Porter in action.

Macbeth Entry #4

In Polanski’s  version of porter in Macbeth, I feel it was visually represented good. The person had on perfect make-up for the character to show people how he visually acted. The way he dressed also, showed he was a very dirty and unpleasing human. It also showed kind of a humorous setting for the watchers to have after watching a very gory scene. I also noticed in Polanski’s version he skipped a lot of lines from the actual book, I feel like he did that maybe to not have that boredom factor and wanted to get straight to the point. The lighting in the movie wasn’t that great mostly because the movie was released in 1970’s and maybe didn’t have the best technology. I feel like in Polanski’s film it just had a very good dark setting and timing when he comes was excellent. Polanski’s movie I think best represented Porter for me.

In the play version, I didn’t really like the way the lighting was placed it was a very scary weird feeling watching it. It looked like someone was just glowing in mid air, i feel there wasn’t a very good setting and no props were included in it. Mostly because it’s hard to set up in a play. One thing that was good was the clothing and the facial expressions that the actor used in it, it kind of actually let you look at Porter from a different perspective.

Leave a Reply