Peter Hinton's Macbeth has yet to have it's opening night, but last night the viewing public were given the opportunity to observe the play's first dress rehearsal. Hinton has a reputation for being some what avant-garde when it comes to his theatre productions, and we got a taste of that last night.

The play was set in 1930's, wartime Britain, drawing on the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. It's hardly a novel idea to take a Shakespearean play and set in a modern setting, but the ever present danger in doing this is that the new setting is too jarring and disrupts the true essence of the play. This is what was observed last night. Guns, air raid sirens and microphones with echoed distortion. It was more a kin to watching my favorite soliloquies in the midst of a WWII movie.

The truth is that Shakespeare didn't really concern himself too closely with plot of historical accuracy, he was more interested in telling a story of the human condition and the tragic flaws associated with it. When you get absorbed in adding a new setting for the play, you're just getting bogged down in the minor details.

Aside from the set, the play also suffers from more traditional problems associated with the production of Macbeth. The play is notoriously difficult to stage, not the least of which is because in addition to being a play about ambition it even more so a play about madness. The ghost of Banquo during the banquet scene is the most dramatic and one of the most important scenes of the play. The question becomes, does the director stage an actual physical manifestation of the ghost? how does one dress this ghost who was so brutally murdered, a dozen stabs to the head as one of the murderers proclaims. Macbeth characterizes the ghost as having "gory locks". But yet, Hinton gives us a ghost who looks like he just showered in dust, who just drags himself up and down from underneath the table. I, playing armchair artistic director for a moment, would never stage the ghost. Imagine if you will, seeing Macbeth ranting and raving at an empty chair, as we the audience share the experience of the horror of the other table guests. This is a huge gamble, as, if the actor cast as Macbeth is weak, the empty chair will be just that. But, with a solid actor, it is far more terrifying than anything makeup could produce.

The play, like all great Shakespearean tragedies, is judged on the strength of the soliloquies, and Macbeth has them in spades. The two leads make the soliloquies their own, stirring me deeply, forgetting for a moment the massive shortcomings of the staging. But in the end, isn't that what we really came to see?