A movie critic was recently asked to compare the film adaptations of Shakespeare by two stage and film giants: Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles. The critic was kind enough to point out that it is hardly a fair comparison. After all, Welles often financed his own films while Olivier often had far more support. If pitting the two against each other seems unfair, it is interesting to highlight their highly different approaches to Shakespeare.

Welles is as notorious for his talent as he is for wasting his talent in later years. True, many of his films were ruined by studio interference that compromised his vision. In the past decade, film scholars have put much effort into restoring some of his films according to his wishes and several of them (including The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil) have been reappraised as classics.

Still, before his much-documented downfall, Welles was the It Guy in theatre and Hollywood. During this period, he made some of his most important contributions to Shakespearean production, but on stage rather than film. His two standout productions were the all-black Macbeth (dubbed Voodoo Macbeth at the time because Welles set it in Haiti) and a Julius Caesar set during the rise of fascism in Europe. These late 1930’s productions established Welles as a serious creative talent. While that talent may not have fulfilled the promise suggested by his early efforts, his Shakespearean works should not remain in Olivier’s shadow.