ग्लेमिस के थेन मैकबेथ को चुड़ैलों की तिकड़ी से यह भविष्यवाणी मिलती है कि एक दिन वह स्कॉटलैंड का राजा बनेगा. महत्वाकांक्षा से प्रेरित और अपनी पत्नी द्वारा उकसाने पर, मैकबेथ अपने राजा की हत्या... सभी पढ़ेंग्लेमिस के थेन मैकबेथ को चुड़ैलों की तिकड़ी से यह भविष्यवाणी मिलती है कि एक दिन वह स्कॉटलैंड का राजा बनेगा. महत्वाकांक्षा से प्रेरित और अपनी पत्नी द्वारा उकसाने पर, मैकबेथ अपने राजा की हत्या करता है और खुद सिंहासन पर बैठ जाता है.ग्लेमिस के थेन मैकबेथ को चुड़ैलों की तिकड़ी से यह भविष्यवाणी मिलती है कि एक दिन वह स्कॉटलैंड का राजा बनेगा. महत्वाकांक्षा से प्रेरित और अपनी पत्नी द्वारा उकसाने पर, मैकबेथ अपने राजा की हत्या करता है और खुद सिंहासन पर बैठ जाता है.
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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 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.
Title (Brazil): `Macbeth Reinado de Sangue' (`Macbeth Kingdom of Blood')
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाLaurence Olivier wanted to follow up The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fifth with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France (1944) with a film version of "Macbeth", but decided against it because Orson Welles' version would reach theaters first. Olivier opted to make his film of Hamlet (1948) instead, which went on to win him Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Actor.
- गूफ़Duncan and his men renew their baptismal vows with a prayer composed by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. While this is technically an anachronism, it should be remembered that William Shakespeare's plays are themselves are full of similar anachronisms, therefore this can be seen as a stylistic tribute that Shakespeare himself might have appreciated.
- भाव
Macbeth: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day; to the last syllable of recorded time; and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe uncut version of 107 minutes length has dialogue with full Scottish accents, while the more common originally released version of 89 minutes, while still making use of Scotch accents, has long stretches of redubbed, unaccented dialogue.
- कनेक्शनEdited into Histoire(s) du cinéma: Le contrôle de l'univers (1999)
टॉप पसंद
- How long is Macbeth?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- 馬克白
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $9,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 47 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1