Macbeth - Orson Welles

This one is a curious one. First I should state that I am not a fan of Citizen Kane. I also don't think Orson Welles is that great of an actor - at least for this current timeframe. Perhaps his acting style was fantastic when the film came out but knowing that he directed, and is playing Macbeth, there are many choices that are made that feel very self indulgent. However, I might be getting ahead of myself.

During the late 1930's he was asked by the Federal Theatre Project to direct something for the Negro Theatre Unit (as it was named). He was a well known name due to his work in radio, and wasn't sure about directing when first asked by John Houseman. However he was inspired and put together a version of Macbeth set in Haiti with an all black cast, and named Voodoo Macbeth. At the time I am sure some people may have raised an eyebrow at a white producer, white director, white designer putting a show like this together, however it gave jobs to a large cast of black actors. This show was revived in 1947. I bring this up because clearly after directing the play for the stage, Welles had a handle of the material. 

That being written, the film is very different from the script. He filmed this in a two week timeframe, and had the actors pre-record their lines and act to playback. It is an odd choice but it made sure that every line was audible, and he didn't have to worry about retakes as much. It is in black and white, and filmed on a soundstage. In fact, the wide staircase leading up to a stone path going into the castle was based on the Voodoo Macbeth set. It works well, though the remainder of the set feels like it is all set in portions of a cave. Again Welles stated that he wanted it set in the time period of the play, and that he felt it was a period when the Druid beliefs were being overtaken by Christianity. Because of that, there are some roles that are combined in a priest figure. The whole adaptation is odd with certain monologues and lines being split up and given to other characters. It starts with The Three (as the witches were renamed), up on a small cliff, working their spell and creating a mud doll. They hail Macbeth, and as they name him Thane of Cawdor, and King to be, they place a chain around the neck of the doll, and a crown on its head. Macbeth then is seen later to be holding this same doll. The priest enters with the other messengers and the sight of the cross causes The Three to run away screaming. They get to the castle which is a large set including a big open courtyard, where the priest leads them in prayer and a denunciation of the devil, then all into the castle. The set looks all of stone and rock with passages and rooms carved out. One very odd aspect is that everyone is together. So McDuff leaves after Duncan is killed, but his family stays. So there is no castle of McDuff to be surprised. Instead we see Macbeth enter the room with his servants and start killing the family. Oddly, the priest character is also the one who warns Lady McDuff to run away due to danger coming her way.

Sticking with the time period, the letter scene is actually Macbeth dictating the letter to a scribe. This fades into Lady Macbeth reading the letter out loud - which is an odd choice. The other aspect of the time period is that the crowns are square...in a 1940's "lets-do-medieval" sort of way. The costuming looks very much like any Robin Hood film with draping, and furs. There is also a moment where Macbeth is drinking out of a horn in one scene, and a goblet later on. Some very odd choices being made. Most of the monologues are done as voiceovers, including the "Tomorrow, and tomorrow" which is set against a visual of foggy, misty atmosphere. Even Banquo's monologue about "Thou hast it now" was moved until after his murder, and done in voice over. Speaking of his murder, the transition into it is very good.

This might be the time to bring up that there are two versions of this film. There is the 1948 version which is 107 minutes long, and includes "affected highland accents" (according to the back of the DVD). Yes, there are a LOT of rolled "r"s. The second version is a 1950 version, 85 minutes long that "removed most of the accented dialogue." So far I have only been writing about the 1948 version...and yes, there are more differences. To start with, I didn't notice any less accented dialogue in the 1950's version. There were some changes that I noticed, mainly that the film starts with a voice over explaining the plot, and providing the timeframe. There is also Banquo's lines "you have it now" which he speaks directly to Macbeth, and they are also repeated later in a voiceover. I'm sure there were small cuts made, but nothing significant as far as I could tell. What did come clear in the second viewing is how many low voices there are...and some are choices. For example, in the Banquo ghost scene, Welles speaks in his usual tone of voice, but once the ghost appears he lowers his range. It is very odd. Another bit I wanted to bring attention to is Macbeth's entrance into the second witch scene. He states that he will go and talk to them again, then he turns, crosses the courtyard while saying his line about "conjuring them" and is on a bit of a hill, surrounded by mist and smoke. The witches never appear, it is all in his mind, and voice overs. Quite an effective choice. The sleepwalking scene takes place on the courtyard, with Lady Macbeth yelling some of her lines (so the whole castle can hear her?), she has an extreme vocalization after "All the perfumes of Arabia.." (maybe that is where Judi Dench got her inspiration?), and at the end of that scene we see her approach Macbeth who has watched the whole thing. Finally, I found the ending of both films to be another interesting choice. As stated, the film starts with the three witches creating this doll of mud that becomes a stand-in for Macbeth. They are chased off and never seen again...until the end of the film when you see them in silhouette watching the castle from afar, and in voiceover you hear "peace, the charms wound up."

If you like Orson Welles and his style of directing, and acting - give this a view. If you are looking for an interesting take on the play, this works for that also. It is not the play on film, and the way it was adapted has some issues, but has some interesting views. Give it a try.