Macbeth:2007: Big on Action, Low on Thoughtfulness

PERILOUS MODERNIZATION?
Making Shakespeare "palpable" for contemporary audiences sounds a bit like an oxymoron when one considers the fact that what makes Shakespeare's plays inherently contemporary for every age is that despite their form, they always manage to convey themes universal to the problem of being human. As such, Shakespeare is never 'stuck' in a time frame since the action and dialogue of his plays speaks to what is timeless in man.
If the content of Shakespeare's dialogues are not enough to demonstrate the truth of the above proposition, one ought also consider the fact that Shakespeare set two of his works - 'Julius Caesar' and 'Anthony & Cleopatra' in a time frame far removed from his own and did not seem to feel it necessary to 'modernize' them in order to convey themes of heroism, citizenship, betrayal, love and friendship.
By doing so, Shakespeare seemed to eschew the need for 'modernizing' a drama, since he recognized that it is futile to attempt to recreate a more contemporary version of historical circumstances that bred a certain type of human response.
He could just as well have set Julius Caesar in his own times, fearing that a presentation of ancient Roman settings would be "incomprehensible" to his contemporaries. Yet unlike our contemporaries, who fear that a presentation of Shakespeare will be incomprehensible, Shakespeare himself seemed to have no such fears. Indeed, a good playwright ought not fear presenting something alien in the formal sense, since human nature is always visible - and what makes it visible are the words and deeds of men - not their particular historical settings, which serve only as a framework for the illumination of some aspects of man's nature over others. This is not to say that modernized versions of classical plays are impossible to do - rather - it is only to suggest that it would be helpful to know something about modernity beyond the formal atire, language and gadgets that moderns use.
The entire problematic presented above comes to light when considering Jarzyna's modernization of Shakespeare's Macbeth.
LIGHTS, CAMERA, WIERD PARADOX!
Given that Jarzyna places the action of his play within the context of the 'War on Terror,' with many evident and sometimes hyperbolic jabs at the United States, it is truly ironic that despite the plays' anti-Americanism, it is in some respects .... too American!
Macbeth:2007 is "too American" insofar as it sacrifices dialogue in favor of special effects; insofar as not only are we so far removed from the stage as to be unable to appreciate facial mimics on the part of the actors, but we cannot even hear what they have to say for the most part since there's always something blowing up, or the din of helicopters overhead.
This is a classically stereotypical "American" trait - sensationalism in the place of thoughtfulness made all the more ironic by the fact that Jarzyna seems to be trying to criticize American hegemony.
The irony is compounded when we consider the anti-American bits in the play - most particularly the utterly ridiculous and bizarre begining, which shows generic 'Western' special forces murdering Muslims as they pray. Naturally, Jarzyna feels it necessary to have the generic 'Western' forces (symbolized by a fascistic red cross) proceed to graphically decapitate one of the Muslims in the manner of the infamous Al Queda videos presented over the internet
Not only are the generic 'Western forces' apt to kill Muslims as they pray and summarily decapitate them, but later they engage in homosexual orgies, and sprinkle their daily life with (obviously) hypocritical invocations of God Almighty.
This all makes for a picture perfect representation of what Osama Bin Laden and his ilk like to call 'The Great Satan' - decadent, corrupt, hypocritical people- all in juxtaposition to the "pious" soldiers of the Calyphate.
Naturally - this entire presentation is fit for consumption by an audience with no knowledge of contemporary history.
It would be understandable if Jarzyna were trying to make an anti-war statement, or even a statement about the hypocracy of the West - but there are ample real examples to use and there is a difference between imaginative artistic license and brazen historical ignorance. It seems gratuitous, not to say unnecessary, to have generic Westerners shown killing people as they pray and sawing their heads off with knives given that the facts of contemporary life are, to say the least, somewhat the other way around.
If we look at the real life drama of the War on Terror, we see it unfolding into a tapestry of serious themes that Jarzyna foresakes in favor of large amounts of blood. For example, just to name a few on the anti-war side:
* The problem of a democratic country's elected representatives in Congress foregoing their responsibility and sceeding powers to an Imperial President in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution.
* The enactment of numerous laws and ordinances that threaten civil liberties
* The use of modern military technology to distance the Western public from the otherwise frightful carnage of war.
None of these themes are raised in Jarzyna's 'modernization' of Macbeth - largely owing to the fact that ultimately it would be somewhat impossible to raise them without making a totally different play altogether. After all, Macbeth is not an ellected head of state, and despite "modernizing" the settings, Jarzyna fails to "modernize" the politics - thus the very manner of bloody reprisals that characterized the transfer of power prior to the establishment of the notion of "ballets not bullets" in the Western World continues to function unabaited in "Macbeth:2007."
This makes the impact of the play all the more diluted insofar as Macbeth is perhaps meant to teach us something about the nature of hubris. There is, in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth,' a teaching regarding hubris. There is also, most likely, a teaching about Western hubris in the modern War on Terror. It is possible to combine the two. It is not possible to combine the two by updating the parties to a war without updating the political context of the war. If there is hubris on the part of American officials in prosecuting the War on Terror, then this is in many respects a direct result of the hubris of the American public which elects them, and any presentation of said hubris - to be effective - must be a presentation of the hubris of a democratic people. It cannot, as in the case of 'Macbeth:2007' be a presentation of the hubris of a man who, despite wearing a modern uniform, flying a helicopter, and using a machine gun, functions in political circumstances reminiscent of Elizabithean England.
It is even harder to learn a lesson on hubris if one is sitting there wondering why on earth generic 'Western' forces are seen decapitating praying Muslims? It's as if the unearthing of abuse in Abu Graib were a green light to assume worse things. The problem here is that even the screams of the decapitated Muslims are familiar-it's almost as if Jarzyna made his actors view the Al Queda beheadings to get a good idea of how a victim of decapitation moans and screams as his head is being cut off.
The only conclusion from this is that Jarzyna's inscenization is simply bizarre. Why use real life footage of Muslim Terrorists brutally killing foreigners as the basis of scenes in which foreigners brutally decapitate Muslims (who are praying)? Why try to lecture democratic and liberal Westerners who elect their governments on the perils of hubris on the basis of a "modern" Macbeth, who comes to power through murder and functions in a political situation that befits the Italian city states of Machiavelli's day?
But these questions are, ironically, thoughtful, and thus not 'stereotypically American.' Perhaps Jarzyna thinks that blood splattering this way and that, lots of explosions and the general chaos of War will serve to overshadow such questions from arising in the minds of audiences by distracting them with the equivalent of a fancy light show? It's an old trick - used by the best of the B-movie branch in Holywood - and it often works, making for the authentically degenerate elements of American cultural life. Sadly- it is a method employed by Jarzyna, which just doesn't seem to gel with his obvious intention to be critical of the USA. That is, of course, unless Jarzyna wants us to dwell on the paradox of being unable to fight American culture without being beholden to its' fruits? Yet somehow, I doubt this, given that Jarzyna apparently looks at Al Queda beheadings on the internet and sees Westerners beheading praying Muslims rather than religious fanatics who are compelled to use the very technology that is the product of the very culture they abhor to get their message across.
A GOOD HORROR FLICK
Having said all of the above, it must be noted that Macbeth:2007, for all of its' contextual faults, is an excellent horror presentation, one almost wants to say 'flick' as it lends itself perfectly to television. Fast paced, and at times truly terrifying, the lighting and sound effects truly lend themselves to an atmosphere of terror in the best sense of the word.
It is almost a shame that this play has anything to do with Shakespeare's Macbeth, since it would otherwise stand alone as a perfect sci-fi horror drama and its' teachings of the perils of hubris, bloodlust and pride would come across far better.
As it stands then, 'Macbeth:2007' could have used a bit more thoughtfulness if Jarzyna wanted to craft a truly anti-war drama, but as pure drama it is wonderfully executed and well worth seeing.