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…

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…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence