Commentaires des utilisateurs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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')

I had bought two versions of Macbeth (Roman Polanski's and Orson's )after successfully toiling with the Arden texts for a couple of weeks, I had pictured in my mind's eye what what might be an adequate visual interpretation of the ambitious king and nagging wife etc... However 'interpretation' is the key to viewing any filmed Shakespeare, For a start on the Imbd there are easily over 20 versions, and with 'Orson Welles MacBeth' an 'interpretation' is certainly what you get.

The radical physical setting of this screen version (amongst random ragged rocks in the 'Highlands') indeed evokes a sense of a rustic kingdom in early Y1K, lit by burning broom and men toiling and dying at every available nook and cranny in the rock. Typically, the actors (particularly Welles) address the rhetoric with the Scotch accent which has never been indigenously heard in Scotland (think of Disney's 'Scrooge McDuck' or The Terrier 'Mac' in 'Lady and the Tramp'). Oral issues aside, MacBeth, after slaying Duncan, patrols his new house with a sort of upside down stool on his head with the legs sharpened to a point, and issues decrees from a throne in a type of indoor tent. One point about the play in general is the fact that he murders at least 4 people and only one of their spirits can be bothered to haunt the obsessed tyrant (Banquo visits mid Banquet)?

When you see this version of MacBeth, bear in mind Welles' brave and original touch to the highly worked text. The atmosphere is unique, rich with darkness and a kind of fear. Settings are perfectly lit for their purpose, and reliably Welles is always the man capable for for the titular role.

I had intended to return at least one of the videos, I think I will keep both, just to remind me how good each of them are.

(Incidently, I am writing from the town in the north of Scotland where Duncans Castle is located in the text : How far is it called to FORRES?, On old maps of the town there was a site 'ruin of Duncan's castle' now known as 'Castle Hill' was this the place where Macbeth strutted with the stool on his head?)

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?

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

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.

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.

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 .

'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.

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.