New ‘Macbeth’ is a mumbling mess

The failure — complete, in this case — of director Justin Kurzel’s “Macbeth” is all the more disappointing in that the world is once again ready for this particular Shakespearean tragedy.

The enormous popularity of “Hamlet,” from the years following World War I through the 20th century, coincided with a time of alienated youth, and of an economy that valued, more than it had ever previously, traits that Hamlet possessed in abundance:

In a similar way, 21st century audiences may be ready to embrace “Macbeth,” a play about monstrous ambition in a climate of scarcity, and about a husband and wife team, working together as equals, toward a mutual goal that just happens to involve murder.

The 20th century approach to “Macbeth” often reflected the evil politics of Hitler, Stalin and other despots, but this is a play that’s more about the spirit, about people clawing and scraping and slashing and burning in the hope of achieving stature, and perhaps even respect and love.

[...] all the dialogue is spoken quietly, as though people were thinking out loud or afraid to be overheard.

Sometimes the hushed tones make some kind of sense, as when the Macbeths are scheming to kill the king who’s visiting their home — home in this case being little better than a main shack and a series of tents.

[...] there’s no way to mumble your way to a competent Shakespearean performance, and the actors’ troubles are compounded by the dumb choices inflected upon them by the adaptation.

In one scene, they seem to be plotting murder while having sex (standing up).

The dinner scene is staged in such a way that it falls flat, despite the surefire material (Banquo’s ghost appears, and Macbeth loses it).

Macbeth’s “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” speech is spoken (murmured actually) into the ear of his dead wife, as he carries her upright across the room, her feet dragging across the floor.