Rebekka Szentgyörgyi: The Reception of Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth

The latest film adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, directed by the Australian Justin Kurzel, turned out to be revolutionary. Actually shot in Scotland, the audience can enjoy the beautiful, however haunting, landscape throughout the whole movie. I believe it is safe to say that the actors selected for the main roles cannot be outdone. The amazing and outstanding performance of French actress, Marion Cotillard, brought a Lady Macbeth to life who haunts us in our dreams. The role of the title character was performed by the one and only Michael Fassbender, who delivered a powerful performance, and whose Scottish accent make us question his German-Irish origins. I was curious about how this masterpiece was received, so I decided to look up different reviews concerning this adaptation.

I was not exaggerating when I called Kurzel’s movie a masterpiece, and the generally appreciating reviews support my argument. Leslie Felperin in Hollywood Reporter’s Cannes Review mentions how the director was able to place Shakespeare’s tragic story in “a resolutely modern sensibility” (Felperin, ’Macbeth': Cannes Review, www.hollywoodreporter.com). He praised its “horror-movie spookiness” and “use of brutal violence,” which certainly helped to raise interest in the audience (Felperin, ’Macbeth': Cannes Review, www.hollywoodreporter.com). However, as the review mentions, the lot of mumbling going on in the movie did not impress the theatre-goers, who are accustomed to comprehensible and audible speeches (Felperin, ’Macbeth': Cannes Review, www.hollywoodreporter.com).

Michael O’Sullivan certainly agrees with the Cannes Review about the brilliance of the performance delivered by the main character. Michael Fassbender is “at the top of his game,” and his “Macbeth is unhinged, in ways that are at once terrifying, deeply moving and all too recognizable to modern audiences” (O'Sullivan, Fassbender's 'Macbeth' Is Ferocious, Unhinged,  www.washingtonpost.com). In addition, those traditional who insist on keeping the original text do not have to worry. The movie kept the original text, only shifted it in ways to enhance the action and the emotions (O'Sullivan, Fassbender's 'Macbeth' Is Ferocious, Unhinged,  www.washingtonpost.com). To use the powers of movie making, scenes that are only described in the original play and stage productions, actually happen in the movie, including the opening battle scene or the death of Macduff’s wife and children (O'Sullivan, Fassbender's 'Macbeth' Is Ferocious, Unhinged,  www.washingtonpost.com).

Even though finding criticism in the reviews is rather difficult, the main ‘issue’ with the movie for some is the brutal violence, darkness and bloodbath. Geoffry Macnab even says that “it becomes increasingly oppressive to watch” (Macnab, Michael Fassbender Is Scowling and Mercurial,  www.independent.co.uk). Peter Bradshaw, who wrote a review for The Guardian also points out that the director and Fassbender should have worked more on the “contours of his speeches,” saying that it would have been better if they worked closer together (Bradshaw, Fassbender and Cotillard Full Of Sound and Fury in Significant Shakespeare Adaptation, www.theguardian.com).

Putting aside all the criticisms, this movie definitely became the favourite Macbeth film adaptation for many worldwide. The different approach that Justin Kurzel used attracted even those to the cinema who are not big Shakespeare fans.

Secondary sources

Macbeth Review: Fassbender and Cotillard Full Of Sound and Fury in Significant Shakespeare Adaptation. Peter Bradshaw - https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/23/macbeth-review-fassbender-and-cotillard-full-of-sound-and-fury-in-significant-shakespeare-adaptation.

Movie Review: Fassbender's 'Macbeth' Is Ferocious, Unhinged

Michael O'Sullivan - https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/movie-review-fassbenders-macbeth-is-ferocious-unhinged/2015/12/09/f33b1d9e-9d3b-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?utm_term=.2cb9c817bdb9

Macbeth, Film Review: Michael Fassbender Is Scowling and Mercurial

Geoffrey Macnab - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/macbeth-film-review-michael-fassbender-is-scowling-and-mercurial-a6676271.html

’Macbeth': Cannes Review. Leslie Felperin - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/macbeth-cannes-review-797690

Images

1.   http://akritizator.blog.hu/2015/10/24/eljen_macbeth

2.   https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2884018/mediaviewer/rm2449272064

3.    http://yesicannes.com/macbeth-festival-cannes-23936

  

Márton Nagy: A Struggle for the Audience: Theatre vs. Hollywood

The world of theatre has changed enormously since the age of Shakespeare. Being an actor used to be a local phenomenon; the actors were relatively unknown outside their company back in the day. However, the age of the motion picture changed everything, and introduced a milestone in the world of art: international stardom.

Stemming from a neighbourhood in central Los Angeles, the dawn of the cinema of the United States brought a completely new kind of recognition for the actors. Since the 30’s and 40’s, the success of a performer is perceived in a whole new way, and, as the target audience is not a small group of theatre attendees anymore, those who were at the right place at the right time, earn not only unbelievable amounts of money, but may also become internationally known idols.

The question arises: in a world, where success is measured according to blockbusters and top billings, how would you familiarise a young audience with a classical play like Much Ado About Nothing, and, more importantly, with the theatre itself? The answer is evident: cast internationally known stars in the lead roles. This is the reason why Josie Rourke cast David Tennant and Catherine Tate in his 2011 adaptation. Moreover, he also modernised the entire setting of the play: instead of the late medieval Italy, we see the 80’s Gibraltar, which is, again, more easily acceptable by a non-theatre-going audience.

Probably there were many people, not just among the theatre-snobs, who, after a glimpse at a theatre poster, cynically exclaim that “yes, the filthy Hollywood has crept into the theatre once again”. They would even mention examples – as they are undoubtedly numerous - , when the international stardom of a Hollywood actor or actress had in fact only been an empty shell, completely devoid of any talent. Some people still draw parallels between being a renowned face on screen, and being only a celebrity. Well, this adaptation is definitely not for them. As it is similarly not for those who formulate their review of a play before they even see it.

In the case of Tate and Tennant, this Hollywood celebrity stereotype is obviously nonsense, not only because this is not the first stage appearance for either of them. The other reason is that they perform in such a unique way, that they blend the traditional wit and characteristics of Shakespeare with the sometimes controversial modernity. And we all have to admit, that theatre has to change. Because a teenager, who, for instance, spends his free time watching episodes of Doctor Who, is more likely to get his interest in Shakespeare aroused by someone who is familiar from the screen, than by another actor in a traditional setting, who is completely unknown to him. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the theatre has to strive for the same audience as Hollywood. And its victory is everyone’s interest.

Szenczi Bianka: Project MUSE

The aim of my project was to examine and introduce an online database, Project MUSE. I have also observed the usefulness of this database in our group’s research and compared the search results in the different online databases.

Firstly, Project MUSE is an online database of academic journals and electronic books. The aim of this database is to provide reliable and high quality content for the users. Although, subscription is needed for the database, currently about 2500 libraries worldwide subscribe to it. Moreover, at present, there are thousands of scholarly books and journals available through the database.

The usage of Project MUSE is not complicated because it provides a friendly platform that is easy to use. Different access is provided for librarians and publishers to make their research easier. Furthermore, users can choose from quick or advanced search. The advanced search option enables the users to directly search for content, title, author or publisher. This function helps to reach the desired content as soon as possible.

Secondly, there are different options to narrow down the results and find the suitable content the fastest way possible. For instance, by simply ticking the “only content I have full access to” option, all the irrelevant materials can be sorted out. The content can be narrowed down by choosing from Content type (journals, articles, review or books), Research Area, Author, Publisher, Journal name, Language or Publication year. The database has further options as well. It is a significant advantage that the results can be sorted by relevance or by the newest or oldest publication. Under each journal, there is a possibility to download the text in PDF or HTML format to make the usage of the different texts more convenient. The citation management tool enables the users to save citations that can be easily found later when they need them on the website. A clear explanation is also given next to all articles which show whether the article is available for us or not. These functions make the user’s work easier. Unfortunately, despite these functions, Project MUSE was not a suitable database for our group’s research. By using the keywords “Much Ado About Nothing”, “gender” and “Shakespeare,” I examined the results provided by Project MUSE.

However, the results were often improper or recurring. Most of the articles do not mention Much Ado About Nothing at all and they are not even about the play. For example, if we use the keywords “Much Ado” and “Shakespeare,” Project MUSE shows 38 results. The newest journal is connected to More’s Utopia that was not even written by Shakespeare. The oldest result was published in 1993 and it is connected to the topic of The Two Gentlemen of Verona. However, these results do not provide material in connection with Much Ado About Nothing. It is mentioned only twice in the latest publication but the main theme of the journal is about a completely different play. By contrast, if we search based on all of the keywords, we have only 16 results. If we sort them by relevance the first one is “Shakespeare’s Jestbook: Wit, Print Performance” from Spring 2004. This match was the closest to our topic. The oldest research remains the same journal in this case as well. Furthermore, most of the results are theatre reviews by different authors and there are some reviews that mention Much Ado About Nothing only in the Works Cited section as a secondary source for the article.

In conclusion, despite the fact that I used various keywords and narrowed down the results in different ways, the records were not accurate. Although, the usage of Project MUSE was quite easy and clear, the results were not suitable for our research.

Gelóczi Eszter: Google Scholar

Digital media earned an indispensable role in our lives since the modernisation of the world mainly covers the improvement of online surfaces and programs, along with the production of electronic devices which are the tools to reach digital media. Digital media can be created, distributed, downloaded or modified because it concerns images, videos, sounds, web pages, e-books and journals and so on. The aim of our project was to explore the differences between online databases and find out which leads us to the most relevant results when searching in a certain topic. My search engine was Google Scholar and I would like to give some information about its features as it can appeal to those who are about to write home assignments or their thesis.

First of all, it is important to mention that it is very user-friendly and easy to understand its options. It is possible to search for only „Abstracts” or to access „Everything” that are full texts. We can sort the results by a chosen year or type a time interval in which we are interested in. It will sort the hits from the latest to the oldest ones but my problem was that I was not able to find the oldest of all as there is no such option on the website. I just tried to figure it out by going through all the pages of results but when there are thousands of results it is impossible to get to the end. We can also search „Everything” by relevance which turned out to be much better, even if we get thousands of results not only a couple. Sorting them by relevance means that the program sorts the results by their citation numbers which show how many times it was cited. The bigger the number is, the more relevant the source might be and these appear at the beginning of the list. This search option was much more accurate than searching abstracts by dates. The program also has an Advanced Search option where we can add the author whose works we are interested in and add expressions or words that we would like to appear in the title of the document or anywhere in the text. We can also add words we would like to avoid or give a book in which the article was released. This detailed search speeds up the process of research to find the most proper sources. What is more, that it is possible to search documents in various languages. You can choose whether you are searching in only one or more languages. It is perfect when you are searching sources for your Spanish or even Japanese paper because you will definitely find something that helps you.

In conclusion, I would highly recommend Google Scholar to anyone especially to students who ran out of time and are looking for a good site to save some time. The results that the site offers are quite reliable as they are based on librarian catalogues just like the Hungarian MOKKA , thus it only contains peer-reviewed documents. Of course, it is not a perfect site as it will also offer documents that are not accurate at all but by searching by relevance offers quality sources which will perfectly cover your topic. 

Rónyai Kitty: Theatre is the best

I was in the theatre group in our class because I firmly believe that that is the best medium to experience a play. In this blog postI am going to list a few arguments to show my reasons and will mention why some of the counterarguments are irrelevant. Starting by stating that plays were written to be performed would lead us nowhere. I will ignore this obvious fact because based on this we could hardly argue. Instead let me compare the medium with the others.

The theatre is closest to the film therefore I would like to start with that. Through technological advancement the film may have the advantage because it allows for tricks that could never happen in a theatre. However these do not amount to the actual presence of the actors. When on stage, their whole body is always visible and they can never be out of shot. Seeing the characters on stage even when they do not have lines or action and also seeing them fully all the time not from shot to shot adds a dimension of reality to the characters. Thus the experience can help the viewer in their suspension of disbelief in a way that a film never could.

However its means of making the audience realise that what they are seeing is not real and is just a play are also more powerful. Breaking of the fourth wall can happen in a film but in a theatre the actor has the freedom the react to the audience’s reaction. That way the viewer breaks out of the world of the play and notices the reality around them. The theatre offers the possibility of these two opposing methods in much more powerful ways than a film could.

I will not compare the theatre as a medium with the book and the digital database separately because what matters for our present purposes is its differences with a written text. Although this is very subjective, it has to be said that reading is altogether a duller experience than viewing. It is impossible to experience the glamour of theatre. Comprehension is another issue where there can be no final answer in deciding which is better. Both reading and watching can be hard to understand but while in a book we get careful explanations, in a theatre the words are supported by actions.

However a typical argument against theatre is usually that it is just one possible interpretation of the lines, of character or scenes. This is undeniable. The issue arises from the relatively little stage directions which allows for countless interpretations. Seeing just one of these does not equal the full experience. Reading the play in theory should mean that we can imagine all the possibilities. Unfortunately, in my experience, this requires the kind of close reading that few actually practice when reading. Also, there is a relatively easy way to overcome this possible defect of the theatre. We simply have to watch more than one production.

These are of course only my arguments and I acknowledge the subjectivity of the topic. Therefore I am looking forward to your arguments to disagree with me, in the comments!

Sources of pictures:

http://lorannah.blogspot.hu/2011/07/83-much-ado-about-nothing-globe.html

https://www.oldhallhotelbuxton.co.uk/offers/theatre-breaks-at-the-old-hall-hotel-2/

Ágnes Lovas: Teamwork in Our Times

With the advancement of technology working on a project for the school or for one’s workplace has changed a bit. If it comes to teamwork, nowadays people don’t necessarily have to meet up to discuss the things they want to. There are numerous tools with which they can solve this matter more easily.

For instance, one can use Google Documents. One of the members creates a document, then invites all the others via email. The reason why Google Documents is really helpful is that it does not only save every change, but also it is editable by everyone who is invited, furthermore each member can see the changes. What is more, if someone edits the text, or adds a comment to it, the others are notified by an email. Another advantage of it is that since this document can be accessed through google accounts, one does not have to bring along a pen drive if they have WI-FI connection. Although, it has a drawback too, that is to say, we cannot insert pictures into our document.

Another tool which might come in handy is a program called Skype. This program does not only do a good service if we want stay in touch with someone, but it is also helpful to have a live discussion with others without having to agree on a place and time to meet up. This might not be a huge problem if there are only a few members in the group, but the bigger the group is, the harder it is to find a place and the time which is suitable for everyone. With Skype, you only have to make up your mind about time, not to mention that you have more time on your hands, since you saved the amount you would have spent on travelling. In addition, you can have the discussion from the coziness of your own home.

Yet, both Skype and Google Documents are impersonal compared to meeting in a café. These do not replace having a drink in a nice place, and chatting away on relevant, and also on not so relevant topics. So, to sum it up, I would say that all of these advancements of technology are useful, still it would be a shame to forget about the conventional way of meetings. While working on our project, we, the Theatre group used all of these methods to work on our project, and it turned out to be great. We did not only manage to do it in the most comfortable, and enjoyable way, but we also had a great time while doing it.

Picture was taken from:
http://www.avtechpd.com/e-learning-tutorials/

Bánovics Nóra: Bad Guy in Focus

My task with the Film Group in our project work was to take a closer look at the differences between the two versions of the film adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing, according to the directors’ point of view, the camera angles and camera movement. For that we rived a specific scene off both of the movies, namely Joss Whedon’s 2012 version and Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 version. This specific scene was Hero’s and Claudio’s wedding scene which has been proved to be a perfect subject for that, since this is one of the few scenes where every character is present, contributing to the events. While I was observing this particular scene, I could not avoid noticing the difference between the two movies in the view of the emphasis they put on Don John.

Obviously, Don John is one of the main characters - if not the most important -, in the play, the conflict emerges because of him. At the beginning of the wedding scene the spectator already knows that something will happen and in the 2012 version it is even highlighted when the camera focuses on Don John from above, showing his profile as he looks down on Claudio and Don Pedro. We can even notice a self-sufficient smile on his face suggesting that he perfectly knows that his plan has worked. In contrast to this, the 1993 version does not lay particular emphasis on him in that scene, he is not highlighted and the camera does not focus on him directly and for a long time.

Furthermore, in the 2012 version of the movie throughout the wedding scene Don John is set off several times. For example when the events reach its climax the camera focuses on him again, picking him out of the audience as he looks around seeing the consequences of his plan. Again, to this the 1993 version does not pay significant attention, Don John is only perceptible in the background, and even when he speaks we cannot see his face. Contrary to this, in Whedon’s version, when Don John speaks to Claudio half of his body is shown; we are allowed to see his face and his gestures, which characterize the whole movie, while in Branagh’s adaptation usually only the actors’ and actresses’ face is shown in conversations. Moreover, Whedon tries to bring some humour into the scene with highlighting Don John again at the end, stealing a cupcake when he leaves.

 In conclusion, according to the above analysed scene with the mentioned features, in my opinion, Joss Whedon has put more emphasis upon the role of the “bad guy”, highlighting his actions in the events. The spectator’s attention is drawn to him before the trouble occurs, he is in the spotlight in the 2012 version, whereas in the 1993 adaptation he seems more like he hides in the shadow, observes the drama from the background. However, Don John’s effacement does not reduce his importance and his key role in the overall story, Whedon’s decision to focus on him more has turned him into the bad guy more than in Branagh’s representation.