Commissioner Macbeth

Birnam Wood takes a  form  of Bertha Locomotive in this version of Macbeth

Re-telling Shakespeare has to be controversial. My impression after reading the new version of the Merchant of Venice was very positive.  Maybe because the book only loosely followed the original story that served as canvas on which Jacobson explored the subjects related to being Jewish. It is a highly intellectual book and by that seems appropriate in its seriousness to be linked with Shakespeare. The story of Macbeth re-told by Jo Nesbo is different. This was my first book by this particular author that I have read and most likely will be the last. Not my type of a book even if I read it with interest and give the author credit for the style and the way he tells the story keeping the reader’s attention.

One point of retelling Shakespeare is to prove its value and application in the current times and in varied genres of novels. I would say that Shakespeare lands itself beautifully to be told in the form of a modern crime story. There are enough of murders in so many of them to satisfy a Scandinavian crime writer.

Macbeth in the Nesbo’s story is a police commissioner who gets corrupted under influence of his Lady and his own thirst for power. Quite like in the original. The circles of power are set appropriately to the current times. Politicians, police and the drug world cooperate, fight, scheme and generally form the town power center that rules the life of the town and its people. Populism of the current politicians so prevalent in real life is clearly visible in the book. Most of the crimes are committed to create a happy environment for the citizens of the not-named town. Everything is done for the higher good. In this sense the book is written, as so many Scandinavian crime stories, with social conscience and preaching a little. Not very convincingly this time.

Macbeth is a likable figure almost through the whole book. He commands the murders but tries to keep away from making his own hands dirty as far as he can. Duff – Macduff tells us that Macbeth cannot kill a defenseless man. Even if there were some exceptions to this rule this was only to protect others, like Duff himself. His weakness for and dependence on Lady makes his character somehow soft and maybe because of that likable. Top dog with underdog characteristics. Strange, but this is how it worked for me. Lady is the owner of the most exclusive casino in the town, clever, scheming, manipulating and beautiful. Like in the original. The whole book is sequentially faithful re-telling of the Shakespeare Macbeth. One could ask what is the reason for the exercise of re-telling? One possibility is that this is a way to familiarize people with the story and dynamics behind it, so they get the idea of the classic without reading it. In my case I have found out the opposite. After reading the book I know how Nesbo writes and I know that I do not have a desire to continue reading his books. I have no better perspective of the classic masterpiece. I wonder how I will react to the remaining Shakespearean books, but I somehow lost the initial enthusiasm and do not expect fireworks.

Back to Macbeth – My view is that it is a well written crime story respecting the sequence of events and I generally liked it.  I have reservations concerning psychological viability of many character changes. This is mostly sloppily done, but maybe this kind of a book does not need to be psychologically pedantic? I would disagree, though. The changes of Lady who at some point loses her way and leaves Macbeth on his own do not ring psychological truth to me. After Lady is mentally out of the game Macbeth’s political acumen and insight are not enough to lead the intrigue into a successful completion. Her mental abilities are temporarily revived to push the action a bit further until such a time when a splendid catastrophe can complete the story.

My next book is re-telling Otello - New Boy by Tracey Chevalier. I like the begging already.

Sydney Film Festival - Polish films

There have been two Polish films shown in this year's film festival - Cold War and Mug. Both awarded. Cold War in Cannes and Mug in Berlin.

                                                                     

I have read and heard a lot about the film Cold War. So much and so positive that I expected a film that is really spellbinding and very moving. Has it been for me like that or am I a little disappointed? Strangely enough I experience both of the reactions. If one expects perfection in anything, disappointment is a consequence of such high expectations. I knew that the film is going to be black and white but I did not expect a small screen, so my first reaction was a surprise that the screen felt so restricting. I was looking at the first scenes from a perspective of a foreigner. Will an Australian understand the meaning of the film. After all, Polish specifics are difficult to comprehend especially by an Australian. I would say that an average Australian will shrug their shoulders and move to more familiar and practical subjects than neurotic feelings of some foreigners. I do not think that the film can gain popularity outside Europe. Too dark in a tender way, too sensitive, the story insufficiently explained and really told by omissions. You have to be tuned in to dark moods of a foreign kind.

I do not think I have enticed anyone to see the film if and when it hits Australian movie theaters, but this is a film one should see at her/his own risk of emotional damage.

One of the scenes I like.

The film is told in an elliptical way starting from 1949 to finish about ten years later. My times of understanding events around me came much later than that, or maybe I was too naïve to understand it at all when I lived in Poland. Still, I understood some on the scenes in the way a non-Pole would have great problems to understand. Some nuances of the film are not accessible to foreigners, in my opinion. Maybe this is just as well as it is so depressing. Thinking about it I feel sorry for the nation. We turned out not that bad considering the times of the war and the years after. I wonder what was more damaging to the soul of the nation, the Nazis’ killing of Poles with a special focus on Polish inteligencia or the Soviet friends reversing the social structure and lifting the uneducated to the top?

The film is a romance without a happy end, there is no happiness as a part of love at all. Maybe glimpses, fleeting moments of elation. It kept my attention completely and the movie theatre was unusually quiet during the film. There is no melodrama in the film, the people meet their destiny and events of their lives resigning to the bleak realities and need to survive politically, economically and emotionally. Until they cannot continue…

It is a good film and from me 10 out of 10.

                                                                   

During the Film Festival of Sydney, I have seen another Polish film – Mug. It has been awarded in the Berlin Film Festival. We, Poles, look for confirmation of our self-worth in signs of international acceptance. Such a small weakness. The film got an international recognition so I should be proud, but watching it I cringed and protested internally against Poland and Poles shown in the film. Bigotry, narrowmindedness, cruelty, drunkenness and acceptance of drunks, rudeness, bad language (I heard bad language in life, but Polish offenses and swearing are of particular quality and power)…It all made me feel ashamed. It was an unpleasant film to watch. It is a comedy and when the audience laughed. I made me think Gogol’s thought “What are you laughing at? You are laughing at yourself.” Only that this mainly applied to my compatriots and myself. Why wallow in such self-depreciation? To notice and change? Only that those who notice the problems are not typically the ones who need so much to change.

An unpleasant film to watch, at least for a Pole.  4 out of 10.

The Wife

                                                     

I have been catching up with films in the last few days and it has been a serious catchup as I have seen five films in less than a week and there is one more ahead of me. This is Sydney Festival event and my local cinema is one of the movie theaters that takes part. The films that are shown have not yet been shown to general public and some of them are not intended to be screened more than at this particular occasion. Looks that I have chosen rather popular films that will be possible to see in cinemas later. Maybe except the two Polish films – Mug that got Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize in Berlin 2018 and Cold War that was awarded the best film director in Cannes 2018 for Paul Pawlikowski. I will write about the films at some stage.

Yesterday I saw The Wife with Glen Close as the main attraction of the film. I am little less enthusiastic than the critics and the reviews of The Guardian and Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe because I do not particularly like Glen Close. She seems superficial and affectatious to me. I must admit that how she appears in her interviews should not reflect on her art as an actress. But it seems to influence my judgement.

What is perhaps more to the point is how did I like her performance in this particular film. And yes, it was a remarkable performance, subtle, moving and I give it the highest marks and my admiration. I still left the theatre somewhat disappointed. Maybe even confused? The film seems to portray The Wife as a sort of a victim and her husband, brilliantly played by Jonathan Pryce as the person who wronged her. I do not see the story this way at all, even with my feministic leaning. I buy the meaning of the outburst of the husband when he tells how it was for him. Here comes the spoiler : The story is about two people who want to be writers, he is a professor who teaches how to write and she is a talented writer who is learning. However she does not have a chance to be noticed in the male dominated field and her writing, however brilliant it might be, does not stand a chance to be published. This is what she is told by a more experienced woman and she believes it. She gives up on writing but supports her lover, the professor, in his writing efforts. Eventually, editing  his book she re-writes it with a minor contribution of the original author. The book is a hit and as it is published under his name, the glory is his.  However, being very much in love, they are both happy with the situation. This is the beginning of their future life together and it is based on the wife being the ghost writer for her husband. She writes the books under his name and he plays the role of the famous, very talented writer. It goes on for years, until the time when the man gets the Nobel Prize for the work of his wife who is smiling shyly, happy but always in his shadow. At this point of time she can not continue with the mystification, but her plans are not verbalized so we never really find our what she would consider to be a satisfactory solution from her point of view.

 

To me, they came to an agreement that was serving both of them and in my opinion, she got a better part of the deal. Her part was not to be famous, but she got her work published and she knew the impact her writing had on the readers. He played a humiliating role of a pretender compensating his paper tiger situation by romances that gave him some feeling of self-worth and power. She tolerated it up to a point but at the end it was all too much for her to accept and live with. I am on his side, not her. This is the reason for my confusion. Have I missed some psychological truth and got the whole story wrong? I do not think so. Maybe I misunderstood the critics? This is possible.

One can take the whole story as a meta model of lives of capable women who are in a relationship and in love with less talented men. In olden days, women did not have rights to vote and in fact rights to live the life they would choose for themselves. In those times being the brain behind a man and directing his actions was not challenged or even noticed. As I am reading the new version of Macbeth, Lady Macbeth comes to mind as one of negative influences a woman can have on a man. Those times are gone and women have rights to work and to their own successes. There is a price for that though. While many men tolerate such situations to a point, often happens that he needs to re-establish his superior position. This typically can be done only with another partner. The relationship breaks up. Perhaps it was doomed form the start, but we often live with and in illusions for years.

The question is why men need to feel superior to women? Conditioning? Whatever the reason is, this is the situation in many cases.

Back to the film - my rating 8 out of 10.

The story is a bit far fetched for me even if played very convincingly.

Eucalyptus by Murray Bail

                                                        

I just finished my book club book to be discussed in June. It is Eucalyptus by Murray Bail. Looks that my independent nature protests against reading books chosen by somebody else and I feel that I am wasting my time reading things that do not really interest me. During the time I was reluctantly reading Eucalyptus I was thinking that I really want to read Macbeth by Jo Nesbo. Yesterday, I finished my “homework” book. So, I am happy that I can now continue my Shakespearean education. I am curious if the second one will absorb me than much as Shylock. I refreshed the Macbeth story and I wonder what will be done with it by the crime stories writer. It started quite well, but not at all Shakespearean.

Back to the Murray Bail and Eucalyptus. Do I like it? Not really, not my type of a story, but I must say that poetic way of the author got me eventually and I was transported into a mood that I could describe as feeling mesmerized. Or maybe it was just stupor caused by reading one silly story followed by the next meaningless story and calling it a Scheherazade style writing. Big, big stretch in my opinion. Another, rather tedious feature of the book is the writing about eucalyptus and its many, many species. They are called by their Latin and common names and often described in some details. I liked some of it but as it was repeated too many times through the book. I started to skip the botanical details just to land up reading another inconsequential story which was supposed to be a love story. At the same time the book made me think about and feel the Australian landscapes, so different to the European ones. Once again, I have realized that I am half Australian and half European (I intend to write about Polish-European issue in one of my next posts) and that I love these severe Australian landscapes that almost always feature Eucalyptus species.

                                  

So, have I liked the book? I am confused here. The story is too farfetched, but the book is not about the story that much but the atmosphere, impressions, moods and feelings. It is a poetic book and I responded to the poetry of Australia and confusion of a budding feeling of love.

So, 7 out of 10.