Skip to main content

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Macbeth
(1948)

Scores of Orson Welles biographies have been published, dutifully documenting the difficulties his directorial career endured following his stratospheric debut. Studio interference marred efforts from his sophomore outing onwards, and financing problems often prevented him from satisfactorily rendering his visions – or sabotaged them before he had even begun. Welles had famously staged a “voodoo” version of Macbeth for the Mercury Theatre and here he returned to the play for his first feature adaptation of Shakespeare.  The finished film is a curiosity rather than a daring success. The highly stylised presentation is never less than interesting, but the speedy production lends it a ramshackle quality further emphasised by some variable performances (the approximation of Scottish accents is atrocious at best).


Evidently, elements of this are intentional on the part of Welles. But it’s questionable whether they actually benefit the whole. Arguably, he uses the Spartan sets advantageously, shrouding them in fog, isolating his performers on random outcrops or transitioning them, theatrically, from a room to cliff-like.


Welles made the picture for Republic, known for their cheap serials and B movies. The low budget dictated his approach, which included a pre-recorded soundtrack to which his players lip-synched. The costuming reflects threadbare necessity, made up of random tat ranging from Viking helmets to Mongol attire. Dodgy wigs are de rigueur. At one point Macbeth comes on wearing a square cake tin crown that seems purely designed to elicit mirth.


But he shoots the picture in such a manner as to forgive a multitude of sins. His trademark deep focus is prevalent, accentuating his performers through use of wide-angle lenses and placing the camera at low (or high) angles. His use of chiaroscuro lighting is highly effective; darkness permeates the sets (leftovers from Republic westerns), leaving Welles to pick out his players. This starkness lends the production a heightened, hallucinatory tone.


Particular shots etch themselves in the mind; the shadow of Macbeth’s pointing finger consuming a wall as it singles out the apparition of Banquo, Macbeth’s crowned head (like an iron crown of thorns) foregrounded against strange obelisks retreating into the distance, the faceless witches perched like vultures upon a shallow hilltop, Birnam wood oncoming in slow motion as if it were an unspeakable science fiction monstrosity (from John Wyndham or Nigel Kneale). There is a gothic quality to the imagery, and one is frequently put in mind of Universal’s 1930s horror movies.


This approach fits with how the director envisaged his adaptation, arranging it as a struggle between Christianity and paganism. As such, he created a new character (Alan Napier’s bizarrely pig-tailed Holy Father) to reinforce the point. Arguably, this thematic opposition is only partly successful. The witches appear as wholly Machiavellian forces, manipulating a man to his doom with the aid of a nightmarish clay figurine (an echo of the voodoo stage production); yet the intended subtext of their actions as response to the suppression of their beliefs is difficult to discern. Nevertheless, this is arguably one of the most striking depictions of the trio; they haunt the screen, just out of reach, their visages left to the imagination. But the Holy Father is insufficiently strong in presence, announcing himself more as a dirty old tramp than an esteemed vassal of God. In general it is the primal landscape that remains with the viewer, rather than the characters it holds.


As such, the main issues with the film are those of performance. Welles is as commanding as you’d expect in the lead. Yet he hits the requisite notes professionally, rather than showing any great insight into the inner process of the Thane come King. Occasionally, he also bears an unfortunate resemblance to a beardy incarnation Jonathan Frakes. Jeanette Nolan makes her film debut as Lady Macbeth, and its unfortunate that her stiff, theatrical performance bleeds all life from the character and the central dynamic between the couple. Their conspiratorial relationship beckons any adaptor to embrace the claustrophobia of their pact and the incipient madness that grows from it, but in Welles version these elements are present largely through the visual language if they are explored at all. The visceral terror of the scene in which Macduff's wife and children are slain tells us all we need to know about Macbeth, which is fortunate as Welles' performance offers no insights into his psychology. 


Dan O’Herlihy makes a worthy Macduff, and Roddy McDowall a suitably feckless Malcolm, but Edgar Barrier is painfully inert as Banquo. The decision to render asides, be they from Macbeth or his lady, as internal monologues largely works, and few of Welles’ adjustments and excisions are glaringly out of place or woefully misjudged. Rather, it is the task he sets himself that ensures the film comes up short; the brief 23-day shooting schedule and a hit-and-miss cast who are unable to sound convincingly Scottish.     


Welles was only 33 when the film came out, and it became just the latest in a series of botched releases. The negative reaction to his tampering with the text and the “Scots” tones induced the director to reedit the film (shorn of much of the brogue). It was this version that remained in circulation until the restored original was released in 1980. Laurence Olivier had been planning his own film of Macbeth, but faced with a first-out-of-the-gate competitor he turned his attention to Hamlet. Welles takes a very different approach to Olivier, whose more literal rendition Henry V had been a big success and improved the prospects for any would-be adaptor of the Bard. So too, Hamlet would be rewarded with a Best Picture gong while Macbeth slouched into semi-obscurity. As a further Olivier connection, Welles had considered going after Vivien Leigh for Lady Macbeth; there are differing accounts of whether Olivier turned him down or Welles assumed hubby would nix the idea so he didn't even ask. 


The genius of Welles at his best has no doubt encouraged reappraisals of some of his less distinguished works, festooning the status of neglected classic on productions that cannot bear such weight.  Macbeth was certainly greeted appreciatively when its original version once again saw the light of day, but it’s more of a beautifully shot oddity than one that has any claim as a great rendition of the Scottish Play.

*** 

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

You’re going to make me drop a donkey.

Encanto (2021) (SPOILERS) By my estimation, Disney brand pictures are currently edging ahead of the Pixars. Not that there’s a whole lot in it, since neither have been at full wattage for a few years now. Raya and the Last Dragon and now Encanto are collectively just about superior to Soul and Luca . Generally, the animation arm’s attempts to take in as much cultural representation as they possibly can, to make up for their historic lack of woke quotas, has – ironically – had the effect of homogenising the product to whole new levels. So here we have Colombia, renowned the world over for the US’s benign intervention in their region, not to mention providing the CIA with subsistence income, beneficently showered with gifts from the US’s greatest artistic benefactor.

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

He has dubiety about his identity, possibly.

The Tender Bar (2021) (SPOILERS) George continues to flog his dead horse of a directorial career. It has to be admitted, however, that he goes less astray here than with anything he’s called the shots on in a decade ( Suburbicon may be a better movie overall, but the parts that grind metal are all ones Clooney grafted onto the Coen Brothers’ screenplay). For starters, he gives Batffleck a role where he can shine, and I’d given up on that being possible. Some of the other casting stretches credulity, but by setting his sights modestly, he makes The Tender Bar passably slight for the most part.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

What would you do with a diseased little island?

28 Days Later (2002) (SPOILERS) Evolution’s a nasty business. If not for its baleful influence, all those genetically similar apes – or bats – would be unable to transmit deadly lab-made viruses to humans and cause a zombie plague. Thank the lord we’ve got science on our side, to save us from such scientifically approved, stamped and certified terrors. Does Danny Boyle believe in the programming he expounds? As in, is he as aware of 28 Days Later ’s enforcement of the prescribed paradigm in the same manner as the product placement he oversees in every other frame of the movie (and yes, he could have chosen the Alex Cox option for the latter; it would at least have shown some wit)?

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.