone, who’s simply ideal for the title role, has convinced me there’s no way it can be all bad.
Maybe Kirsten Scott Thomas too, or Tilda Swinton.
Them, too, but if we’re playing “Who would make the best Lady Macbeth?” then I wish Maggie Smith were about 50-60 years younger than she is. Though, hell, why be ageist? She could probably still perform the shit out of it, and put younger actors to shame. (I wouldn’t seriously advocate casting an eighty-year-old woman as Lady Macbeth.)
That her only performance in a Shakespeare film is in Olivier’s execrable “Othello” is a travesty. To her credit, though, she knocked that one out of the park, too. Some of Shakespeare’s ladies are too perfect and wholesome to make for very interesting performances, but Smith playing Desdemona, a very one-note character, brought the role to life without straying from the nature of the character.
Thank you for voicing my concerns without putting down Cotillard’s formidable acting talent!
Marion Cotilliard is definitely a better choice than Natalie Portman, but my, what a brilliant suggestion Samantha Morton is!
I can’t think of anyone better than Marion to play Lady M, she has everything on her favor, and the french blood will certainly play in her favor, believe me, and in the matter of language,well, she must be taking classes with tutors and stuff that’s why she must be doing, literature and poetry. I mean I never imagined Renée Zellweger to play Bridget Jones and oh surprise what a phenomenal choice. Just have to wait and see how it goes, I’m more worried about the screenplay than the acting, also the directing, I don’t want them to take to literal and melodramatic, I want the darkness of Shakespeare’s.
I think Cotillard is an intriguing choice.
As for Fassbender, I guess I’ve heard too much about his X-men co-star’s amazing MacBeth turns to automatically think of him as the first cinematic choice. I’d like to see McAvoy transfer his post-apocalyptic MacBeth to the screen.
I also think Fassbender is better in his more naturalistic (Fish Tank is still my favorite perf) roles than full-on theatrical.
I’m going to have a hard time buying Cotillard as Scottish, but other than that totally silly, superficial objection, she’s absolutely a great choice for the part. She and Fassbender will certainly make for the most smoldering Macbeth adaptation ever.
Great, Marion is the best choice
I think Blanchett would have been my first choice, but Cotillard will be a revelation. Even in the smallest roles, I find her endlessly compelling. I do think the role calls for a certain chewing of the scenery–if directed that way–and it’ll be great to see her work in that larger scope.
Wasn’t happy with Portman (who I generally like) in this role. Cotillard is an improvement, even though I’m not sure about the language part. Her English is fine, but not flawless. And, after all, this is Shakespeare.
My personal choice would have been Andrea Riseborough, but I’m excited to see what Cotillard has to offer.
I like Cotillard over Portman but Rachel Weitz would have been my number one choice.