Shakespeare Plays Available in Video Format
Scholars Online Educational Resources


All’s Well That Ends Well
Antony and Cleopatra
As You Like It
The Comedy of Errors
Henry IV, part 1
Henry IV, part 2
Henry V
Henry VI, part 1
Henry VI, part 2
Henry VI, part 3
Henry VIII
Julius Caesar
King John
King Lear
Love’s Labour’s Lost
Measure for Measure
The Merchant of Venice
The Merry Wives of Windsor
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Much Ado About Nothing
Richard II
Richard III
Romeo and Juliet
The Taming of the Shrew
The Tempest
Timon of Athens
Titus Andronicus
Troilus and Cressida
Twelfth Night
Two Gentlemen of Verona
The Winter’s Tale

Available versions

1948: Orson Welles

1954: George Schaefer

1961: Paul Almond

1971: Roman Polanski

1979: Philip Casson

1981: Arthur Allan Seidelman

1983: Jack Gold

1997: Jeremy Freeston

1998: Michael Bogdanov

2001: Gregory Doran

2006: Geoffrey Wright

2006 [1988]: Michael T. Starks

2009: Colleen Stovall

2010: Rupert Goold

2014: Eve Best

2015: Justin Kurzel

2017: Barry Avrich

2018: Robin Lough

2018: Kit Monkman

2021: Joel Coen


1957: Throne of Blood

1991: Men of Respect

1991: Scotland, PA

1992: Nikolai Serebryakov, Dave Edwards (animated)

2005: ShakespeaRe-Told: Macbeth

2016: Macbeth Unhinged

2022: Curse of the Macbeths

Production drama

1999: Macbeth in Manhattan

2003: Slings and Arrows (Season 2)

2017: The Scottish Play (series)

2021: The Scottish Play


2008: This Is Macbeth

2013: Shakespeare Uncovered (Season 1, Ep. 2)


Macbeth is one of those impossible plays, and partly because it’s so simple. Garry Wills has argued fairly convincingly that this shortest of tragedies has in fact acquired its reputation as a cursed play not because more things tend to go wrong in the theater when it’s being performed (statistically, they don’t), but because the performing of it is risky as a theatrical enterprise. It’s a very easy play to mangle, and a bad performance of it is pretty dreadful.

Probably the chief reason, Wills suggests, is that those doing the play don’t trust it. They tend to want to modify it somehow — to make it into something other than what it is. Most often they want to eliminate the supernatural element, which tends to embarrass modern audiences. When one does this, however, it becomes a purely psychological play, of a sort that Shakespeare never wrote (no, not even Hamlet), and it loses its hard objective edge. Banquo’s ghost has to exist for real; the witches have to be making prophecies for real; Macbeth himself has to wrestle with the dual concepts of fate and moral responsibility (never completely happy together).

When one trusts the play, it has remarkable power. Its language is as concentrated and loaded as anything Shakespeare ever produced. It also trades heavily on the whole notion of ambiguity — something that is reflected in the nuances of language at every turn, which is encapsulated in the porter’s ribald but trenchant speech about equivocation (a matter of contemporary political import then as now), and which echoes, as well, the relationship of destiny and free will.

Accordingly, to my taste, the best productions of this play are the ones that have the least invested in putting a topical “high concept” spin on the story. The story is there waiting to be discovered, not covered up. None of them really manages to capture the subtle grandeur of the play. Of the cinematic treatments, the most lavishly faithful is probably the Polanski version, but it is taking some bloody side-trips into the bargain.