One of the things that stands out to me the most about Voodoo Macbeth has very little to do with the true story about how Orson Welles, who at the time he was only 20 was hired by the Negro Theater Unit to direct a stage production of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth with an all black cast in Harlem. What’s more intriguing to me is that the film was actually the first feature film to come out of USC and gain theatrical distribution, but the film is listed with having 10 directors and eight screenwriters. With hat much ego and creative talent, it is impressive that they managed to squeeze out a cohesive story, and one that looks pretty good, though it does have some issues. I applaud the ambition to tackle a period piece and also a story that is a bit of both film and theater history, considering this was one of the first and most wildly successful stage productions with a black cast, but is also the production Orson Welles helmed before stepping behind the camera to direct his first film, a little thing called Citizen Kane.
The film is pretty straightforward as a mostly historically accurate telling of how the play came together. It glosses over how the Federal Theater Project was established during the Great Depression to fund live artistic performances, in this instance to fund the Harlem theater district. Rose McClendon (Inger Tudor) runs the Negro Theater Unit and is eager to get Macbeth into production. Her partner, John Houseman (Daniel Kuhlman) comes up with the inspired choice to bring in Orson Welles (Jewell Wilson Bridges) to direct the project which he is hesitant to take on until his wife, Virginia Welles (June Schreiner) convinces him to do the project. It’s also his wife who gives him the idea to shift the setting from Scotland to 1800’s Haiti and give it a voodoo theme.
The story is interesting enough, but at the same time it is also a predictable route. This film doesn’t seem to be aiming to create a visual masterpiece nor tell a story that keeps its viewer on the edge of their seat, and because of that, well, the film is rather easy to dismiss. My biggest issue is how this film manages to shoehorn in a gay romance that does nothing for the story and just seems like something that is forced. Rather than spend time investing in Orson’s deteriorating marriage, or Rose struggling with her illness, these things are simple little anecdotes when it should have shown what they were sacrificing for their art. Then there is a moment where a character mentions how important this play will be for the community, but we never actually see the community get involved beyond a small protest in the latter half of the film.
My biggest issue with the film is the casting of Jewell Wilson Bridges as Orson Welles. While he does a great job at playing an eccentric and driven artist, he’s simply not convincing as Orson Welles, and to be fair, that is a feat I don’t believe anyone could really pull off. Welles was a force of nature that just can’t be duplicated. I recently rewatched Touch of Evil, and just his presence alone on the screen leaves an impression. Bridges just doesn’t have his size, look, or voice to pull off this character, and that just bothered me. One thing I did enjoy is how the film had some fun with the “curse” of Macbeth and how it is a big no-no to utter that name unless on stage and within the context of the play or else doom will befall that person.
At the end of the day I was just underwhelmed by this film that had potential to be something special. What does save this film is the third act when we get to see the play finally debut for an audience. This definitely is a moment that stands out from the rest of the film and where we get to see the “stage” actors shine. For those who love theater history, you may enjoy this more than me, but if you are a film history fan and looking for a great bio-pic on Welles, you may want to skip this, though they certainly depicted his alcohol abuse properly here.
“It’s risky, but you do like to take risks.”
