"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.

Trailer—Macbeth

Macbeth_720p(480P)

This Orson Welles `Macbeth', I must admit is more imposing, more faithful to the text than the 1972 Polanski version. The witches- in this 1942 film - are more ghost like figures, unreal, more hallucinating, as mind projections of the Scottish General.In the Polanski version the three witches are flesh and bone or earthy ,for that reason much more intriguing. This Welles film has more dialogues(it's more textual ),and for that reason is confusing to the spectator not familiarized with the play of the English Bard .The DOWN SIDE of Orson Welles adaptation is ' his Lady Macbeth' presented here as the `twin' of snow white witch she even has the same hairdo!) she doesn't has the sensuality, and complicity in chamber as in the other film(francesca Annis played "a feminine" Lady Macbeth in the 1972 version).the Polish director changed locations (luckily we can't hear thunders too much )Polanski did the filme in technicolor,he did it more graphic, he shortened the dialogues or soliloquy and the ending is really intriguing,we see a cripple Donalbian about to discover the hiding place of the witches. This is a particular and pessimist ending who fits well in Polanski distorted vision, it is more accurate than the `theatrical ending in the orson welles version, although the two macbeth are interesting enough(sorry,I did not see the kurosawa film).

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

source: Macbeth

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.

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.

To quote Moss Hart, `I saw the play from a disadvantage.the curtain was open.' One wonders why Republic Pictures spent the money to restore (and even add minutes to) this Bardic bomb from 1948. What was Orson Welles thinking when he mounted this pseudo-surrealistic stinker? Everything from the worn out, recycled camera angles used so effectively in Citizen Cane to the unjustified choice of black and white over Technicolor helped to detract the viewer's attention from Shakespeare's classic story of a murderer with a conscience. I looked, searched, and waited for a moment which would rescue this ill mounted rendering of Macbeth, but the moment never came. From start to finish the audience was pestered with a lame, ear-grating, mediocre, and downright annoying Scottish accent. Welles' choice to use dialect to enhance authenticity was thwarted by sets and costumes which vacillated between Viking dark ages and 15th Century Renaissance. What was Welles thinking when he butchered whole scenes? One can see judicious pruning for the sake of time, but sacrificing major scenes of dramatic conflict cheated the viewer of his just desserts? Those who will go to the film to see the all-too-familiar Wellesian camera angles and extreme close-ups to make dramatic statement won't be disappointed.they're used again and again and again.and yet again. I found the unmoving lip soliloquies to be particularly annoying. The intense eyes and melodramatic body language became comical at points. If you're looking for a purist version of Macbeth.you're in deep trouble. Duncan has only one son, A pig-tailed-holy-man-Druid-priest is added to Shakespeare's original dramatis personae, and Macduff's reaction to the slaughter of his wife and babes runs the gamut of emotion from A to B. Roddy McDowell's syrupy delivery as Malcom was recycled Lassie-- something was amiss, and he should know it. The fake ax used in the beheading of Thane of Cawdor was unbelievably silly, as was the sleepwalking scene of Lady Macbeth. `The queen, my lord, is dead,' and so is this film. - Les White

Orson Welles has a long history of polarising opinion of his every effort, and MacBeth, not surprisingly, creates most distance between pro and con. The truth lies in the vast grey in between. To mine, Welles is a great director, and controller of scene, and the conflict between actor and director is strong throughout MacBeth. The grandest scenes, dialogue and monologue can be buried at the single sweep of the great man's hand, and almost simultaneously, perspectives almost undiscovered previously, are brought to life with a vitality which lambasts the casual onlooker about the head. MacBeth has always been a play deserving of the utmost concentration, but this version, regardless of effort does no justice to either Shakespeare or Welles. One has the overiding impression that Welles would have done more for all by leaving his self indulgence at home, and applying his grand creativity to expanding the scope and audience for a modern generation.