By now you must have seen the writing on the subway walls. I am referring specifically to the scribbings on the subway advertisements for Orson Welles' new movie, "Macbeth," on which some subway riders have felt moved to give capsule reviews of the film such as "This stinks." But I am also referring more generally to that great new indoor sport called "Pinning the Tail on Orson," which was conceived by "Life" magazine. Its approach to the film was exceedingy unfair and just another proof that Mr. Luce's big, slobbering monster ought to have its claws trimmed and its pants changed before being let into the parlor.

It will now be very difficult for any reader of "Life" or anyone else who got the Word, to view "Macbeth" with seriousness or even impartiality.

Orson Welles has always annoyed some people because of his ability to keep them awake in the theater. Coming to Hollywood from Mars, Welles' first movie, "Citizen Kane," set the film industry on its ear and sent William Randolph Hearst on Mr. Welles. Recognizing that he was Kane, Hearst has since allowed none of his papers to mention Welles and has forbidden at least one studio to touch his work. In a town that is totally dependent on publicity for its survival, such opposition has made it tough for Welles to make the kind of pictures he wants to make. He has made two others--Booth Tarkington's "The Magnificent Ambersons" and Eric Ambler's "Journey Into Fear"--which are still examples for Hollywood to emulate. He has appeared in other pictures from time to time as a salaried employee. But no picture has come out of Hollywood since the advent of sound with the genius of "Citizen Kane."

With "Macbeth" Welles was in full command again but again with unusual obstacles. It was made at Republic Studios (home of Roy Rogers and Gene Autry) but on a budget much smaller than that given to horse operas. Welles could not hire any "name" actors for either their experience or box-office, so he chose his cast from radio actors. They didn't ask large salaries and could give beautiful readings of the poetry. He was allowed only one set, so he chose to accent the primitiveness of the characters by setting Inverness in a hollowed mountain. He was allowed only twenty-one days for actual filming. There was also the handicap of working with someone else's script.

The results of such an undertaking: a Lady Macbeth that lacks physical majesty and fire and seems instead frenzied and common; a supporting cast that is uniformly excellent, particularly Macduff; a set that gives no feeling of being a habitation at all but does add immeasurably to the rawness of the theme (the hero, as Welles interprets him, is too uncivilized to live in a human dwelling); and finally, an exciting, superior movie with moments of startling brilliance.

Though "Macbeth" was filmed well over a year ago, coming out at this time has prompted unfavorable comparisons with Olivier's "Hamlet." This is quite unreasonable, in view of the above given information and more; the two Shakespearean heroes were of a completely different emotional and intellectual nature, so is the poetry they speak, and so are the two motion pictures. Olivier's reserve would be as out of place in "Macbeth" as would Welles' turbulence in "Hamlet."

"Macbeth" is an unparalleled achievement for American motion pictures and another bright, if somewhat unpreened, feather in the cap of Mr. Wellcs.