Joe MacBeth

Although there are some similarities to Shakespeare's MacBeth and this film, there really isn't a lot of reality involved in the actual events.

Shakespeare is fine for royalty and the behavior of royals, but it does not translate very well for the lowlifes of crime.

Paul Douglas is too sympathetic an actor from his other roles to transition to a ruthless and brutal killer he plays in this one. It is too much of a stretch for him. Ruth Roman, however, is just fine as the scheming wife who eggs him on to climb the mountain of slime and crime.

As in MacBeth, however, there are no sympathetic characters in this film as well, but that is about the only comparison that holds up well. In real life, decisions by crime families are made by committee, not by individuals. There is seldom a succession of one hood taking over from another, after rubbing him out. The syndicate is far more sophisticated than that. The movie is interesting to watch only in parts where there is more than a surface examination of any of the characters. Too heavy-handed and predictable,

What better setting for Macbeth than a bunch of gangsters? Joe Macbeth stars Paul Douglas and Ruth Roman as Joe and Lily Macbeth, directed by 22-year-old Ken Hughes in this 1955 British production.

This bunch is pretty ruthless - it begins with Joe late for his wedding to Lily because someone took too long to die. Lily is ambitious for Joe to move up in the gangster organization.

With this crowd, there is generally only one way to do that, and though Joe moves up, it's not high enough or fast enough for Lily. Ruth Roman does a dood job as the tough and glamorous Lily. Paul Douglas, usually such a nice guy, plays a mean gangster here, but soft enough that Lily can push him.

This follows the Bard's story pretty well - there's even a dinner where Joe freaks out because he sees a murder victim sitting in a chair.

Fellow gangsters include Bonar Colleano, Sidney James, Gregoire Asian, Harry Green, and Bill Nagy, among others.

I have always confounded this film with Russel Rouse's NEW YORK CONFIDENTIAL; I don't know why, maybe because plots are rather close and because I have always also confounded Paul Douglas - here - and Broderick Crawford - NEW YORK CONFIDENTIAL; both actors had more or less the same kind of face and played the same kind of characters too. So this explains that. This Ken Hughes' film is excellent, a gritty, violent crime movie, the rise and fall scheme concerning a ruthless and ambitious gangster and his moll. I would have never imagined Paul Douglas in such a role, and Ruth Roman is excellent in his gun moll role. Best film from Ken Hughes, besides CROMWELL.

A fortune teller predicts a rapid, bloody rise to the top for a mid- level mobster and it soon comes to pass with a little help from the goon's ambitious wife...

I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time (still does, actually) but this underworld updating of Shakespeare's MACBETH was criminal in more ways than one and reminded me of those "Classics Illustrated" comics I had as a kid. "Simple" sums it up and a too-old Paul Douglas hammed it up shamelessly, coming off more like "Curly" from THE THREE STOOGES than the Bard's vacillating thane. The idea that the Chicago syndicate (at least I think that's what it was since I heard "the Detroit mob is moving in" at one point) could bump each other off left and right with impunity was only one of the film's many preposterous conceits but this low budget Brit noir (a Columbia picture filmed at Shepperton Studios) still had its moments, nonetheless, albeit few and far between.

The classic tale's all there from "Banky"s ghost to the damned spot on Lady, er Lily, Macbeth's hands trotted out in "Cliff's Notes For Dummies" fashion and Ruth Roman as the power behind the crime kingpin's throne was, well, Ruth Roman. She's like Arlene Dahl, Faith Domergue, Rhonda Fleming, Debra Paget, and a host of others from that era: they knew their lines and didn't bump into the furniture but their acting rarely rose above "competent". "Decorative" was the operative word for these gals and most faded away once their looks went but Ruth actually made a pretty good character actress later on in her career. I understand an underworld-set MACBETH was tried again with MEN OF RESPECT in 1990 and it's gotta be better than this.

William Shakespeare's classic gets a re-telling and new setting to the 1950s in Joe Macbeth. How to make the bloodbath accessible to a modern audience? Make the main characters gangsters, of course! It was a great concept, and since I love the lead actor, Paul Douglas, I was very excited to see it. For the most part, it was a really valiant effort. The plot was pretty close, but with some substitutions that would make more sense in 1955. Instead of three witches, there's a Thelma Ritter wannabe who tells fortunes with tarot cards. Instead of Macduff and Banquo, the characters are renamed Duffy and Banky. King Duncan of Scotland is instead Duncan, kingpin of the American crime gang. Towards the end, it did get a little melodramatic (like the end of Scarface), but I'm sure there are some folks who won't mind. After all, it's a re-telling of Shakespeare - isn't it supposed to be melodramatic?

Ruth Roman, who shows off her lovely figure in some great gowns, plays the evil Lily Macbeth who encourages her husband Paul Douglas to bump off the head of the crime syndicate so he can replace him. She does a great job, reminiscent of Joan Crawford or Eleanor Parker, who could have also played Lady Macbeth. Paul is perfect casting, with his softie demeanor making him an easy target for his wife to manipulate.

Paul Douglas fans will love this movie, although they'll probably wish it had been made with a little bigger budget. I'm always interested in seeing "understandable" versions of Shakespeare stories, since in their native language, I usually can't understand what the characters say. As an unexpected treat, I got the biggest kick out of seeing Sidney James (from the hilarious Carry On series) in a drama, and with an American accent!