|
"Macbeth.
That's what I want to do. I want to get like five to eight million
dollars and film Macbeth. I've done the role once and I've been
in another production of it and nobody's made a good movie out of
that [role] in 25 years. It's the greatest." - JM
"To
play Macbeth. I'd love to do Macbeth. Macbeth rocks!" JM (The
Realm)
Question: Who is your favorite character in Macbeth? I've
heard you love the play.
JM: Oh, Mac himself. He shows us that we are capable of horrendous
evil--that evil is the human condition. And the body count is awesome.
(Source)
"Ultimately,
I would like to get in a position where I can attract money to a
project so that I can start picking the stories I want to tell.
I really want everything. My big dream I guess is that in five years
or so enough people will know who I am that I can attract $8 to
$10 million to produce Macbeth." - JM
"In
the speech of 'Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Tomorrow', [it's] understanding
that he's not whining and he's not sad, he's absolutely without
emotion. When you see how low that the main title character sinks,
that speech is all about that life is absolutely worthless, meaningless.
There's no meaning at all. And then you understand that he's not
whining about anything, he's just commenting on the way he sees
life." - JM
Question:
If you could play one role, past or present, what would you choose?
JM: Macbeth because it is an exploration
of evil. It is ripe. It's a role waiting to be done. If Kenneth
Branagh is idiot enough to try it, I'll bury him. He's old. I'm
a decent writer. I just need someone with a lot of money to fund
it! JM (The
Realm)
"My
'Macbeth' is still worming its way around," he says. "I've
really come to the conclusion that I want to play the role. There
was some interest in the script if I was willing to let it go, but
I've really come to the conclusion that I want to do it." JM
(TEXT)
"If
I could get a Macbeth out before anyone else could get it right,
I feel if I could film it right now, I would give the first 'Macbeth'
that would actually work."
But what about Roman Polanski's acclaimed 1971 version, starring
Jon Finch and Francesca Annis as Lord and Lady Macbeth?
"It was pretty good," says Marsters, "but I thought
the Macbeth was too passive. The whole point of Macbeth is that
he thinks very clearly about it. I think for him to be accessible
and heroic at all, he needs to really think about it, make his
decision and not look back, not feel sorry for himself, not second-guess
himself, just go straight to hell because he decided that's what
he's going to do.
" Whereas Lady Macbeth says, 'We just won't think about that,
and it won't affect us,' and they both go mad for different reasons."
" Another thing I think is drastically wrong with most 'Macbeths'
is, they play Lady Macbeth as a bitch, which by the time you get
to 'Out damned spot,' nobody cares anymore that she's gone insane.
It also means that Macbeth is whipped, and nobody cares about him
then."
" Actually
there's nothing in the text to make one believe that she is a bitch
at all. That's the one thing Roman Polanski got right,
I thought. They didn't play her that way. They played her as an
innocent, which is what she is."
" I think it's very interesting that people have taken the slant on
the play that it's all Macbeth being led around by the nose by
an evil woman. It's just nowhere in the play."
Why " Macbeth" in particular, for a movie? " It
hasn't been done well recently, so it's kind of untouched. It's
not like
trying to do another movie of 'Romeo and Juliet.' I think I'm the
right age for it. I did a production in Seattle of it, where I
almost
refused the role because I thought I was too young.
"I think it makes a lot of sense when the character is a young
up-and-comer and very ambitious. A lot of his sins are forgiven
at that point, or at least understandable." JM (TEXT)
|