There’s something about “The Scottish Play” that lends itself to first-rate film adaptations. It’s William Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy, which makes it perfect for those moviegoers with attention span deficits; the various cinematic versions include a 1908 effort from J. Stuart Blackston (the earliest known film version—it’s unknown as of this writing if a print exists); Roman Polanski’s 1971 incarnation (produced in the aftermath of his wife Sharon Tate’s murder at the hand of the Manson family); and a feature directed by Justin Kurzel that was released just last year.
I’ve seen the Polanski film but I’ve yet to view Kurzel’s
movie. But I don’t think it would matter
much, because my favorite silver screen treatment of Macbeth is the one from 1948, with our obedient servant Orson
Welles in the director’s chair. There
are any number of reasons why: I’m a
huge Welles fan, and the wunderkind
had a special affinity for Shakespeare—he performed in a few of The Immortal
Bard’s plays while in prep school, and after making the acquaintance of stage
legend Katharine Cornell, he was assigned the part of Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet in a repertory company
headed up by Cornell’s husband, Guthrie McClintic. Orson later received much critical acclaim
for his Voodoo Macbeth, an all-black
version of the play that he staged for the Federal Theatre Project in 1936.
A year later, Welles would produce the audacious Caesar—a version of Julius Caesar in modern dress that was quite anti-fascist in manner
and tone; Orson’s good chum Joseph Cotten described it as “so vigorous, so
contemporary that it set Broadway on its ear.”
Orson would then breathe life into Five
Kings (Part One)—a five-hour
presentation incorporating parts of Richard
II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, and Richard III—for
a 1939 stage production, tackle Othello
in 1951 (Welles would later bring the tragic tale of the Moor to the big screen
in 1952), and pay tribute to King Lear
in 1956. Chimes at Midnight, a production featuring portions of Henry IV, Henry V, Richard III, and
The Merry Wives of Windsor trod the
stage boards in 1960, and Orson later adapted it in motion picture form in 1965
(a movie some have called his very best).
Herbert J. Yates |
This is the main reason why I love Orson’s Macbeth so. It was
filmed at Republic Pictures. Republic,
the MGM of the Poverty Row studios; they had no peer when it came to cranking
out serials and B-Westerns, but on the A-picture side Republic was lucky if
they put out one or two of those a year…and it was even money that it would be
a film featuring the studio’s big draw, John Wayne. Yates’ Republic had gotten a little
adventurous before Macbeth; both Jealousy (1945; an experimental noir
directed by Gustav Machaty) and Specter
of the Rose (1946; written and directed by the legendary Ben Hecht) were
lensed at the studio, and the success of Laurence Olivier’s Henry V (1944) persuaded Herbert J. to budget
$700,000 for Orson’s film.
Republic’s board of directors were understandably a little
nervous about Orson’s participation in the Macbeth project, notably because of
the director’s reputation for cinematic profligacy. (Something, by the way, that has acquired mythic
proportions; director Peter Bogdanovich dismissed it all as bovine excrement,
firmly stating that Welles paid great attention to economy when
filmmaking.) Welles allayed their fears
by having a clause inserted into his contract that he would make up the
difference should the movie go overbudget.
Orson filmed Macbeth in 23
days (with one day for retakes) on the same soundstages that once saw “Gabby”
Hayes proclaim “dadgummit” to Roy Rogers; the director was able to cut corners
by filming many scenes in long, fluid takes; pre-recording much of the dialogue
in advance (the cast ended up doing a lot of lip-synching); and taking
advantage of an invite from the Utah Centennial Festival in 1947 to stage six
performances of the play at the University of Utah (this gave Welles the
rehearsal time he couldn’t afford with Republic’s stringent budget).
"Bubble, bubble/Toil and trouble..." |
A while back on the blog, I did a
write-up on a documentary on the legendary B-picture director Edgar G.
Ulmer—which features author Gregory W. Mank’s right-on-the-money observation
that as a filmmaker, Ulmer “had to take a rat…and make Thanksgiving dinner out
of it…” That’s kind of what Welles did
here; true, Republic Pictures productions had a bit more professional sheen
than, say, something cranked out at Monogram or PRC…but the handcuffs of the tight
budget necessitated that Welles do a lot of improvisation. The
opening scenes of Macbeth made me
smile because Orson relied on the B-movie director’s best friend (fog), and a
lot of the staging that he used for his Shakespearean theatrical presentations
(risers, staircases and the like) figure into the film as well. Most importantly, he puts great emphasis on
the audacious audio techniques that he honed in his earlier radio days.
Evil never looked so good. |
Roddy McDowall and John Dierkes |
“Unfortunately, not one critic in any part of the world chose
to compliment me on the speed,” lamented Orson Welles about Macbeth at the Edinburgh Fringe
Festival in 1953. “They thought it was a
scandal that it should only take 23 days. Of course, they were right, but I could not
write to every one of them and explain that no one would give me any money for
a further day's shooting.” The fact that
Welles pulled off this amazing cinematic feat with the movie equivalent of “spit
and baling wire” just makes me love Macbeth
that much more…and I don’t think my love affair with this Olive Signature
Blu-ray will end anytime soon. (Many
thanks to Bradley Powell at Olive Films for providing TDOY with the screener—this is unquestionably their finest
presentation yet.)
3 comments:
Well now, we find ourselves in complete agreement - minus the small element that I have yet to get my grubby hands on Olive's terrific offering yet; they shall compensate you for thy fountain of wisdom ... (That's me making like Shakespeare)... I've always loved Welles' McBeth, his flourish for casting the terrific along with the bizarre (as you mentioned - Schilling?) as well as his passion for the author and as well his embracing the position of auteur. The dank, cheap clapboard setting, fog enshrined but brimming with luscious imagery and secrets, and always Welles, gnawing at his part with principled pangs. I was never a Shakespeare follower - my introduction was from the well-hewed Harold Hecuba school - but there is a simple lyricism to this version that seemed missing from the blunt and awkwardly violent Polanski tragedy. Thanks for prompting me to buy another DVD!
One of the advantages of being an old movie fan (and low budget film maker) is that, as you point out, the obstacles that need to be overcome in a film like this only make you admire the craftsmen more. I've been on a bit of a PRC binge lately, watched DEAD MEN WALK again the other night, and where the average viewer would be groaning "How cheesy!" I kept thinking "This is better than it has any right to be for a six day shoot with no money!"
My personal favourite as well, and not simply because of the presence of Jeanette Nolan. It is the whole sense I get of everyone working together in a totally supportive creative environment to bring the story to the screen. It feels whole and complete and, if not perfect, sharing the journey with their audience.
Post a Comment