“Voodoo Macbeth,” the first USC original film to hit theaters, premieres Friday. The movie dives into 1930s Harlem, and is based on the true story of young Orson Welles as he navigates the public and personal pitfalls of directing the first production of “Macbeth” with an all-Black cast. “Voodoo Macbeth” stars Jewell Wilson Bridges as director Orson Welles, Inger Tudor as Broadway actor Rose McClendon, and many more talented actors.
The ambitious “Voodoo Macbeth” project boasts a whopping ten directors and eight writers. Annenberg Media spoke with directors Zoë Salnave and Christopher Beaton and lead actor Jewell Wilson Bridges to learn how a cohesive vision was achieved, despite the unorthodox number of directors.
The team went to great lengths to collaborate and ensure a unified vision, according to Salnave. She said that to prepare for the actual shooting, the ten directors first filmed rehearsal scenes on their iPhones individually and reviewed the footage together to gauge the flow and brainstorm ideas for transitions.
The collaboration didn’t stop in the early stages, either. Salnave was often present even on days when she wasn’t shooting and directing the scenes slated for that day. This level of involvement among the directors created a supportive environment in which “there was always a little team of us that could get together and say, like, this is what we talked about or, you know, let me help you with that, or let’s problem solve together,” Salnave said.
“I actually think it elevated everything,” said director Beaton. “And everybody was also up for the challenge. You know, there was no single voice that felt like it was, you know, overpowering any of the others.” Beaton also credits the director of photography, Bash Ashkar, and various in-depth script meetings for the creation of a singular vision.
Given that there were ten directors instead of the usual sole leader at the helm of the film, the actors also had an unorthodox experience in their work on the project. According to lead actor Bridges, it was not the chaotic or confusing experience that some might have expected it to be.
“...It really is a testament to collaboration that the entire piece, even though we had ten directors, it looks like a cohesive story both in design and in the narrative structure and whatnot,” said Bridges. “But every single director empowered us as actors to understand our entire arc and to communicate.”
The number of directors wouldn’t be the only challenge for the cast and crew, either. The film tackles some difficult subject matter, including Orson Welles performing in blackface. The creative team had to decide the most respectful way to depict this part of history.
According to Salnave, Orson Welles did indeed put on blackface and go onstage during one of his productions. The team decided to put the spotlight on the justified outrage that ensued rather than center the scene on Welles or excuse his actions, Salnave said.
“We wanted to show the anger that the other characters had against it,” Salnave said. “I think it was just as, you know, discriminatory and hurtful then. But they just maybe, perhaps didn’t have the voice or the ability to voice their opinions on it and put their foot down and say that they really didn’t like it. So we invoked a little bit, I think, of like a modern touch on that, but it gets the point across that, you know, it is a part of our history, and it’s not right.”
Actor Bridges shared that the scenes that featured his character in blackface were “the biggest concern” for him going into the project. Concerned that extras who had not seen the script would be caught off guard or offended by seeing him in blackface, Bridges said “one of the things I talked with the producers is please make sure that everyone knows, please make sure if possible, let them read the script, let them know the story, let them understand the context. And out of respect for that, whenever I shot those scenes, I was never on set until I needed to be there…If you see that scene out of context of the film, it can be just horrific. And, but everybody handled that with a lot of respect and I was very grateful for that.”
Even with the challenges and experiential nature of this project, the intense effort and collaboration paid off. The cinematography is dynamic, the set and sound designs are immersive, the performances are stellar, the story is moving and the dialogue is witty. The film grips viewers early on and doesn’t let them take a breath until the curtains fall. While the pace is quick, every scene is well-composed and builds towards the climax. No screen time is wasted.
Of course, every film has its flaws. “Voodoo Macbeth” would have benefited from allowing more time for viewers to connect with the setting of Harlem in the 30s, as well as Rose McClendon. For the most part, the film keeps an unerring focus on Welles, which can sometimes detract from the larger history. At certain times, it felt like the Black community and Haitian inspiration were serving as backdrops for Welles’ vision. I found myself wanting more insight from McClendon. The film also brushes over some of the backlash to the production of “Macbeth,” and the protesters and critics aren’t given an opportunity to fully explain their grievances, either. It would have been fascinating to hear more about the opposing side and their concerns.
The film is still thoroughly enjoyable. I’m not ashamed to admit I started clapping in my apartment before remembering I was not, in fact, among the theatergoers in 1930s Harlem. The experience opened my eyes to a part of history I never knew existed. “Voodoo Macbeth” is a beautiful story, and it’s beautifully conveyed.