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.

*** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.