|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 12, 2019 22:10:31 GMT
Nice. Who else might they carry over from Scruggs.... Ralph Ineson?
Also an interesting thought.... even though Ethan isn't directing, will he still be co-editing? (Good ol' Roderick Jaynes)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 21, 2019 22:07:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jan 19, 2020 2:56:13 GMT
Harry Melling listed on IMDb as Malcolm - can't find confirmation otherwise.
I think Banquo is the biggest part not yet cast, who do we like there? Depending on the interpretation, gimme Jeffrey Wright or John Malkovich or Peter Mullan
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 19, 2020 3:30:25 GMT
Harry Melling listed on IMDb as Malcolm - can't find confirmation otherwise. I think Banquo is the biggest part not yet cast, who do we like there? Depending on the interpretation, gimme Jeffrey Wright or John Malkovich or Peter Mullan It's probably correct. IMDB had some of the recent additions weeks before collider et al. presented their updates.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jan 19, 2020 3:42:04 GMT
Melling was a revelation in Buster Scruggs, and Malcolm is just about the most perfect casting I can think of for him.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 19, 2020 9:10:46 GMT
Harry Melling listed on IMDb as Malcolm - can't find confirmation otherwise. I think Banquo is the biggest part not yet cast, who do we like there? Depending on the interpretation, gimme Jeffrey Wright or John Malkovich or Peter Mullan Liev Schreiber could likely be aces here also .........
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Jan 31, 2020 16:28:05 GMT
Melling confirmed as Malcolm. Shooting gets underway mid-February. link
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 31, 2020 16:33:20 GMT
Melling confirmed as Malcolm. Shooting gets underway mid-February. linkInteresting mix of UK and US actors - still not sure what to make of it in terms of what Coen's approach will be - still not sure how they are going to address the ages - a 65 year old Macbeth a 60+ Lady Macbeth........I mean you can say 'Zel looks 50+.........that's still very old for the role tbh.......can't wait to see first clips because I do expect this to be straight heavy drama with almost no laughs.....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 24, 2020 15:20:40 GMT
Interesting mix of UK and US actors - still not sure what to make of it in terms of what Coen's approach will be - still not sure how they are going to address the ages - a 65 year old Macbeth a 60+ Lady Macbeth........I mean you can say 'Zel looks 50+.........that's still very old for the role tbh.......can't wait to see first clips because I do expect this to be straight heavy drama with almost no laughs..... Denzel in a photo last week with a beard so it doesn't appear they will play off on making them try to be age appropriate for the roles (ie usually played younger) and we'll see them in their 50s/60s. I assume this is his look for the film anyway:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 27, 2020 10:34:30 GMT
Officially on hiatus now. Scott Rudin is having a tough time with this and of course his Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf cancelled while in previews on Broadway. deadline.com/2020/03/denzel-washington-macbeth-movie-hiatus-coronavirus-1202893688/ hopefully they can still get it out this year - one of my most anticipated - this year's a total fncking mess..... For the stars: Like I always say - 'Zel is 65 now - after 65 weird sh it happens to Hollywood careers and almost all of it is bad - and sometimes it's not his fault - and it's an act of God like this. But remember that prediction a lot of you made because I remember it: "he'll get 4 more Oscar nods tying Nicholson after the age of 65" - well he'll get a 3rd Oscar win I'm sure - but "4 more Oscar nods" might be my favorite awful prediction ever on this board and a whole lot of people made it ...........and maybe he's lost another year......maybe not.......we'll see. On the other hand - this maybe helps McDormand in the long run who has another Oscar contender already in the can for Nomadland in 2020 and maybe doesn't compete with herself. Maybe not ........we'll see about that too ....
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 27, 2020 12:30:16 GMT
For the stars: Like I always say - 'Zel is 65 now - after 65 weird sh it happens to Hollywood careers and almost all of it is bad - and sometimes it's not his fault - and it's an act of God like this. But remember that prediction a lot of you made because I remember it: "he'll get 4 more Oscar nods tying Nicholson after the age of 65" - well he'll get a 3rd Oscar win I'm sure - but "4 more Oscar nods" might be my favorite awful prediction ever on this board and a whole lot of people made it ...........and maybe he's lost another year......maybe not.......we'll see. On the other hand - this maybe helps McDormand in the long run who has another Oscar contender already in the can for Nomadland in 2020 and maybe doesn't compete with herself. Maybe not ........we'll see about that too .... I mean, I suppose they could always shift The Little Things for an Oscar-qualifying run. Washington is 65, but unlike most actors his age, he could easily pass for ten years younger. If we're going to be throwing Nicholson comparisons around, by this point in Jack's career, he was already slowing down immensely, whereas Washington shows no signs of doing so. As long as he maintains his physical fitness, there's no reason he can't keep going well into his seventh decade in leading roles, and ultimately when he's too old to be doing them, supporting parts might open themselves up to him. I can see a lot of up-and-coming filmmakers wanting to work with him in some capacity, and as long as the material is sound, there's no reason he couldn't still keep those nominations coming. He only needs four to tie; someone like Christopher Plummer scored three in his late seventies/eighties, after all.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 27, 2020 13:02:07 GMT
For the stars: Like I always say - 'Zel is 65 now - after 65 weird sh it happens to Hollywood careers and almost all of it is bad - and sometimes it's not his fault - and it's an act of God like this. But remember that prediction a lot of you made because I remember it: "he'll get 4 more Oscar nods tying Nicholson after the age of 65" - well he'll get a 3rd Oscar win I'm sure - but "4 more Oscar nods" might be my favorite awful prediction ever on this board and a whole lot of people made it ...........and maybe he's lost another year......maybe not.......we'll see. On the other hand - this maybe helps McDormand in the long run who has another Oscar contender already in the can for Nomadland in 2020 and maybe doesn't compete with herself. Maybe not ........we'll see about that too .... I mean, I suppose they could always shift The Little Things for an Oscar-qualifying run. Washington is 65, but unlike most actors his age, he could easily pass for ten years younger. If we're going to be throwing Nicholson comparisons around, by this point in Jack's career, he was already slowing down immensely, whereas Washington shows no signs of doing so. As long as he maintains his physical fitness, there's no reason he can't keep going well into his seventh decade in leading roles, and ultimately when he's too old to be doing them, supporting parts might open themselves up to him. I can see a lot of up-and-coming filmmakers wanting to work with him in some capacity, and as long as the material is sound, there's no reason he couldn't still keep those nominations coming. He only needs four to tie; someone like Christopher Plummer scored three in his late seventies/eighties, after all.Love you buddy but I was specifically talking about your post previously - and sort of tweaking you a bit (in good fun) - and I think it's insanely misguided to predict it. First Plummer got his first 3 - he didn't have a back-history of nods like Denzel and getting 3 ain't getting 4 anyway.........second, Washington has said he'll retire on stage so don't expect that many films expecting him to finish at ~60 films maybe (?)..........third, Nicholson had 10 nods at 65 not 8 .......and how the fnck was he "slowing down immensely" when no one has matched Nicholson's pace - ever? That's sort of my point really ....... Fourth, Washington doesn't have the projects lined up at all atm - certainly not compared to Hanks whose attached projects smoke him (and who is under 65!) - Little Things doesn't seem like it (you never know, maybe) and no American actor has been nominated for any Shakespeare in 70 years (Brando) so I wouldn't bet on it (more possible though than Little Things)........and I'm not done yet!: When he wins his 3rd it will slow down his pace too not increase it and the most relevant point for Macbeth specifically: Someone on here once made fun of De Niro and said "Denzel doesn't need to be de-aged" (in the general sense) ......that's true but a soon to be 66 year old Macbeth opposite a soon to be 63 year old Lady Macbeth is bordering on ridiculous imo - like Irishman level concerns at this point - maybe not THAT much but.......... It is possible he gets 4 more nods - anything could happen - but that's a ton to predict and it's unprecedented - it isn't "he only needs 4 to tie" - it's "OMG he's still 4 away".........to me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 27, 2020 14:12:06 GMT
I mean, I suppose they could always shift The Little Things for an Oscar-qualifying run. Washington is 65, but unlike most actors his age, he could easily pass for ten years younger. If we're going to be throwing Nicholson comparisons around, by this point in Jack's career, he was already slowing down immensely, whereas Washington shows no signs of doing so. As long as he maintains his physical fitness, there's no reason he can't keep going well into his seventh decade in leading roles, and ultimately when he's too old to be doing them, supporting parts might open themselves up to him. I can see a lot of up-and-coming filmmakers wanting to work with him in some capacity, and as long as the material is sound, there's no reason he couldn't still keep those nominations coming. He only needs four to tie; someone like Christopher Plummer scored three in his late seventies/eighties, after all.Love you buddy but I was specifically talking about your post previously - and sort of tweaking you a bit (in good fun) - and I think it's insanely misguided to predict it. First Plummer got his first 3 - he didn't have a back-history of nods like Denzel and getting 3 ain't getting 4 anyway.........second, Washington has said he'll retire on stage so don't expect that many films expecting him to finish at ~60 films maybe (?)..........third, Nicholson had 10 nods at 65 not 8 .......and how the fnck was he "slowing down immensely" when no one has matched Nicholson's pace - ever? That's sort of my point really ....... Fourth, Washington doesn't have the projects lined up at all atm - certainly not compared to Hanks whose attached projects smoke him (and who is under 65!) - Little Things doesn't seem like it (you never know, maybe) and no American actor has been nominated for any Shakespeare in 70 years (Brando) so I wouldn't bet on it (more possible though than Little Things)........and I'm not done yet!: When he wins his 3rd it will slow down his pace too not increase it and the most relevant point for Macbeth specifically: Someone on here once made fun of De Niro and said "Denzel doesn't need to be de-aged" (in the general sense) ......that's true but a soon to be 66 year old Macbeth opposite a soon to be 63 year old Lady Macbeth is bordering on ridiculous imo - like Irishman level concerns at this point - maybe not THAT much but.......... It is possible he gets 4 more nods - anything could happen - but that's a ton to predict and it's unprecedented - it isn't "he only needs 4 to tie" - it's "OMG he's still 4 away".........to me anyway. Firstly, Nicholson had an insane streak in his early career (1969, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1975), couping five of his twelve nominations in seven years. Also, it should be noted Washington had a decade-long drought in between his second win and his 2012 comeback, which Nicholson never had to contend with. Secondly, I'm comparing Washington and Nicholson at 65, not in terms of where they were when they had eight Oscar nominations. Nicholson's last nomination was at the age of 65, and after that, he had, what, three major film releases? Sure, Denzel might not have anything major lined up after Macbeth, but a lot can happen in the span of a couple of years. Thirdly, I'm not comparing Washington to Hanks because that has no bearing on this discussion. Hanks could easily win a third before Washington (and I wouldn't be surprised if his recent health issues might give him some goodwill and sympathy later on down the line). But Hanks is likely not going to match Nicholson's nomination tally; Washington's the only living, working actor who is close to doing so, and it's not like he's working with uber-Oscar bait all of the time the way someone like Hanks (whom I adore, don't get me wrong) does. Fourth, we don't know what approach Coen is taking with Macbeth. His adaptation of The Odyssey bore no real similarity to Homer's text beyond plot vagueries; he could easily transition the Scottish play to a '30s gangster landscape and not even use much in the way of the language. We don't know what he's going to do. As for the Brando/Washington comparison, sure, no American has been nominated since 1953 for Shakespeare, but trotting out trends like that is like saying that no foreign language film has ever won Best Picture (broken) or no character has ever won two different actors Oscars for the same character since Vito Corleone (broken again). Trends break all the time. And Washington is one of the most respected actors alive today; there are legions of young actors who cite him as an inspiration, much in the way Brando inspired the '70s crew. I'm not interested in charting which one is more influential because that has no bearing on the discussion at hand, but if any American actor can garner attention for a Shakespearean performance, I don't see why he can't, especially for how baity the part is. People will be watching the project just for the star-power in front of and behind the camera; at this point, all it has to be is good. Fifth, because we don't know what the approach is going to be with Coen's Macbeth, we don't know whether Washington's physicality matters. The showdown with Macduff could be done with a .45 and a switchblade instead of swords; Patrick Stewart's take on the character (at the same age!) shows how it could be handled. I highly doubt they're going to have Washington/McDormand play thirty-somethings. Sure, he might never reach Nicholson's tally, but with the hurdles Washington has had to jump with being an actor of color (and hence not being afforded the choicest roles or projects in Hollywood due to that) and contending with an eleven-year period where the Academy didn't acknowledge him at all, which Nicholson never had to worry about (his longest streak without a nomination in his prime was five years), he's done mighty well for himself.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 27, 2020 14:49:42 GMT
Firstly, Nicholson had an insane streak in his early career (1969, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1975), couping five of his twelve nominations in seven years. Also, it should be noted Washington had a decade-long drought in between his second win and his 2012 comeback, which Nicholson never had to contend with. Secondly, I'm comparing Washington and Nicholson at 65, not in terms of where they were when they had eight Oscar nominations. Nicholson's last nomination was at the age of 65, and after that, he had, what, three major film releases? Sure, Denzel might not have anything major lined up after Macbeth, but a lot can happen in the span of a couple of years. Thirdly, I'm not comparing Washington to Hanks because that has no bearing on this discussion. Hanks could easily win a third before Washington (and I wouldn't be surprised if his recent health issues might give him some goodwill and sympathy later on down the line). But Hanks is likely not going to match Nicholson's nomination tally; Washington's the only living, working actor who is close to doing so, and it's not like he's working with uber-Oscar bait all of the time the way someone like Hanks (whom I adore, don't get me wrong) does.Fourth, we don't know what approach Coen is taking with Macbeth. His adaptation of The Odyssey bore no real similarity to Homer's text beyond plot vagueries; he could easily transition the Scottish play to a '30s gangster landscape and not even use much in the way of the language. We don't know what he's going to do. As for the Brando/Washington comparison, sure, no American has been nominated since 1953 for Shakespeare, but trotting out trends like that is like saying that no foreign language film has ever won Best Picture (broken) or no character has ever won two different actors Oscars for the same character since Vito Corleone (broken again). Trends break all the time. And Washington is one of the most respected actors alive today; there are legions of young actors who cite him as an inspiration, much in the way Brando inspired the '70s crew. I'm not interested in charting which one is more influential because that has no bearing on the discussion at hand, but if any American actor can garner attention for a Shakespearean performance, I don't see why he can't, especially for how baity the part is. People will be watching the project just for the star-power in front of and behind the camera; at this point, all it has to be is good. Fifth, because we don't know what the approach is going to be with Coen's Macbeth, we don't know whether Washington's physicality matters. The showdown with Macduff could be done with a .45 and a switchblade instead of swords; Patrick Stewart's take on the character (at the same age!) shows how it could be handled. I highly doubt they're going to have Washington/McDormand play thirty-somethings. Sure, he might never reach Nicholson's tally, but with the hurdles Washington has had to jump with being an actor of color (and hence not being afforded the choicest roles or projects in Hollywood due to that) and contending with an eleven-year period where the Academy didn't acknowledge him at all, which Nicholson never had to worry about (his longest streak without a nomination in his prime was five years), he's done mighty well for himself.
Lots of points here that I don't think are really persuasive at all: It's DiCaprio - not Washington - that is the threat to Nicholson's 12. How can you possibly say Washington is the only "close, living actor" - The 20 years matters much more than the current amounts - how many movies will DiCaprio make in 20 years well his pace suggests he goes from 6 to 8 easily (again this is all hypothetical). I brought up Hanks because he's another one trying to rewrite what actors careers look like at ~65 - it won't be easy for him either and he's my win this year and likely for a nod and if so only one nod back of Washington and younger - I think Washington will outpace him yes - but that ends up like 10 to 8 for me not 12 to 8 etc. Your last paragraph is iffy to me - his Oscar numbers are maybe (arguably) INFLATED because of his color - the fact that he's the premier African American actor for years - helps him with Oscar nods after a certain point. He has turned down choice roles that could have easily been nods (Se7en, Michael Clayton) - again, I'm not saying it didn't cost him roles but after a certain point..........it didn't cost him roles in 2006 etc. Now your defense of Macbeth specifically to stay on topic of the thread isn't entirely accurate imo: Patrick Stewart THE oldest Macbeth ever btw - was opposite a Lady Macbeth 20 years younger - not opposite a 63 year old - wtf! I'm not saying they'll be playing in their 30s I'm saying they are older than the most famous old version of Macbeth ever (Plummer-Jackson) which was criticized as too old - and they were a decade younger than Coen's pair. You are cutting Joel Coen a lot of slack here - this is a risk film without his brother, his wife's vanity project, with two great stars but not age appropriate at all - a lot of this looks very much like The Irishman on paper at this stage........just sayin' that knowing my love for that film well he should be so lucky that it turns out as well. ...........and I hope he is lucky, I'm rooting for it too.....
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Apr 10, 2020 19:48:47 GMT
Joel & Frances did an Instagram live interview, and there's a lot of interesting info in it: -They were about 2/3rds of the way into the shooting before shutting down -Joel chose to do it because he had been asked by Frances to direct a stage production of Macbeth. After seeing her play Lady Macbeth in another stage production, he was mesmerized by what she did with the character and wanted to put it on screen -The film is called The Tragedy of Macbeth and Joel calls it a thriller -The witches are birds in the film. And they transform into humans in the film (they talk about them from 11:00 to 15:00, couldn’t understand all of it) -Best Macbeth adaptation for him is Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood. Thinks Orson Welles’ adaptation is massively compromised -The movie is going extra-faithful on the original text. About 85% of the language is in there he says
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 11, 2020 9:42:45 GMT
The witches being birds is an inspired idea since of course birds are a key thematic element in the text anyway - there's references to magpies and owls and vultures (I think vultures?) and they represent fate and blood and impending something.
The witches being birds makes sense in that way and suggests with his being faithful to the text he's not "just" shooting the text....
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 11, 2020 18:22:48 GMT
Very interesting. For all the talk that this was a McDormand passion project, this seems like something Joel really wanted to bring to life cinematically.
85% of the dialogue is very interesting. I suspect the porter scene is going under the knife (as it so often does in adaptations), even though it feels very Coen-esque in its black comedy in the face of grim tragedy. I almost could see Nick Offerman's character from Fargo playing that role. It also sounds like it might tap into the surrealist end of the Coen spectrum (i.e. Barton Fink), which is very tantalizing indeed.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 13, 2020 17:31:10 GMT
This is a huge insight (see below) and follows up on what I have said repeatedly in this thread - this is the oldest Macbeth, period that I've ever heard of in any medium. The "barren scepter" of Macbeth pops up repeatedly in the text and comments on the now so the childbearing, (lack thereof) is a direct parallel to his somewhat youthful rise (in the original text). Since they are addressing it head on AND keeping that much of the text (85%?) that is quite a challenge for Joel. Much of the Shakespeare text is metaphor for King (father) and Kingdom (children) - it could certainly work as an urgency for power but I wonder if he's cutting some text that conflicts in the way it was written (not 60 years old) vs. how it's cast (two 60 year olds). I read the "85%" as he kept that amount in his film, now I think 85% is how much of his script is Shakespeare and he cut a lot more out Very interesting that it necessitated the title change actually - this is more about age than anything at a conceptual level, clearly. *********************************************************************************************************** Frances McDormand: I think a very important thing about Joel’s adaptation is that we are not calling it Macbeth. We’re calling it The Tragedy of Macbeth, which I think is an important distinction. In Joel’s adaptation, we are exploring the age of the characters and our adaptation the Macbeths are older. Both Denzel [Washington] and I are older than what is often cast as the Macbeths. We’re postmenopausal, we’re past childbearing age. So that puts a pressure on their ambition to have the crown. I think the most important distinction is that it is their last chance for glory. thefilmstage.com/joel-coen-and-frances-mcdormand-on-adapting-macbeth-as-a-thriller-and-staying-faithful-to-shakespeare/
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 9, 2020 19:23:42 GMT
This article is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and it seems particularly excited for the latest information Coen and McDormand give, describing it as a "ticking clock thriller". Like the description they give of Washington as " arguably the greatest living actor". Sounds about right. brobible.com/culture/article/denzel-washington-the-tragedy-of-macbeth/
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 9, 2020 21:38:50 GMT
Macbeth... ticking clock thriller???
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 9, 2020 22:58:22 GMT
Macbeth... ticking clock thriller??? Let's be honest, it sounds like the type of descriptive language a filmmaker would use to convey the message that if you think Shakespeare is dull and stuffy or just not for you, then we are going to give you something exciting worth turning up to the cinema for.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on May 10, 2020 0:44:18 GMT
Macbeth... ticking clock thriller??? I watched a production of Macbeth that was a black comedy. The witches were a trio of inept CIA agents who were paying off Macbeth to off the leader of his small African nation who then have to do damage control after Macbeth goes off the rails. If they could make *that* work, Joel Coen can make a ticking clock thriller out of this material.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 2, 2020 1:21:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 26, 2020 14:57:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jun 28, 2020 11:24:57 GMT
|
|