A new Macbeth DVD?

[Noel Shane]

Logs sometimes skip shows that have been lost, or appear to be lost. The dates for radio shows in the Rosenbaum chronology are as reliable as any, but it is an inexact subject. The source for the February 28 date was the following:

http://otrsite.com/logs/logc1015.htm#columbia

...which notes that the program slated for the week prior to Macbeth (part 1? part 2?) as well as the program slated for the following week were both preempted for political debates. This may account, perhaps, for some of the confusion (and maybe even its "lost" status). But the shows from March that appeared normally are listed for March 14, 21, and 28 -- that's according to the above log as well as the radiogoldindex.com log. Counting back, that would slate the missing shows for March 7 and February 28 (assuming the regular schedule was maintained).

Trying to keep track of early radio shows is maddening, however, I'm learning. The Welles video maze is child's play by comparison.

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Noel: You are right about the difficulty in tracing Radio History. These Network shows of the 1930's were almost always live in their entirety, often broadcast two or three times for different time zones of the Country, sometimes with different casts and from different locations. However, you may have solved the February 28, 1937, Macbeth mystery by unearthing Mr. Haendiges note of a political premption the week before.

You will notice that Mr. Haendiges lists the show as "na" (Not Available). If the first half was never broadcast, the second episode may have been called off. On the other hand, knowing Welles' sense of challenge, he might have tried to condense Macbeth, admittedly the shortest of the Tragedies, into 30 minutes, but even he would have had trouble bringing Birnam Wood to Duninane to listeners so quickly. Ramon Raqello and his Orchestra might well have been pressed into emergency service by CBS for "a [30 minute] musical interlude." Or Welles may have helped the Workshop's regular director Irving Reis throw the acetate recording into the rubbish bin after the show.

And Allegra, Mr. Haendiges Log also confirms my record that the May 2, 1937 Columbia Workshop production was not Macbeth but "Drums of Conscience" (interestingly, a play about a man haunted by ghosts off the last slave ship from Africa), and the May 9th, "Supply and Demand," a dramatized treatise on Economics (written by Irwin Shaw).

There is an outside chance that Macbeth was an alternate broadcast for some reason to the eastern half of the Nation, recordings of which have been lost. Or perhaps, it just didn't come together.

Glenn.

[mteal]

There is a seventh Welles MACBETH: the Mercury Theatre book that was a late addition to the reissue of Everybody's Shakespeare. The original 1936 issue contained only Julius Ceasar, 12th Night, and The Merchant of Venice. Macbeth was added for the 1940 reissue.

[mteal]

BTW, for anyone that's interested in seeing what the packaging for the 1989 video edition of MACBETH - which is far superior to the 45th anniversary edition - looks like, a VHS tape of it is selling on ebay for cheap-

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....ry=2275

[Coldspur]

I've never seen the "original" theatrical release of Macbeth. I'm just curious: why do you think it's better than the 45th anniversary edition?

[Jeff Wilson]

Same cut, different release.

[Welles Fan]

Coldspur: mteal was referring to a different packaging of the "restored" version. It's not the "45th Anniversary" version, but the complete cut. The "original" cut of Macbeth is nowhere near as good as the restored one. I only have the 45th Anniversary version on laserdisc, and I think it looks quite good.

For years, only the "original" version of Othello was available, and it made the movie appear as a laughably bad quickie flick. Not only did the studio replace the Scots accents (not everyone's were replaced, but most were), but the film was cut by 15 or so minutes. For a film that had already cut away much of Shakespeare's shortest play, that was an extreme cut. Jeanette Nolan's Lady Macbeth suffered most in the re-dub. While Scottish accents are certainly not needed for a production of Macbeth, they seemed to give the actors something to bite into, and added to the blood-and-thunder-melodrama style of the movie.

The only loss from the original version was a brief spoken introduction by Welles, which I wish had stayed in the restored cut.

Also, I was watching the film recently, and noticed that one line of Macbeth's was shortened in the restored cut. In the original version, in Banquo's and Macbeth's first scene with the witches, Macbeth has the the line "Stay, you imperfect speakers-tell me more! By Sinel's death, I know I am Thane of Glamis, but how of Cawdor?" In the resored version, the part of the line that includes By Sinel's death is omitted, whereas it is in the original version. So, Macbeth says "Stay, you imperfect speakers-tell me more! I know I am Thane of Glamis, but how of Cawdor?" It's no big deal, but kind of puzzling.

[Coldspur]

Thanks alot, Welles Fan, for the clarification. I knew about the original cut of the movie, I just assumed the copy available on Ebay was the original version w/o Scottish accents and excised footage.

[mteal]

Having rented the '89 video edition of MACBETH on LD shortly after it came out, I was very excited when I heard they were coming out with a "45th anniversary edition" in 1993. I got even more excited when I saw how beautiful the packaging for it was, and assumed it would be much better then the '89 edition in terms of picture quality of the film too. Wrong. The picture quality for the '93 was a big disappointment. Consequently, I later picked up a used LD of the '89 and actually got rid of the '93 LD. That was probably a rash decision in retrospect, but the visual quality of the '89 was clearly better then the '93, IMO.

Coldspur,
The short version (w/o Scottish accents) is not available on video at all, unfortunately. Of course, if it was, that would probably just create more confusion. After all, look at the ARKADIN mess.

WellesFan,
There are a few other things in the short version (besides the opening narration) that are not in the long version, but I'll have to look at my short version again to remember exactly what they are. One of them I do remember is a chilling shot of Lady Macbeth inspecting the sleeping guards just before Macbeth murders Duncan.

[mteal]

For anyone not familiar with the packaging for the 45th anniversary edition, the LD is selling on ebay now for $20 (not worth it, IMO).

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....ory=381

[Welles Fan]

The 45 Anniv. laserdisc also featured a pretty useless commentary track that was not screen specific, and scarcely referred to Macbeth at all. It also has a suite of Jacques Ibert's fine score as "exit music".

[mteal]

WellesFan,
Thanks for those interesting screen captures. One of these days we'll have to figure out how to coordinate a screen capture comparism between the two LD editions. I don't know where you live, but I'd be reluctant to send the '89 LD out of the U.S..

[Coldspur]

I don't suppose anyone here happens to have a transcript of Welles' opening narration available? Moreover, if you guys say that the original, dubbed version has never been available on video then where did you get a copy of the "short version" from? Is it a bootleg? If so, maybe you can help me find a copy of Filming Othello?

[Welles Fan]

Coldspur: the original has been released on video. It also used to turn up on TV a lot before the restored version came to light. It's really not worth seeing, unless you want to know how much it sucks. You will really appreciate the restored version after seeing it. I always used to think of Macbeth as an interesting Welles failure. I don't think of the restored version as a failure at all. It certainly succeeds as a low-budget fast-paced film noir-ish Macbeth. Welles' performance is really quite good, and his instinctive ability to get the great camera angles, and his ability to use high contrast black and white lighting all come through in the resored version.

It would probably make a good DVD to release an edition with both versions for comparisons.

[Coldspur]

Thanks for the clarification (once again).
I've only seen the restored edition and it's definitely been a favorite of mine ever since. I don't think any film director has ever quite captured the horrific atmosphere of the play better than Welles (even Polanski). Even though the sets are apparently leftover from an old western, I think the murky ambiguity they bring to the film is a definite plus.
If there's one thorn in the side of Orson Welles' Macbeth, it's definitely --in my mind at least-- Jeanette Nolan. The scene that sticks out the most with Nolan is Act V: Scene I ("Out damned spot...!"); it's almost as if Welles was out for lunch. Quite frankly, she lacks direction. Because of her rather poor acting, this scene, one of the most powerful in the play, loses it's emotional punch. Additionally, throughout the rest of the movie, Nolan comes across much more powerfully as a voice than as an actor on the screen. Visually, she gives us a very dull Lady Macbeth.
One last complaint I had with Welles' film is the "tomorrow" speech. Cutting to the clouds, although interesting, was something of a letdown. Last year --my senior year of high school-- I was intrigued by a picture of Welles in my literature book that had the caption "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow..." underneath the picture. After watching the film, I was rather dissapointed to find that the picture was merely a publicity shot. Throughout the whole movie I was looking forward to seeing Welles recite this speech, which is definitely one of my favorites of any Shakespeare I've read.