Macbeth (1948) User Reviews (64)

Shakespeare On A Dime

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 28 February 2007]

I'm still trying to figure out why what Laurence Olivier did with Hamlet that same year was worthy of an Oscar if what Orson Welles did with MacBeth was so bad.

Both operated under tremendous budget restrictions, Olivier from J. Arthur Rank and Welles from Herbert J. Yates. At the time Hamlet was out Olivier explained that his decision to use black and white was for the special shadows and darkness in Hamlet's soul, or something like that. Years later Olivier said that he was just spouting off so much artistic propaganda, he didn't use color like he did Henry V because J. Arthur Rank was too cheap to go for it.

Remember that Welles was doing this at Republic Pictures and their bread and butter were westerns with Roy Rogers with an occasional A feature with their number one star John Wayne. Welles, who was always criticized for extravagance, brought the film in with three weeks shooting and on budget. Pesonally I think he deserves a round of applause for that. Knowing Herbert J. Yates's foibles, Welles was lucky he wasn't asked to use Vera Hruba Ralston as Lady MacBeth.

Like Olivier with Hamlet, Welles to disguise the cheapness of the sets filmed in darkness with a lot of mist to typify the Scottish moors and created a kind of Shakespeare noir. He couldn't get Agnes Moorehead for Lady MacBeth, but did get a perfectly acceptable Jeanette Nolan for the role.

As for himself Welles was a perfect picture of ravenous ambition as MacBeth. Do one murder to advance yourself and the rest become easier as time goes on. Still they drag on his soul, more than even the evil end those three witches foresee for him.

He's aided and abetted in his foul deeds by his wife. Partners can have a leavening or a sharpening affect on their mates. I've often used the different examples of the two wives of Woodrow Wilson to illustrate the point. Wilson's first wife was a gentle southern belle who was able to curb some of his tendencies to self righteousness. When she died Wilson married his second wife who exacerbated those tendencies, as Lady MacBeth does with her husband.

Among the supporting cast look for good performances from Edgar Barrier as Banquo, Roddy MacDowell as Malcolm, and Dan O'Herlihy as MacDuff. One of Shakespeare's best lines in my humble opinion is that tease he has the witches say to MacBeth about no man of woman born being able to harm him. And then later in the climax when MacDuff reveals he was the product of a Caesarean, in Shakespeare's phrase 'untimely ripped.' The image of that is so vivid in my mind as MacDuff the untimely ripped is about to do some untimely ripping of his own.

Given the restrictions Welles was operating under, this is not a bad production of MacBeth at all. Just keep thinking of Vera Hruba as Lady MacBeth and you'll find virtues you never knew existed.

A dark, brooding, atmospheric Macbeth

[bandw · 7/10 · 18 March 2007]

Welles has created a unique interpretation of Macbeth with this film. It is very dark - literally so since almost the entire film takes place at night and the fog machines were cranked up pretty high for a lot of the scenes. Perhaps this darkness befits the mood of the story, but I began to feel oppressed by it. All the running about in ill-lighted cavernous hallways produced a claustrophobic effect.

Welles emphasizes Macbeth's ambivalence in acting on his ambitions and his anguish in having done so. The influence of Lady Macbeth is particularly accentuated; in the scene where Macbeth is wavering about killing the King, Lady Macbeth effectively challenges his manhood over any thoughts of failure to do the job. Wells is effective in delivering the voiced-over soliloquies and in developing Macbeth as a tortured brooder. Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth is less successful than Welles - her "Out damned spot" scene was way over the top. It was fun to see a twenty-year-old Roddy McDowall playing Malcomb.

While there are some cinematic elements, like the escape of Fleance on horseback and the approach of Macduff and the English armies at the end, this is essentially the filming of a play. There are some interesting sets and lighting details, but there are also some cheesy sets and effects. The costumes look like they came out of some Viking movie and Macbeth's crown has all the appearance of having been fashioned for a junior high school play.

The musical score (by Jacques Ibert no less) is generic and frequently overbearing.

Going into this cold without having read the play or seen another production could be tough sledding.

Kurosawa took a lot from this Macbeth for his 1957 interpretation in "Throne of Blood." His Birnam wood scenes are almost identical to Welles'. For a more complete and accessible Macbeth, see Polanski's 1971 film. It would be interesting to see what Welles would have come up with if he had been turned loose on this with a big budget and no time constraints.

Dark and Deep

[guyon69 · 8/10 · 15 April 2001]

No one will claim that Welles' adaptation is the most accurate or best (see Roman Polansky's for a truer Macbeth) and at some points the bombast of Welles and his supporting cast, especially Lady Macbeth, can be a little overwhelming. However, for sheer mood and feel, I prefer this Macbeth over all the others out there. The darkness and dampness that close in on Welles as the movie progresses is claustrophobic and really gives a gritty appeal to this film. A great example of b&w film used to its fullest potential.

A Piece of Restoration Work That is Well Worth Considering

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 14 February 2007]

After making THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, Orson Welles basically had burned his bridges behind him regarding Hollywood. Harry Cohn was the last head of a major studio (Columbia) who was willing to consider any film that Welles would direct and produce. That was only because Welles was married to Cohn's leading sex goddess, Rita Hayworth. In fact, Welles got the project for THE LADY through because Rita was starring in it. But Cohn hated the final result, and cut the film (though I don't think it was as badly cut as say AMBERSOMS had been). The biggest cut was in the "fun house" sequence at the conclusion. Welles always bemoaned it, but I think sufficient moments of the sequence exist to remain quite powerful.

After Welles divorced Hayworth, any possible chance that Cohn would hire him was gone (if it still existed after Cohn saw the film). So Welles made his next film at the leading second tier studio: Herbert Yates' Republic Pictures. Yates was best known for his westerns, but he occasionally got a better than average film (directed by John Ford, and starring John Wayne). Yates wanted to make Republic one of the leading studios. So, he was willing to allow Welles to film there - but Welles had to do it on a short budget and within one month.

He did do so - he produced a film of MACBETH with a cast including Dan O'Herlihy, Roddy MacDowell, Jeanette Nolan, Edgar Barrier, and Alan Napier.

For years this film has gotten an unfair reputation. Welles had the actors speak with Scottish Accents. This was actually understandable. But the critics attacked the experiment. So the film was repackaged with an "English" soundtrack. Also it was re-cut, by the studio, and for years was about twenty minutes shorter than Welles' final cut. It was this mangled version that was known to the public - and complained about (adding to the myth that Welles was really a second-rate director). It still had some good film moments, such as the march of Brendon Wood to Dunstinane (where the forest is holding early medieval crosses), or the shots of the stormy sea hitting the rocky breakers, while Welles recites the "Tommorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" speech. But the know it all critics kept saying comments like "Shakespeare through the Welles' meat grinder." That review is from the anonymous reviewer of the New York Times.

Welles did rewrite the play in that he gave some of the speeches to other characters, and created a whole character (the Holy Father played by Napier) who got dialog from some minor characters that were deleted in the screenplay. But the basic story was kept and enhanced by Welles' sets and directing.

Fortunately for us all, MACBETH is available now with the twenty minutes Yates cut out restored. Ironically, unlike the large studios RKO and Columbia that lost the cut film from AMBERSOMS and THE LADY (one can also add the scenes of Konstantine Shayne's escape from prison to South America from THE STRANGER) Republic preserved the cut film and the Scottish accented sound track. MACBETH is the first film of Welles that was restored to what he had in mind.

Of course now that we see the full film we realize how the critics in 1948 were unduly hostile to Welles. They had not minded jumping on him, a failed "wunderkind" from Broadway. But now that we see that MACBETH was a worthy film, we can ask how many films those same critics who attacked Welles were properly reviewed and how many bombs among movies they liked.

To begin with the film is permeated with a spirit of barbarism - frequently we see signs of violent death and corpses left dangling. But they are taken with ease by the people of the period (one corpse is dangling in the background of Macbeth's "Glammis" castle, while he and Lady Macbeth (Nolan) are embracing and kissing). The still darkness of the night is used as an instrument of dread - look at the longest section of the film - the section where Macbeth is considering the Witches prediction, and slowly talking himself into killing his guest, King Duncan (Erskind Sandford). It has been said that Welles was trying to show the struggle between barbarism and Christianity in the film, and he certainly is able to make the confrontation insidious. He never has the witches confront the Holy Father, but the latter is killed (by Macbeth) and the witches have a final comment to make upon the death of Macbeth at the tale end of the film: "Peace, the Charm has ended."

Welles actually knew more about what he was doing when he shot MACBETH than his contemporaries credited him with. In the 1930s he had done a celebrated "VOODOO MACBETH" set in Haiti, with an all African-American cast. It was very well regarded. Unfortunately he could not do that here - it was 1948 and Hollywood would not tolerate a classic play done by people usually playing stereotyped servants (although this was slowly changing in the late 1940s). It would have been interesting to have seen that production, but for a close second, this one does very well indeed.

Orson's Passion

[OttoVonB · 10/10 · 11 July 2006]

Lord Macbeth encounters witches that foresee his ascension to power and finally to the throne. Driven on by this prophecy and his ambitious and manipulative wife, Macbeth plots, betrays and murders to become King. This is Shakespeare at his most bleak, pessimistic and chilling.

Orson Welles, a lover of Shakespeare from an early age, would make three attempts to bring the Bard to the screen. Each attempt has the same strengths (ambition, performance, Welles himself and visual genius) and weaknesses (a beggar's budget). Of these three attempts (the other two being Othello and Chimes at Midnight), Macbeth is the least handicapped by technical difficulties, even if is the weakest overall.

Welles used borrowed costumes and unusual locations (such as an abandoned mine) and shot them in a staggeringly surreal way that greatly enhances the overall quality. As an adaptation, his Macbeth is very faithful in spirit, and trimmings in the text serve only to make it more cinematic and compliant with limited resources. Never, to the star/director's credit, does this feel like a "small" film. Rather, it is inspirational, and traces of it's genius can be found in Kurosawa's version, "Throne of Blood", shot ten years later.

Essential viewing. Especially for those in Europe who have access to Wild Side's beautiful new transfer of the full 115 minute version.

Dark Adaptation of a Dark Play

[Snow Leopard · 12 June 2001]

Orson Welles's version of "Macbeth" makes a dark play even darker. Welles always has his own particular take on everything, and while this is an imperfect movie, it is certainly interesting.

The most noticeable feature of this adaptation is how dark everything is. Almost every scene and every set has barely enough light to let us see what is happening, accentuating the cheerless nature of the plot itself. Sometimes this is effective, but at other times it might have been better to give the viewer a break from the gloom, and to put the focus more on the characters and a little less on the atmosphere.

Macbeth the character is portrayed here in a rather different light than usual. He comes across as rather helpless and not in control of his fate, instead of as the usual stronger Shakespearean tragic hero whose strength is undone by his own tragic flaw. While the three witches seem more in control of the action than does Macbeth himself, most of the apparitions they create are not shown, with the focus being more on Macbeth's reaction. The text itself is also quite different in places, with some lines being switched to new or different characters, and many scenes re-arranged. In all of these respects, viewers will have varying opinions as to how well these decisions work.

While the result is certainly not a masterpiece like some of Welles' other films, his creative influence is clear throughout. Welles fans and Shakespeare fans should definitely see this adaptation and decide for themselves.

Welles's first stab at Shakespeare on film

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 30 March 2005]

This 40s Macbeth is a Shakespeare adaptation with mixed results, created by and starring Orson Welles and released through Poverty Row studio Republic. The costumes are Scandinavian but the accents are definitely Scottish.

Welles is good as the Thane who becomes a king-killer and a tyrant, while Jeanette Nolan appears as the scheming Lady Macbeth. Roddy McDowell is a delicate Malcolm, while Erskine Sanford is Duncan.

The mood of the film is dark, drenched in fog, but the way it is filmed is pure cinema, giving the text new life. There would be better Macbeths but this one is certainly memorable and effective. Welles would go on to tackle Othello and Henry IV (as Chimes at Midnight).

While Olivier was making his mark as a Shakespearian actor/director in British film, Welles was certainly doing the same in the USA. This film stands for all the work which he started and never finished, and is a good example of what he could achieve when at his best.

"Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

[EddieK · 8/10 · 3 January 2006]

The good news? For his last Hollywood film of the 1940s, Orson Welles delivered a low-budget, inventive, expressionist Shakespeare adaptation that served as a template for his experimental European films. The bad news? Welles perhaps captures the eerie mood of "The Scottish Play" all too well; the film is an unrelentingly dark and often uncomfortable experience. The lugubrious pacing and indifferent acting offer little respite from the play's fatalism.

A little background helps one better appreciate this film. After a string of box office failures (including "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "The Lady from Shanghai"), Welles signed on with Republic Pictures to do a low-budget "Macbeth," hoping that he could popularize Shakespeare on film as he had done on radio and in the theatre. His actors rehearsed the play on tour, and painstakingly pre-recorded their dialogue in Scottish brogues. Welles then shot the film in 23 days, some kind of record for him. Well, you can guess what happened: The studio hated it. They forced Welles to cut 20 minutes from the film, and made the actors re-dub their dialogue with "normal" accents - wasting all that time they spent in pre-production. The film bombed on release and Welles spent the next 10 years working in Europe.

Years later, the original prints were found and released as another "Lost Welles Classic." Unfortunately, time has devalued that label; "Macbeth" doesn't quite meet the standard set by "Othello" or "Touch of Evil," two other films that were restored after Welles' death. While the Scottish accents are a nice touch, the extra running time actually robs the film of some momentum. Welles did wonders with the cheap Republic sets; the film is a masterpiece of expressionist set design. The same can't be said of the costumes, which make Welles look like the Statue of Liberty at one point. Constrained by having to sync their movements to pre-recorded dialogue, the actors deliver wooden performances (only the soliloquies, delivered in voice-over, resonate). Fortunately, the last twenty minutes are visually captivating and offer enough Wellesian moments to make the viewing worthwhile.

If Welles fails to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - as he would later do with "Othello" and "Chimes of Midnight" - he succeeds in developing an expressionist style that he would later perfect with his bizarro masterpiece "The Trial." "Macbeth" isn't exactly an enjoyable movie experience; indeed, "returning were as tedious as go o'er." But for the Welles aficionado, "Macbeth" provides an essential link between Welles' Hollywood years and the independent style of his European work.

Atmospheric, but not my favourite Macbeth

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 22 October 2013]

Directed by and starring Orson Welles, this is a hugely atmospheric version of the Shakespeare tragedy which plays up the Gothic horror of the play for all its worth. There are nice little stylistic touches of originality, like the creepy voodoo-style doll used by the witches in the opening scene which crops up later on.

So far, this is my third favourite version of the story, following on from Polanski's harrowing and excellent TRAGEDY OF MACBETH and Kurosawa's compelling and very different THRONE OF BLOOD. MACBETH shares some similarities with the latter, namely in the atmospheric scene-building and scenes of characters riding through foggy and desolate landscapes.

Sadly, the dialogue scenes are the one that lack here. The dialogue is authentic Shakespeare all right, and Welles is certainly a great actor, but I found something lacking. Welles just wasn't moving or involving in the same way Mifune and Finch were involving as the lead. Jeanette Nolan is a scene-chewing Lady Macbeth but lacks a certain something, and seeing the faces of Dan O'Herlihy and in particular Roddy McDowall in support is just, well, odd.

This movie is not without merit, and as an exercise in scene-building and set design it's rather excellent. Some moments, like the gripping climax, are brilliant, but other scenes just feel stodgy and don't progress the plot, so it's good in places and weak in others. Nice effort, though.

Orson Welles' Sound and Fury

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 2 February 2015]

Macbeth was always the play of Shakespeare's that I read in high school that connected with me the most. Not that I was any sort of scholar, but between this and Romeo and Juliet, I took witches and ambitious-madness in a rise to power any day of the week. Hamlet may be deeper and more evocative of so many more things existentially speaking, but Macbeth, a story of self-fulfilling prophecy, is like the grimier, harsher cousin to that Danish tale of Kings and Queens and life and death, and speaks to another level of what it means to obtain and hold on to power that has lasted for centuries for good reason.

So fitting then that in 1948 while Olivier made his legendary Hamlet film, Orson Welles, on the outs with many in Hollywood, toured quickly and then shot a Macbeth film in 21 days (!) So the fact that this isn't one of his best films is, perhaps, a disappointment unto itself. And yet this is a very worthy film because it has many of the hallmarks of an Orson Welles creation, in all of its operatic, even surrealistic and harrowing scope.

Indeed in embracing the rank and dank Scottish caves and corridors and chiaroscuro, we get a fecund mix of Welles in Shakespeare but also a kind of film-noir take on it as well, even as it's in the 12th century and in an area of the medieval and barbarian times. Welles also plays the title character, and rightfully so, it's one of those roles he went into Shakespeare in the first place to play - much like he would later play Faltaff (though, arguably, to much greater and three-dimensional effect than here). And much of the film is Welles himself, first the doubting and fearful would-be king, then the shattered 'Oh wow, now I AM King', and then the whole bag of Madness chips as he descends with the ghosts of those he has killed (Duncan, Banquo), and his wife. Oh, the wife.

I must say a criticism right off here: I didn't think Jeanette Nolan was up to par for the role. Is she a BAD Lady Macbeth? No, of course not. But she often comes off kind of stiff in the part, at least for me, even as she does her best to imbue the traits asked of this this iconic Lady - who is really the brains and cruel, dark heart behind the king, that furtive witch who has more than meets the eye behind the horrible encouragement. Is it because it's Welles, who with one look can both eat up part of the scenery and still manage to convey a range of subtlety that is remarkable and more intriguing than can be given enough credit for, is hard to match to? Maybe so. It's like she needed to really get up to a certain level with the part, and got to a level that was just good enough to get the scene by; see when she has to deliver the "Out, spot" monologue that is the show-stopping climax of her character, and it's there.

But no matter - even with this, and what threatens to be an overabundance of performance from Welles and darkness from the sets, it's still an absorbing chronicle of this masterpiece of characterization. He's giving all he's got and, unlike some other critics have pointed to, it's not all that hard to follow at all, long as one has some general familiarity with the play (I'm not sure which version I watched - I imagine at 112 minutes it's the one that has the restored footage - but the dialog was easy enough to hear). And other cast do help along like Roddy McDowell as Malcolm and, for his handful of scenes, Dan O'Herlihy as Macduff, who really does stand toe to toe with Macbeth for a few minutes of shared screen time.

This may not be the best place to immediately dive in if you haven't seen Welles before, or even Shakespeare films. Hell, it's not even the greatest of the Macbeth adaptations; Kurosawa's Throne of Blood still stands tall above others, and Polanski's adaptation is close behind. Yet it is in that company of bold Shakespeare films - the start to what would be an informal trilogy with Othello and Falstaff - and Welles really digs in with all he has in his low-budget disposal to make it MATTER. So what if he has sets that look it, or lightning when it strikes that shows the sheet on the wall? The theatricality of the whole production, to the horror/film-noir movie cinematography that feels like a monster lives in the caves as opposed to a Royal figure, to the scene of the 'trees' walking forward in unison towards the castle, it all adds up to a unique experience that, while flawed, is totally and wholly remarkable.

In other words, maybe not a lot of "fun", per-say, but then it probably never should be. Turn off all the lights, let Welles' terrified and monstrous eyes fill the screen, and get sucked in. If it were made by any less of a filmmaker, it'd be considered a major triumph - for Welles, it's another day at work.

One irritating feature - but still fascinating

[travis_iii · 6/10 · 1 April 2012]

Macbeth is an interesting film despite its flaws. At times it's very, very interesting, but unfortunately the work is undermined by the use of cod-Scottish accents throughout. All the modernist visual touches and expressionist feel, all the talented delivery of Shakespearean verse (and there is some good acting in parts, especially from Welles) is undone by the insistence that the cast talk as though on the set of Lassie Come Home. One can just about endure non-Scottish actors making a lame attempt at nailing the accent in a film like "Whiskey Galore!" (where there is no alternative) - but it has never been necessary for Macbeth! We know the story is set in Scotland and don't need to be fed constant verbal reminders. Quite the contrary - the (often bad) Scottish accents actually makes the verse harder to hear. Imagine Romeo & Juliet staged with Leonardo Di Caprio using an accent copied from the Dolmio pasta sauce adverts! I suspect that the mistake of using accents was recognised quite soon after production and I have heard that a different re-dubbed version was soon released. One can understand why they did this but the re-dubbed (and cut-down) version must have been worse as the version with brogue is now the preferred one.

This massive distraction aside Welles does a good job on a small budget. It does inevitably look stagy, confined and rather monotonous (all shooting being done indoors) but his attempt to create interesting and visually striking cinema from the limited ingredients at his disposal has to be applauded. The nature of the dramatic material doesn't help - Shakespearean text inevitably means lots of lingering shots during soliloquies, and striking design elements that look quite good at first start to look tired when lingered on. The expressionistic, dark, brooding, angular barrenness starts to oppress and bore one after a time. In between the choice speeches there is a lot of rather wooden movement going on as characters shuffle on and off "stage" but this is compensated for by some moments of very good interpretation of the text and compelling drama.

Whilst some elements of the film are clumsy (the drunk scene with clichéd tuba music) many exhibit Orson Welles' great vitality and cinematic flare. All his films have these last two qualities to one degree or another and that's why they are ALL very very interesting and worth watching.

Orson Welles's "Macbeth" a darkly well made film.

[jnyby83 · 9/10 · 8 May 2000]

Orson Welles Macbeth is to me, perhaps even better made than "Citizen Kane." The fact that much of the Shakespearean dialogue was over my head should not sway my reviewing of the film, and that is why I rated the film as a "9" out of "10."

Orson Welles once again brings the story to life with his cinematography which brings out the dark nature and inner obsessions and strong emotions of his characters.

Orson does Shakespeare

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 27 October 2016]

Orson Welles adapts the iconic William Shakespeare play about a prophecy from three witches that Macbeth will become the King of Scotland. Orson Welles stars as Macbeth. There are experienced stage and film actors. Sometimes they give overwrought stage performances. Then there are the over-pronounced r's. The varying levels of fake Scottish accents are distracting with the Shakespearian script. It comes and it goes depending on the time and the person.

As for the Shakespearian script, there are a few differences and not just the usual subtractions. Welles added a Christian Holy Man to accentuate the conflict with the old religion. The sets are all interior sound stages. The costumes are a hodgepodge of wardrobe leftovers. Some are fine. Some are head-scratching like a weird sci-fi metal-bubbles shirt for Macbeth or the tridents and blank triangle shields for the soldiers. Through it all, Welles is doing intriguing camera shots and other stage craft to stretch the traditional play.

So Many Better Versions of the Scottish Play

[The-Sarkologist · 2/10 · 22 August 2013]

I personally found this movie quite dull. The commentator at the beginning of this movie described it as being lax it the emotional department and that it did not capture the true essence of the play Macbeth. I am inclined to believe in him. He said at the end that while making this film, Welles said that he would not go over time or over budget. He succeeded in that, but this film was the result.

I will not go into the depths of an analysis of the play Macbeth because I really do not think that it is needed here. I would rather wait until I watch the Roman Polanski version, which is far superior to this. What I though made this movie stand out was the sets. Basically the twisted trees and the ruined palace created the scene of a cursed and desolate land. It was a land that was under the curse of an oppressor and it came out well in the end.

The most memorable scene here is when McDuff's daughter is talking with her mother about the nature of traitors. She, I think, is by far the best actor in the film, and that was one of the best scenes in the film. Other than that, I found the film to be quite lacking and I was waiting for it to end. The reason that it received such a low score was that it was a complete bastardisation of a classical Shakespearian play. Even though the style of the sets were good, the sets themselves appeared rushed and thrown together, giving no real thought or desire to create a good movie.

A Kingdom of Greed and Blood

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 13 March 2004]

In Scotland, Macbeth is a honored nobleman, who listens to the prophecies of three witches: he would become a duke, and later the king of Scotland. Immediately after the information, he is declared to duke by the king. His wife Lady Macbeth and him plot against the king and decide to stab him in the night, blaming his servants. After the death of the king, Macbeth is proclaimed king and can not sleep anymore. Then, guided by his greed and madness, starts killing everybody he thinks may be a menace to him, believing in his interpretation of the prophecies. I am not a great fan of Shakespeare's vocabulary, too much refined and difficult to be understood by a person that is not native in English, but this theatrical version of Macbeth is a great movie. The gothic scenario and the black and white photography are very impressive, as well as the performance of Orson Welles. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): `Macbeth Reinado de Sangue' (`Macbeth Kingdom of Blood')

crude but forceful

[tsf-1962 · 10/10 · 19 November 2006]

"Macbeth" is generally not regarded as one of Orson Welles' better movies, but after "Citizen Kane" it's my personal favorite. It's low budget and technically crude, but somehow all the stronger for it. "Macbeth" is a play that benefits from being done on the rough side; obviously the same approach would not work for "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet." Welles made this film in competition with Sir Laurence Olivier's "Hamlet," feeling that Olivier prettied up Shakespeare. This is Shakespeare with fangs, a dark surrealistic nightmare that takes place less in 11th century Scotland than it does in the dark recesses of the human soul. Welles sees the play as a struggle between Christianity and paganism, with the Witches representing the latter and an invented character, the Holy Father (Alan Napier, Alfred in the 1960s TV series "Batman") standing in for the former. Ironically, in this version paganism seems to be winning. Welles progressively traces Macbeth's growing brutalization much as Al Pacino does with Michael Corleone in "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part 2." Welles was criticized for having his actors speak in Scottish burrs; interestingly the two best performances are from Dan O'Herlihy (Macduff) and Roddy McDowell (Malcolm), who were from Ireland and Scotland respectively. Of all the actresses in Hollywood at the time who could have played Lady Macbeth--Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, and Orson's old pal Agnes Moorehead to name a few--he was stuck with obscure radio actress Jeanette Nolan, whose demented take on her character's sexuality works well in the context of this particular film.

From the Language Shapes

[tedg · 7 March 2008]

I got an angry email from a reader upset that I thought Olivier's "Hamlet" to be worthless.

I hold that view because of a personal appreciation of Shakespeare.

What I appreciate of his work is the unique way that his words can weave small cells of images, ambiguous layered and rich. Lovely as well, to tease their way into our souls. These little packages of firework wordimages burst on the tongues we listen with and successively whip a foam that perfectly follows the shape of the larger story.

He does this in different ways: "Tempest," "Ceasar," "Juliet" are all different and different from this play in how he structures this foamnarrative. This is not favorite among the great plays because it is excessively sonorous. I believe this to have something to do with Will's obsessions with word origins and his emphasis on Saxon structures.

Olivier is a typical British actor, someone that sees the words as merely shapes for the mouth and incidentally related to the grand arcs and tensions of the long composition. They are excuses for locution. Such actors disconnect the poetry from the massive stones that pass through the narrative.

This on the other hand is as well conceived as Olivier's Hamlet is mere posturing. It takes the poetry and uses it to build the whole. Welles mucks around with the play, reassigning text, creating new characters and editing heavily, but all to a coherent purpose. His army of cross bearers is something you will never forget.

But he does something else. All the changes, all the special attentions. All the theatrical devices are geared toward the cinematic expression. This isn't just a production by Welles. It was THE production. He'd been doing this for a decade. His theatrical production was the first cinematic play in history, and his work on it (and most of the players) came to Hollywood prepared, which is why we got "Citizen Kane."

This is terrific Shakespeare. This is terrific cinema. To my taste, "Othello" was even better. More layers. More ambiguity. More patina. And highly architectural.

But this. My friends. Shakespeare is special. Don't trust your soul with someone not worthy.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The Power of Welles

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 21 April 2016]

In fog-dripping, barren and sometimes macabre settings, 11th-century Scottish nobleman Macbeth is led by an evil prophecy and his ruthless yet desirable wife to the treasonous act that makes him king. But he does not enjoy his newfound, dearly-won kingship...

Macbeth marked the fourth time that a post-silent era Hollywood studio produced a film based on a Shakespeare play: United Artists had produced "The Taming of the Shrew" in 1929, Warner Brothers made "A Midsummer's Night Dream" in 1935, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced "Romeo and Juliet" in 1936. None of these films were commercially successful, but the commercial and critical prestige earned by Laurence Olivier's film version of "Henry V" (which was produced in Great Britain in 1944 but not seen in the U.S. until 1946) helped to propel Welles' "Macbeth" forward.

I am surprised that these films were not successful. And then comes Welles, who has such a large personality. This film is excellent, but he is a dominant part of the film -- directing, starring, and it seems he rearranged the sequences to make even the plot his own. Welles... artist or narcissistic dictator?

Dark, brooding and overall very well-done Macbeth

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 30 May 2012]

I'll always have a soft spot for the play as it was one of my first Shakespeares, and I really liked this Macbeth. It is not my favourite film version of the play, Polanski's film and Kurasawa's Throne of Blood I just preferred. However, despite some scenes that suffer from a lack of momentum and some indifferent sound quality in a number of scenes excepting the soliloquies, this is very good if not quite on par with Welles' other Shakespeare adaptations Othello and Chimes at Midnight. I loved how dark and expressionistic the sets and lighting were and the cinematography shows thought and accomplishment. The score by Jacques Ibert is a haunting one and matches the expressionistic, brooding tone of the film very well, the story is still the dark and compelling one, complete with an atmosphere of intensity and great unease, I know and love and the script especially the soliloquies is wonderful. Orson Welles' Macbeth doesn't quite match his extraordinary Othello but nonetheless he gives an commanding, sometimes intense, sometimes moving performance. The last twenty minutes are especially mesmerising. Of his supporting cast, the best were the scheming Lady Macbeth of Jeanette Nolan and the delicate Malcolm of Roddy MacDowell. Banquo is also quite good. The rest of the cast are not bad, and the accents were a nice touch when the sound wasn't so indifferent, but I didn't get the sense they were living the parts as well as Welles in particular did. Overall, not perfect and the least of Welles' Shakespeare adaptations but thanks to Welles' performance, how it was made and its atmosphere it is a film worth seeing. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Bloody, Bold and Resolute.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 17 June 2009]

This production of the old warhorse was brought to you courtesy of Republic Pictures, home of early John Wayne Westerns, and run by the tyrannical skinflint and notorious cheat, Herbert J. Yates. Also home to the unforgettable Vera Hruba Ralston, Yates' main squeeze, then his wife. Yates promised Welles $700K to make this film, then cut the budget. Welles, intent on showing that he could be bloody, bold, and resolute, cut even more corners and managed to bring the film in on time and on budget.

I'd heard so many bad things about this movie -- furry images, unintelligible dialog -- that I was almost afraid to watch it. But it's not nearly as bad as I'd expected.

The story: Led on by the predictions of three sinister sisters met in the woods, MacBeth and his wife murder the king of Scotland back in the Dark Ages, then the guy next in line, then the family of the guy next in line, then -- then I think I always get lost. I had to memorize long lines from it in high school and enjoy reading it now, especially because it is, I think, Shakespeare's shortest play. But some of the plot threads always slip by me. I can't tell, for instance, whether MacBeth gets his head chopped off on stage or off stage. Anyway, after several brutal murders, MacBeth and his wife wind up dead, and the proper heir takes the throne.

Welles is MacBeth, Dan O'Herlihy is Leon MacDuff, and Roddy McDowall is Malcom. John Dierkes is present in a less important role. You will probably recognize his face. It was ubiquitous in the 1950s. You might recognize the voice too, although it belongs not to Dierkes but to Orson Welles. I guess that's one of the ways Welles cut corners. Instead of calling for more takes or, worse yet, recalling the cast for pick up shots, he simply dubbed some of the voices himself.

Despite the clear image and crisp sound on the print used by Turner Movie Classics, I did have some trouble with the lines. Shakespeare himself is tough enough, what with his obsolescent lexicon, his idiosyncratic usages ("her beauty beggars all description," wow, in which he turns a noun into a verb), and Shakespeare's own historical position, poised between Middle and Modern English (eg., "yclept"; Well, that's Old English, but you get the picture), he imposes a Scottish burr on the character's lines. Some of the actors pull it off better than others. Welles doesn't do too badly with the accent but it sometimes does take effort to interpret it. "Hour" comes out the way that "whore" is pronounced in Newark, New Jersey -- "hoor." The musical score, which is not overdone, sounds like it's reaching for Prokoviev but not the melodious dissonance of, say, Alexander Nevsky, but something more accessible -- Peter and the Wolf. In any case, the score uses some strange themes, including a pompous, almost comic march led by a tuba. I was surprised to find it was written by Jacques Ibert, a memorable composer in his own right.

The photography is -- well, to be honest, I have to agree with some of the people who found fault with the movie. It's really dark, and artily so. It's like Eisenstein on mushrooms. Most of the story takes place at night, as if to mask the cheap sets. And half the time, it seems, characters are shot in silhouette or back lighted. In one shot, the camera looks down at MacBeth's lone figure and his shadow stretches before him by a quarter of a mile. Some of the decisions regarding make up seem hasty too. The men's faces are always beaded with sweat, though sometimes they are dressed in furs. (Other times they go around shirtless.) The sinister sisters are reduced to an invisible squawk that's hard to understand, and their pronouncements are important to the plot too -- Birnham Wood coming to Dunsinane and all that. Jeanette Nolan as Lady MacBeth is a bit theatrical and scratchy for my taste, maybe because she reminds me of somebody else I know.

But, as I say, this is not even close to the chintzy failure I'd expected. The play itself, its marvelous dialog, scenes of violence, and gripping portrait of ambition and guilt, is strong enough to carry the entire film, even without the sometimes splendid performances. Dan O'Herlihy is memorable. And Alan Napier (Alfred in the Batman series) as an invented figure seems born to do Shakespeare.

Orson Welles' Macbeth

[Red-125 · 8/10 · 19 March 2014]

Macbeth (1948) was directed by Orson Welles and stars Welles himself as Macbeth, and Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth. The immensely talented Welles was famous for thinking up ambitious projects that he could not fund. Macbeth fell into that category.

With inadequate funding, Welles was forced to patch together his cast, his props, and his location. Although most of the important scenes of the play take place in a castle, Welles didn't have a castle. His set was an amorphous rock formation, with steps that apparently led nowhere.

I saw this movie as part of an honors seminar (Shakespeare in Film) that I'm auditing. The students were scornful about the movie. They got tired of the obvious Christian (good) Pagan (bad) symbolism. They got tired of Macbeth lurching around the set as if he were drunk. (Could he have been drunk, or did he want us to think Macbeth was drunk?) They got tired of a new character that Welles introduced--the Holy Father.

Welles was a great actor, and his interpretation of Macbeth as a glowering medieval lord covered in sweat is as valid as other interpretations. Jeanette Nolan was not a great Lady Macbeth, but she was creditable enough.

What ruined the movie for me was the lower-than-low budget appearance. Sometimes, you just can't fake it with papier mâché and shadows. For example, in one of the most dramatic scenes in world theater, Lady Macbeth comes sleepwalking into a hall and continues to wash her hands. (That's where "Out, out, damned spot" comes from.)

In this version, Lady Macbeth, her maid, and the doctor seem to be on a platform of rock, with no roof. Shakespeare meant this to be a tight, intimate, indoor scene. It loses its effectiveness in this setting.

We saw this film on the small screen. It might work a little better in a theater, but it works well enough on DVD. This is a flawed, unsatisfying film, but it's not without its merits. Welles is a genius. Even a lesser movie by a genius has some great moments in it. My suggestion--watch it and decide for yourself.

Too Dark!

[Sylviastel · 7/10 · 28 January 2007]

As an aspiring Language Arts Teacher, this film version is a bit dark for contemporary students. Nobody is faulting Orson Welles who was a truly on par with British legend, Lord Laurence Olivier, because he means well but he never captures Macbeth as others have. Maybe it's because Orson is just too brilliant as a director, producer, actor, and writer to be doing this role. Yes, Macbeth is challenging but Orson is well above adequate. Jeannette Nolan is one of my favorite Lady Macbeths of all time and that includes Dame Judi Dench and Francesca Annis in recent productions. This Macbeth was too dark meaning setting as well. I just felt that gave a darkness which was naturally there. Of course, standards were different in 1948 but I think the witches could have been more realistic as well. They just seemed to be glossed over.

Shakespeare's noted tragedy with the classical characters : Lady Macbeth , Banquo , Macduff , Duncan and Malcolm

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 23 February 2016]

Orson Welles plays and directs splendidly the story about the tragic king who receives a mysterious prophecy from a trio of witches . Shakespeare's classic tragedy is interpreted with celebrated lead performances , being today highly regarded in English-speaking countries . This Macbeth (1948) was magnificently acted , directed by Orson Welles with great cast as Jeanette Nolan , Dan O'Herlihy , Roddy McDowall , Robert Coote , John Dierkes , among others , all of them speaking with authentic Scot accents . This is a low-budgeted retelling with cheap sets , a three-week shooting schedule and an attempt at Scottish accent . Macbeth (Welles) , the Thane of Glamis , and his underling Banquo (Edgar Barrier) have put down a rebellion and are to be rewarded by their overlord , King Duncan (Sanford) . On their way to their castle they meet three witches who prophesy that Macbeth will soon rule , but his kingdom will be short . They are dismissed as crazies but their prophesies come to pass . Consumed by ambition and spurred to action by his astute spouse , his equally murderous woman (film debut of Jeanette Nolan) , Lady Macbeth (she is often referred to as "Lady M") , intriguing Macbeth subsequently murders his king and takes the throne for himself . The young Scots nobleman lusting for power , driven onward by crazed Lady and prophecies , all of them lead him to disasters , deaths and destructions .

Notorious as well as low-budgeted -about 700.000 dollars- moody adaptation of the Shakespearean classic marked by unflinching happenings , expressionist production design and fatalistic atmosphere . Great example of movie adaptation , thanks to portentous interpretations , intense as well as tragic drama and magnificent filmmaking . A highly stylized and surrealistic approach Orson Welles took to the play . Interesting movie-making within a time frame of 3 weeks , filmed according to a screenplay by Welles . Shot entirely on strange interiors , as the inexpensive bizarre sets were designed by Orson Welles and Dan O'Herlihy , that deliberately emphasize its theatricality . A magnificent recounting of Shakespeare's Macbeth in which all the fire , doom , vengeance and ambition of his text come brilliantly to life . Although Shakespeare's Macbeth has little to do with Macbeth , the King , the real Macbeth was one of Scotland's better kings . Very well made film that contains stunning fight scenes , lots of mood , grisly killings , fine acting , breathtaking battles and being compellingly set in a barbaric society . Realized in cold and thought-provoking style that it bears remarkable resemblance to the Shakespearean original . However , some aspects differ from the original source material . This gripping and fabulous movie is an incredibly detailed vision in its own right . Main cast offers awesome performance and everybody speaks with a Scottish accent . Orson Welles gives a top-drawer acting as a demonic leader receives a prophecy from a trio of women that foretell one day he will become King of Scotland , being driven to self-destruction . Extraordinary support cast , such as Edgar Barrier as Banquo , Dan O'Herlihy as Macduff , Alan Napier as Holy Father , John Dierkes and Roddy MacDowall , who was already a veteran film player , as Malcolm , though he is out of his element . Gloomy as well as evocative cinematography , though very dark and plenty of lights and shades . This grim but compelling motion picture was well directed by Orson Welles who brought the Bard to Republic Pictures and Mercury Theatre , being filmed in 23 days on a very low budget . Although the film was a critical and commercial disaster in both the USA and England, it was a huge success in many non-English speaking countries, especially France, where critics could not understand how the American and British press failed to appreciate it . Most revival , remastering , and new editions now show Orson Welles's original version which runs 105 minutes and it has the cast playing in Scot language .

¨Macbeth¨ (1948) results to be , in fact , the classic rendition , being a followed by worthy continuations based upon Shakespearean classic play , these are the followings : Macbeth (1976) with Eric Porter , Janet Suzman ; Macbeth (1990) with Michael Jayston , Leigh Hunt , being produced as part of HBO's Thames collection ; Macbeth (1971) by Roman Polanski with John Finch , Francesca Annis , Martin Shaw , being first movie made by ¨Playboy Enterprises¨ , commissioned and underwritten by its President , publisher Hugh Hephner , it was torn apart by critics and originally rated X ; this storytelling is not for everyone and it packs some images that make it objectionable for kiddies or squeamish adults . Furthermore , a Japanese adaptation : Throne of Blood (1957) by Akira Kurosawa with Toshiro Mifune , Yamada , Shimura , this is Kurosawa's masterful rendition that transports the story to medieval Japan and the world of the samurai . And recent version (2015) with Michael Fassbender , Marion Cotillard , Sean Harris , Paddy Considine , David Thewlis , among others .

"Trouble, trouble, toil and trouble."

[brogmiller · 6/10 · 23 February 2020]

Orson Welles was undoubtedly one of the most extraordinarily gifted and charismatic beings to have walked the earth. It is to be lamented however that in his European films especially he made so many errors of judgement that, for this viewer at any rate, his genius is somewhat flawed.

Having obtained the requisite finance from 'B' studio Republic Pictures whose bosses were obviously tantalised by the prospect of being involved with something 'prestigious', Welles set about making his first Shakespearean film. He then proceeds to cock it up by casting as Lady Macbeth an American actress named Jeanette Nolan who is both unsuited to the role and inadequate to the task. She and the rest of the cast are furthermore hampered by the Scottish accents imposed by the director which renders some of them practically incomprehensible. The post-synchronisation leaves a lot to be desired but that is customary with Welles.

The film is visually impressive of course as Welles was a master of composition and unlike many directors really understood 'light'. He has the added benefit of John L. Russell behind the camera and Jacques Ibert as composer. He himself is utterly riveting in the role and the banqueting scene is especially effective but one is left alas with the feeling that a wonderful opportunity to make a definitive version of Shakespeare's play has been wasted. What a pity.

Laurence Olivier was denied the chance, one will never know why, of bringing his own Macbeth to the screen which is a great shame as his stage performance was considered one of his greatest whilst it is probably wiser to pass over in silence Polanski's dreadful version of 1971. It was down to Kurosawa to give us in 'Throne of Blood' what is and will ever remain, the greatest non-Shakespearean version on film. Let us at least give thanks for that.

A WELLESIAN DISASTER

[peacham · 2/10 · 20 September 1999]

The great Welles only total failure. the film lacks humanity,it lacks poetry and above all it lacks interest. Welles creates a world where Macbeth is pawn of the supernatural,not a good man who is influenced by a prophecy and an ambitious wife. and speaking of the ambitious wife can anyone have given a more wooden performance of the greatest female role ever written? Jeannette Nolan is awful. not passion,no emotion. she seems life a cartoon villain. she can't even move well on screen! the only performance worth mentioning is Roddy McDowall's understated Malcom. his is the only unaffected portrayal in this disheatening film.