Coldspur: You'd be even more disappointed in Nolan's performance in the redubbed version. The scene where she fakes fainting, after the murder of Duncan "help me hence, ho!" is a big laugh line. As with most of Welles' Shakespeare, his Macbeth is interesting as a film, though not necessarily as a reading of the play (which one could say of films like Olivier's Hamlet).
My favorite Macbeth, for a straight reading of the play, is the video made from the RSC stage version with Ian McKellan as Macbeth and Judy Dench as Lady Macbeth.
A new Macbeth DVD?
I haven't seen the Mckellan version yet, though I'm sure I'd enjoy it.
I must say though, I've always been slightly annoyed with the extreme amount of attention given to the acting of Laurence Olivier. I admit, I find the direction in his Shakespeare "trilogy" to be quite intriguing (especially the awesome Henry V); however, I've never liked the way he seems to bumble through his roles. The most severe example of this, in my opinion, is in Hitchcock's Rebecca. Don't get me wrong, I'm a gigantic fan of the film and I definitely believe the role of Maxim DeWinter calls for Olivier's rather wandering performance... I just think that Olivier treds too dangerously close to repeating the Maxim DeWinter character in much of his other work.
I must say though, I've always been slightly annoyed with the extreme amount of attention given to the acting of Laurence Olivier. I admit, I find the direction in his Shakespeare "trilogy" to be quite intriguing (especially the awesome Henry V); however, I've never liked the way he seems to bumble through his roles. The most severe example of this, in my opinion, is in Hitchcock's Rebecca. Don't get me wrong, I'm a gigantic fan of the film and I definitely believe the role of Maxim DeWinter calls for Olivier's rather wandering performance... I just think that Olivier treds too dangerously close to repeating the Maxim DeWinter character in much of his other work.
-
Welles Fan
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
Hmmm...I don't know if I'd agree. Over all, I find Olivier to be quite crisp and bold in his Shakespeare films. in Henry V, he is incredibly heroic (though rather one-dimensional), and the film is marvelous in color and the Globe "framing device" is terribly clever and inventive. The comedic "wooing" scene is the one moment where he opens up and displays more of the human elements of the character, and it is as charming a version of the scene as I've ever seen. I far prefer his booming versions of "Once more unto the breach" and the Crispin's Day speech to Branagh's (though Branagh's Crispin's day speech had great music to underscore it).
In Hamlet, he is very princely, aristocratic, and eloquent, but a bit too heroic. It's not a great reading of the play, but a great film in its own right. I love the castle and its labyrinths, Walton's great score, and the death procession at the end.
Richard III is a somewhat stagey film, but Olivier is near definitive, IMO as Richard, and he surrounded himself with a large cast of great actors, particularly Ralph Richardson, in a rather unorthadox, and sly performance as Buckingham.
Othello is little more than a film of John Dexter's production of Olivier's stage performance as Othello, but again, I find Oliver to be definitive in the part. He seems to be the right age, has a basso profundo voice much of the time, and the breakdown from smooth eloquence to what Meisel (in the commentary to Welles' Othello) calls "fractured syntax" is perfectly realized. In the scene after he's killed Desdemona, and realizes his error, i felt I was watching the authentic ravings of a real man who has made a horrible mistake. He picks ip many aspects of the part that are missed. If Welles emphasized Iago's impotence, Olivier emphasizes his Othello's sexual charisma. If the Venetians think less of Othello for his race and religion, Olivier's Othello seems to feel superior to all of them.
I agree with your assessment of the sort of absent-minded portrayal Olivier offered in Rebecca. I have never cared for his performance in that film. Indeed, I do not much like the film, which I find devoid of any suspense. I suppose it is interesting as a gothic romance, but is is very poor Hitchcok, IMO.
In Hamlet, he is very princely, aristocratic, and eloquent, but a bit too heroic. It's not a great reading of the play, but a great film in its own right. I love the castle and its labyrinths, Walton's great score, and the death procession at the end.
Richard III is a somewhat stagey film, but Olivier is near definitive, IMO as Richard, and he surrounded himself with a large cast of great actors, particularly Ralph Richardson, in a rather unorthadox, and sly performance as Buckingham.
Othello is little more than a film of John Dexter's production of Olivier's stage performance as Othello, but again, I find Oliver to be definitive in the part. He seems to be the right age, has a basso profundo voice much of the time, and the breakdown from smooth eloquence to what Meisel (in the commentary to Welles' Othello) calls "fractured syntax" is perfectly realized. In the scene after he's killed Desdemona, and realizes his error, i felt I was watching the authentic ravings of a real man who has made a horrible mistake. He picks ip many aspects of the part that are missed. If Welles emphasized Iago's impotence, Olivier emphasizes his Othello's sexual charisma. If the Venetians think less of Othello for his race and religion, Olivier's Othello seems to feel superior to all of them.
I agree with your assessment of the sort of absent-minded portrayal Olivier offered in Rebecca. I have never cared for his performance in that film. Indeed, I do not much like the film, which I find devoid of any suspense. I suppose it is interesting as a gothic romance, but is is very poor Hitchcok, IMO.
If Rebecca is poor Hitchcock, it's definitely only because of the behemoths it's surrounded by (Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc.) I have to say, I've always found the movie to be particularly beautiful (especially the awesome opening... "Last night I dreamt I went to Manderly") for it's wonderful cinematography. In fact, didn't Gregg Toland (cinematographer on Kane) work on Rebecca? Of course, I will admit it's certainly lacking in the suspense department. Despite it's flaws I found it to be a highly enjoyable film.
In regards to Olivier's Shakespeare, I suppose I was too spoiled by the grandiose, bombastic approach to Shakespeare pioneered by Welles to take a liking to these rather "down-to-Earth" performances, so to speak. Perhaps I didn't make it clear in my last post, I'm certainly a fan of Olivier's Shakespeare films --I love the inventiveness apparent throughout-- I just think he's somewhat wooden as an actor (at least for the amount of praise he receives).
I have yet to see Olivier's Othello, though I think I might make the effort as your analysis of the film makes it sound particularly intriguing. Thankfully, my college has a four day break this weekend, so I should be able to check out Othello, in addition to giving the other Olivier films a second chance. Usually, I like nearly everything much better the second time around (generally the case with all of Welles' later works).
In regards to Olivier's Shakespeare, I suppose I was too spoiled by the grandiose, bombastic approach to Shakespeare pioneered by Welles to take a liking to these rather "down-to-Earth" performances, so to speak. Perhaps I didn't make it clear in my last post, I'm certainly a fan of Olivier's Shakespeare films --I love the inventiveness apparent throughout-- I just think he's somewhat wooden as an actor (at least for the amount of praise he receives).
I have yet to see Olivier's Othello, though I think I might make the effort as your analysis of the film makes it sound particularly intriguing. Thankfully, my college has a four day break this weekend, so I should be able to check out Othello, in addition to giving the other Olivier films a second chance. Usually, I like nearly everything much better the second time around (generally the case with all of Welles' later works).
-
Welles Fan
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
I actually find Olivier more grandiose than Welles. Welles underplays most of his Shakespeare performances, preferring a more filmic approach to the acting. He often goes in for closeups for sololoquies and speaks them very quietly. Olivier tends to pull the camera back so that he seems farther off, thereby justifying his larger than life performances. He does not always do it, but often does. Both the "Once more..." and Crispin's Day speech are done this way, as is the "Now is the winter..." speech in Richard III. Welles seldom uses such artificial, theatrical stylings in his Shakespeare, and indeed, he cut all of Iago's soliloquies in which Iago addresses the audience.
I agree that Rebecca is beautiful in black and white, but to me, it's just not top-drawer Hitchcock. It might have been, had Selznick not tampered with it and re-shot and added scenes. I've seen it a couple of times, and do not feel compelled to see it anymore. Judith Anderson's character is way over the top, but I enjoyed George Sanders at his impish best. It's really from an earlier period from the films you mention, but Hitchcock's classic black and white period was just beginning. His next group of films after Rebecca would include Foreign Correspondent, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train
I agree that Rebecca is beautiful in black and white, but to me, it's just not top-drawer Hitchcock. It might have been, had Selznick not tampered with it and re-shot and added scenes. I've seen it a couple of times, and do not feel compelled to see it anymore. Judith Anderson's character is way over the top, but I enjoyed George Sanders at his impish best. It's really from an earlier period from the films you mention, but Hitchcock's classic black and white period was just beginning. His next group of films after Rebecca would include Foreign Correspondent, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train
-
Lance Morrison
- Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
I really want to see Macbeth and Othello so badly, however with the latter I just cannot bring myself to purchase the beatrice edition, and with Macbeth I just cannot bring myself to spend a lot of money on a bloody VHS. The wonderful Wellesnet poster Michael was nice and copied Falstaff/Chimes for me, in a very excellent quality japanese print, and I love it. I've watched Olivier, and I think he's good, but he just doesn't strike me emotionally...Of course I'll admit I havn't seen him a lot, but frankly---due to the poor access of films I have---I am slightly forced not to give directors and actors more chances than one if they don't impress me initially(in this test Touch of Evil in acting and directingdid just fine,,,)/// I know Olivier didn't play this character, but an emotional Shakespearean performance for me is Welles as Falstaff. I want to smile sadly just thinking about it. I might be giving it too much credit, but I think his performance in this film is one of the greatest joys I've encountered in movies.
A key thing I love about Chimes is the fact that the characters like King Henry (IV) are acted somewhat in a sterotypical Shakepearean manner (of course it is Gilguid, which i probably spelled wrong), whereas the tavern folk, chieftly Sir John, are acted more like real people. The acting of Hal during most of the play switches between these styles, but is acted in the former style progressively more throughout the play. I'm not sure if Welles really consciously had anything to do with this, but I thought it was interesting considering he feels the play involves the transistion from merriness to cold modernism. Then again, my observations are flawed & my ideas suck. ???
A key thing I love about Chimes is the fact that the characters like King Henry (IV) are acted somewhat in a sterotypical Shakepearean manner (of course it is Gilguid, which i probably spelled wrong), whereas the tavern folk, chieftly Sir John, are acted more like real people. The acting of Hal during most of the play switches between these styles, but is acted in the former style progressively more throughout the play. I'm not sure if Welles really consciously had anything to do with this, but I thought it was interesting considering he feels the play involves the transistion from merriness to cold modernism. Then again, my observations are flawed & my ideas suck. ???
-
Welles Fan
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
Lance: that's a very good observation on the acting sytles in Falstaff. One good reason is that King Henry IV's part is written almost entirely in verse, Hal's is in verse in scenes with the King, and he has much prose with Falstaff. Falstaff is written entirely in prose. So, even a stage production will tend to reflect those acting styles. Shakespeare's use of verse and prose almost directs the actors from the printed page.
-
Lance Morrison
- Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
-
Le Chiffre
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2078
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
Welles Fan,
I'm pleasantly surprised to hear the short Macbeth has had a commercial video release. If you could post any info about the company that released it or what the packaging looks like, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to look for it on eBay sometime.
Funny that you should mention Ralph Richardson's performance as Buckingham in Olivier's RICHARD III film. I remember reading parts of Olivier's autobiography where he says he wished he had gotten Orson Welles for the role instead! Can you imagine Welles' Buckingham kneeling before Olivier's Richard? Somehow I can't.
I'm pleasantly surprised to hear the short Macbeth has had a commercial video release. If you could post any info about the company that released it or what the packaging looks like, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to look for it on eBay sometime.
Funny that you should mention Ralph Richardson's performance as Buckingham in Olivier's RICHARD III film. I remember reading parts of Olivier's autobiography where he says he wished he had gotten Orson Welles for the role instead! Can you imagine Welles' Buckingham kneeling before Olivier's Richard? Somehow I can't.
-
Welles Fan
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
mteal: I'm not sure how or when it was released. I used to have a commercial VHS of it, but gave it away after the long version came out. I once won an auction for it on laserdisc on ebay, when I was bidding on the 45th anniversary version. The seller told me he had made a mistake, that it was not the restored version. But now I wonder-did he mean it was not restored, or that it was simply not the 45 Anniversary version?
As to Richardson as Buckingham: I think Olivier may have been jealous of Richardson's performance. I also seem to remember him saying that Richardson was miscast in the role, and indeed, Richardson played a much more subtle Buckingham than is normally done. I've also got the Criterion laserdisc of Olivier's Richard III (I think I've read that Criterion is releasing it on DVD soon). there is a pretty good commentary included by Russel Lees, who oversaw the widescreen transfer of the film to laserdisc. He points out many of the high points of Richardson's performance in the film, and comments on how he subtly steals the scene from Olivier (in the scene where Buckingham explains that the "throngs" were not as enthusiastic for Richard as they hoped they would be). I don't know if the DVD will include the commentary, but I hope it does. Lees and Shakespearean scholar John Wilder also discuss Olivier's cutting and transposing of scenes, etc.
As to Richardson as Buckingham: I think Olivier may have been jealous of Richardson's performance. I also seem to remember him saying that Richardson was miscast in the role, and indeed, Richardson played a much more subtle Buckingham than is normally done. I've also got the Criterion laserdisc of Olivier's Richard III (I think I've read that Criterion is releasing it on DVD soon). there is a pretty good commentary included by Russel Lees, who oversaw the widescreen transfer of the film to laserdisc. He points out many of the high points of Richardson's performance in the film, and comments on how he subtly steals the scene from Olivier (in the scene where Buckingham explains that the "throngs" were not as enthusiastic for Richard as they hoped they would be). I don't know if the DVD will include the commentary, but I hope it does. Lees and Shakespearean scholar John Wilder also discuss Olivier's cutting and transposing of scenes, etc.
Lance, do you still not have a copy of Macbeth?! I could've sent it to you w/ F For Fake... oh well.
Wellesfan, I suppose grandiose may've been the wrong word to describe Welles' Shakespeare. I suppose I always go back to Macbeth running onto a hill [I]shouting[I] for the weird sisters with lightning and a steady zoom; this alone seemed more overblown than anything in Olivier's repertoire.
On a side note, I've been going Hitchcock crazy over the last couple months and Rebecca has certainly plummeted from my list (as you no doubt knew it should, Wellesfan
).
The merry-go-round conclusion in Strangers On A Train is breathtaking... what fun!
Wellesfan, I suppose grandiose may've been the wrong word to describe Welles' Shakespeare. I suppose I always go back to Macbeth running onto a hill [I]shouting[I] for the weird sisters with lightning and a steady zoom; this alone seemed more overblown than anything in Olivier's repertoire.
On a side note, I've been going Hitchcock crazy over the last couple months and Rebecca has certainly plummeted from my list (as you no doubt knew it should, Wellesfan
).
The merry-go-round conclusion in Strangers On A Train is breathtaking... what fun!
-
blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
It's been mentioned here that the original Othello is still available in Europe. I'd imagine that would mean VHS as I've heard nothing regarding DVD. But even the VHS I'm not positive on.
As for Macbeth, it seems those who have seen the R2 DVD and the Republic LD have said that the LD is a better quality. But as mteal said for a long time, Image put out a better LD of Macbeth. Well I was finally able to see this copy of Macbeth and it is a better quality print than Republic.
As for Macbeth, it seems those who have seen the R2 DVD and the Republic LD have said that the LD is a better quality. But as mteal said for a long time, Image put out a better LD of Macbeth. Well I was finally able to see this copy of Macbeth and it is a better quality print than Republic.
Return to “Macbeth, Othello, Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest