'Macbeth (1948),' the first of several Shakespeare adaptations from Orson Welles, is bleak, incredibly bleak. Shot on a restricted budget over just 21 days, the film spends most of its running time swathed in low-lying fog, evoking the haunting desolation and claustrophobia of the unknown Scottish wilderness. In terms of atmosphere, the film is completely brilliant, with Welles having transformed his meagre finances into an asset through his use of constrained sets and mist-obscured surroundings. The director himself, long valued for his incredible on screen presence, bellows his old-style dialogue at the audience, his delivery communicating an inescapable inner torment that leaves you drained and exhausted by the film's end. I've never read any of Shakespeare's work, so his language takes some getting used to, but, visually, Welles' film is a treat, even if the plot left me a bit confused on occasion. His stylistic approach to adapting the play to the screen is rather minimalistic, recalling Welles' previous experience in the theatre, and occasionally almost surrealistic in tone.
When it was first released, 'Macbeth' proved a box-office disaster. The film's distributor, Republic Pictures, demanded that 20-minutes be cut from the film, and also that the distinctive Scottish accents be dubbed over in "normal" voices. So it was that another Welles picture suffered being butchered by the studio, but at least modern audiences can still enjoy the picture as the director had originally intended it, thanks to a 1980s restoration using rediscovered footage. In the same year that Laurence Olivier's 'Hamlet (1948)' took out Best Picture and Best Actor honours at the Academy Awards, Welles' Shakespearian adaptation was largely neglected by film-goers and derided by critics in both the United States and the United Kingdom; European audiences reacted more favourably towards the director's unique approach to the material. Though 'Macbeth' may not even approach some of Welles' best work my two favourites to date are 'Citizen Kane (1941)' and 'The Trial (1962)' it's undoubtedly the work of a confident and passionate filmmaker.
But the film is bleak. Oh, yes, so very bleak. The ending, whether it be through Shakespeare's talents or those of its director, leaves you completely and utterly crushed, and you perceive that perhaps you'll never again be capable of recognising the brightness in life. 107 minutes is such a very long time to be reminded of the hopelessness of human existence, and, though it may be a complete insult to the art-form of film-making, I can understand why the studio decided to throw their scissors at the film. A bit of humour wouldn't have gone amiss, either, and might have propelled the story forward more quickly if Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal (1957)' taught us anything, it's that humour can be used to complement even the darkest of cinematic themes, death itself. Did Shakespeare's original play contain any humour? I obviously couldn't tell you, but I've always been under the impression that the great playwright had no deficiency in wit, whether he was writing comedy or tragedy. After all, the two are never far apart.
When it was first released, 'Macbeth' proved a box-office disaster. The film's distributor, Republic Pictures, demanded that 20-minutes be cut from the film, and also that the distinctive Scottish accents be dubbed over in "normal" voices. So it was that another Welles picture suffered being butchered by the studio, but at least modern audiences can still enjoy the picture as the director had originally intended it, thanks to a 1980s restoration using rediscovered footage. In the same year that Laurence Olivier's 'Hamlet (1948)' took out Best Picture and Best Actor honours at the Academy Awards, Welles' Shakespearian adaptation was largely neglected by film-goers and derided by critics in both the United States and the United Kingdom; European audiences reacted more favourably towards the director's unique approach to the material. Though 'Macbeth' may not even approach some of Welles' best work my two favourites to date are 'Citizen Kane (1941)' and 'The Trial (1962)' it's undoubtedly the work of a confident and passionate filmmaker.
But the film is bleak. Oh, yes, so very bleak. The ending, whether it be through Shakespeare's talents or those of its director, leaves you completely and utterly crushed, and you perceive that perhaps you'll never again be capable of recognising the brightness in life. 107 minutes is such a very long time to be reminded of the hopelessness of human existence, and, though it may be a complete insult to the art-form of film-making, I can understand why the studio decided to throw their scissors at the film. A bit of humour wouldn't have gone amiss, either, and might have propelled the story forward more quickly if Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal (1957)' taught us anything, it's that humour can be used to complement even the darkest of cinematic themes, death itself. Did Shakespeare's original play contain any humour? I obviously couldn't tell you, but I've always been under the impression that the great playwright had no deficiency in wit, whether he was writing comedy or tragedy. After all, the two are never far apart.