The power of Welles performance should make anyone not already an admirer stand up and take notice. The dark, brooding nature of Welles character sets the tone throughout this film. Each of the prominent characters seems to feed off this intensity, making each the better for it. The spartan sets and excellent use of lighting add to this powerful delivery making the words feel true and soul wrenching. I think this production could have been played out on a bare stage and still be regarded as a fine work, the dialogue and delivery is of such fine caliber. "The Moor of Venice" is a fine example of Orson Welles vast talents as a performer and director and should not be missed.
Add a Review
-
setrappa4 February 2005
-
barnabyrudge17 January 2007The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor Of Venice was shot over three years, with several occasions when the shooting schedule closed down completely due to lack of funds (actor-director Orson Welles went away during these gaps in filming and made other movies, using his salary from those pictures to complete this one). Logic would suggest that any film made in such a disjointed way would surely be incoherent or at best rather lumpy. After all, if you're making a movie how can you get any sense of fluidity into the action and the acting if you keep stopping what you're doing for lengthy periods of time? Fortuitously Welles, who was an absolute genius of the cinema, somehow manages to pull all the disparate pieces of filming together, sewing three years' worth of interrupted footage into a fine quilt of a movie. For a film with one of the most disrupted production histories ever known, The Tragedy Of Othello: The Moor Of Venice is a quite remarkable achievement.
The film opens with Othello, the Moor of Venice (Orson Welles) being carried to his funeral in Cyprus alongside his beloved wife Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier). Imprisoned in a cage high above this funeral procession is Othello's lieutenant - and once-trusted friend - Iago (Michael MacLiammoir). In flashback, we learn how Othello and Desdemona died, and why Iago is made to witness their journey to the grave from his undignified cage.
Iago, an ensign reluctantly working under Othello, dreams of having Desdemona for himself. With the help of rich Venetian Roderigo (Robert Coote), he plans to become her suitor. But Iago grows livid when he learns that Desdemona has already courted Othello and is now his wife. Determined to have his revenge, the villainous knave sets about ruining their relationship. He plants seeds of suspicion in Othello's mind and leaves cleverly "staged" circumstantial evidence lying about that will lead the Moor to unpleasant conclusions. Ultimately, Othello finds himself convinced that his wife is a cheating whore, so he kills her. Later he discovers his error and kills himself, but not before Iago's part in the tragedy is exposed and he is imprisoned for his treachery.
Welles the actor gives an impassioned performance as the titular character, while MacLiammoir is equally stunning as his jealous adversary. Welles the director shows tremendous resourcefulness, creating a wholly believable sense of authenticity in the sets and characters despite his limited funds and disrupted shooting schedule. The moody lighting and constantly off-kilter camera angles add to the film's considerable atmosphere. Evidence of this can be found in the famous Turkish Baths sequence, which may have been shot on an improvised set but contains extraordinary tension. The shot of Iago dangling in his miserable little cage above the funeral is also haunting and memorable. Critics have made much of the crackly sound quality and the amateurish playing of the supporting actors, and I must admit there is an element of truth in that. I have never seen the restored version of the film, which allegedly contains more audible sound recording. However, in spite of its flaws The Tragedy Of Othello: The Moor Of Venice is still striking cinema, and testament if any is needed that Welles was a master of his art. -
OttoVonB2 August 2006Othello, Moor of Venice, loves Desdemonda. Unbeknownst to him, one of his lieutenants, Iago, seething with jealousy, plans to bring him down. Iago slowly builds a web of deceit and lies around Othello that leads him to question the faithfulness of his wife and men, ultimately pushing him to far...
Many a time has a white actor portrayed black Othello. Thankfully, Welles excels in the title role, his hurt palpable. In adapting Shakespeare's play, Welles has done away with subplots he deemed unnecessary. His "Othello" boils down to the title character, his wife, Iago and bit players (and impressive numbers of extras). Fans of the text may regret the absence of a character or the significant reduction of his/her importance. It diminishes the play but enhances the film, giving it a tighter focus and a more fluid structure and running time. But as always, we expect more from an Orson Welles film.
Orson Welles is mostly celebrated for reinventing the look of film. His pictures each possess a unique aesthetic and daring camera work. Othello holds its own even when measured against the impressive Welles oeuvre, a true miracle if you are familiar with the films' history. Shooting it over years and in different locations (Morocco, Spain, etc.) with variations, often within the same scene, Welles managed to create the watertight illusion of a coherent world, leading the viewer to imagine that lavish sets and locations were available. For anyone interested in editing or any other aspect of film-making, this is an indisputable milestone in directorial resourcefulness.
Othello was Welles's second Shakespeare interpretation as star and director, soaring high above his very interesting Macbeth. He would return to the Bard one last time with his apotheosis, Chimes at Midnight. This trilogy is a gift. What a joy it is to see America's greatest director work with the world's greatest playwright... -
Considerable controversy has surrounded the 1992 restoration and re-release of Orson Welles' "Othello." First, the film was wrongly labelled a "lost classic" - not technically true, as Welles aficionados will realize. More seriously, the restoration crew (under the aegis of Welles' daughter, Beatrice Welles) re-synced the dialogue and re-recorded the musical score - an abomination to Welles purists. While it would have been preferable to adhere to Welles' vision for the film, such an endeavor becomes extremely difficult when no written record of Welles' intent exists (as it did with his famous 26-page memo to Universal regarding "Touch of Evil"). So it's true that the restored version lacks a degree of authenticity, but what are the alternatives? Grainy, scratched, poorly synced public domain prints (c.f. "Mr Arkadin" and "The Trial")? Or, worse, no available copy at all (c.f. "Chimes at Midnight")?
Anyway, on to the film. "Othello's" existence helps disprove the charges of profligacy and "fear of completion" that plagued Welles' career after "Citizen Kane." Shot over four years in Morocco and Italy, and financed largely by Welles himself, "Othello" manages to avoid a low-budget look, thanks largely to virtuoso editing that masks the incongruities of time and space. Welles' powers of invention are on full display here, most obviously in the famous Turkish bath scene (an improvised set necessitated by a lack of costumes). Set designer Alexandre Trauner's astute choice of Moroccan and Venetian locations instantly establishes a geographic authenticity; Welles initially exploits them for all their stark beauty before retreating into noirish interiors, underscoring Othello's descent into darkness.
Aside from Michael Macliammoir's chilling Method performance as Iago, the acting in Welles' "Othello" has been criticized as too restrained and modulated for Shakespearean tragedy. Such criticism is largely unwarranted, for this "Othello" is as much for the eyes as the ears: Welles' bold framing and expressionistic camera angles free the play from its theatrical moorings (pun intended), undermining the need for stage elocution. Indeed, the camera is the true star of this film, as Welles generates images that match the grandeur and eloquence of Shakespeare's language. -
lime-312 September 1999I must be one of the few who saw this film (more than once!) before it vanished in the 60's. I saw it on TV in the last 50's, and later brought it to the small college where I was teaching 63-65. Though heavily cut and more than a little rearranged, it is one of the very finest of Shakespeare films. Performances are generally excellent and unified in style and diction. Welles, or course, is magnificent. Anyone who thinks he was never anything but a self-parodying ham has not seen this film. One could wish than MacLiammoir had had more overt FUN as Iago, who does what he does, in part at least, in an attempt to stimulate himself out of his blunted affect. The film also has some of the finest black-and-white cinematography of all time, and uses architecture in a unique and effective way.
-
homeros8000-129 November 2006I've always been an admirer of Welles movies, starting with citizen Kane and the other masterpieces. Considering Othello, I highly admired this movie since the first shot, when the face of the dead Othello appears suddenly in the dark, and then the other details begin to appear, revealing the awesome funeral of both Othello and his murdered wife. In fact the best thing about this movie is the synchronization of the camera movement and angles with the state of mind and moods of characters especially that of Othello. Sometimes we are actually looking at the world through Othello's mind, the images are bizarre and grotesque, this is accompanies by wonderful acting of the cast. For any Welles fan this is a must see, considering the beauty of picture and creativity of interpretation. It's a pity that Welles didn't have a sufficient financial support to surpass some technical problems although the final effect and meaning of this masterpiece is not affected at all!
-
JoeytheBrit2 July 2020Orson Welles dons blackface to play Othello, Shakespeare's tragic Moor of Venice, who is persuaded by the snake-like whisperings of the duplicitous Iago (Michael MacLiammoir) to murder his faithful wife, Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier). Another labour of love for Welles - it took him three years to complete - that is a stunning feast for the eyes. Welles might have the physical presence, but it is Irish stage actor MacLiammoir who dominates.
-
Christopher_Reid16 February 2016Right from the start, Othello has a striking visual style. Oblique camera angles (from low and high, close and far), nice use of shadows, a cool-looking castle. Really nice black-and-white imagery to look at.
On the other hand, I wasn't as convinced by the story and acting (but they grew on me as the film continued). There are many parts where actors seem to rush or mumble their lines. Shakespeare is hard enough to follow and a good performance should draw you in and make the dialogue *easier* to understand. Characters are often facing away so we hear their lines but can't see their mouths or their facial expressions. What's the point of acting then? I can act if acting means reciting lines from a Shakespearean play.
I have since learned that Welles was struggling with funds for the movie and that explains some of its short-comings. Especially with sound. He had to dub some of the lines himself and there remain parts which are clearly out of sync. It's hilarious to learn that he borrowed/took costumes from another movie to use on Othello. And that costumes weren't ready for one scene so he changed the location to a bathhouse with the actors in towels.
I find the story flawed. Iago is single-handedly able to manipulate Othello to his will. Iago is unlikable because of his misanthropy but Othello may be even more unlikable in his stupidity. He never thinks to properly analyse or question what Iago presents to him as the truth. He barely seems to communicate with his wife at all and becomes consumed by his obsessions and assumptions. But I do somewhat admire Iago's patience and intelligence, he makes a good villain. And there is real tragedy to what happens. It's conceivable that some unfortunate coincidences could help a seed of suspicion grow into the full-hearted conviction that you're being lied to. And to desire revenge is all too human. It's just funny that nobody suspects Iago. Othello would prefer to believe that everyone else is against him.
I found the ending climactic and meaningful. Some of it took me by surprise, other parts felt inevitable. I'm aware that Welles shortened the play a lot and may have taken liberties with it. At least I now have a rough idea of what Othello is about; I feel more educated. I liked all of the actors but Micheál MacLiammóir (a Dublin actor in his only feature film role) stands out as the antagonist. There's something about his eyes and calm indifference. Less is more.
Summarising, Othello is rewarding for its villain, its believable tragic turn of events and the enjoyable, creative cinematography. Now if only Othello could learn the scientific method... -
DukeEman14 October 1999Welles does Shakespeare with a few problems. The major problem being that this film was shot over a period of about 4 years because of financial problems and it shows in its amateurish battle scenes. The other is some poor editing that doesn't allow the intensity of the film to flow with its marvellous photography and art direction. Another near masterpiece by Welles.
-
AlsExGal25 May 2021Welles also stars as the title character, a Moorish war hero in 16th century Venice. He's happily married to the fair Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier), but scheming ensign Iago (Michael MacLiammoir) plots to drive Othello mad with jealousy by planting seeds of distrust concerning Desdemona's fidelity.
Welles ran into his usual trouble securing financing, and this was shot piecemeal over time. Despite this difficulty, I found the finished product to be fantastic, and one my favorite Shakespeare adaptations. The endlessly atmospheric B&W cinematography, the unusual for the time editing, the disconcerting score and sound design, the incredible sets and locations, and stellar performances from all involved made this one of the best viewing experiences that I've had in some while. Welles was ahead of his time with the film's look, camera angles, and editing, while exhibiting an old master's knowledge of the use of shadows and perspective to accent scenes and illustrate the inner workings of the characters. The film has a haunted, at-times surreal quality, and most of it is dreamlike without being incoherent.
This movie makes me wonder what Welles could have done with Hamlet. Shakespeare purists may be put off by the judicious editing done to the original work (the 3-hour play is rendered into a 90+ minute movie), but the spirit is maintained. This is the third version of Othello that I've seen filmed, after the 1965 take with Laurence Olivier, Maggie Smith and Frank Findlay in the leads, and the 1995 version with Laurence Fishburne, Irene Jacob and Kenneth Branagh. This Welles version is my favorite. Highly recommended. -
bkoganbing30 December 2016When one talks of the extravagance that Orson Welles is known for they usually have Othello in mind. When people talk of screen Othellos it's usually the one Laurence Olivier did in 1965 for which he got one of his Oscar nominations. It's good, but it's essentially a photographed stage version.
If he didn't have the budget problems he did Welles might have done the acclaimed Othello for the ages. This took over three years of shooting and it's lucky that he was able to hold as much of his cast together as he did. As it was Suzanne Cloutier as Desdemona was a third choice and Michael McLiammor was a second choice after Everett Sloane had to leave for other commitments. Interesting because Sloane was apparently the only old Mercury Theater regulars slated for Othello although Joseph Cotten is reputed to be an extra as is Joan Fontaine. I searched for them and did fine.
That all being said Welles really had a sure hand with Othello, the man who wrestled with the green eyed monster and lost. Although I think Everett Sloane would have done wonders with Iago we are privileged to see Irish player Michael McLiammor in his only feature film role and he certainly knows the right buttons to press with the man he serves.
Welles started Othello after he had done MacBeth for Republic Pictures and he was certainly constrained by the notorious penny pinching Herbert J. Yates there. I think he needed a big studio to have faith in him to being this off the way Olivier did with his Shakespeare films. Failing that he went independent and pledged the salaries he commanded for three fine films, Prince Of Foxes and The Black Rose with Tyrone Power and The Third Man the last being one of the greatest films ever made to keep Othello going.
Maybe this is not the definitive Othello film, but it's one fine piece of work achieved under remarkable circumstances. Maybe one day someone will make a movie about the making of Othello. It's a great story. -
Orson Welles' Othello is certainly not to be counted amongst the director's best films, which are, of course, amongst the very best ever made, but it's good.
The opening is gorgeous: it begins in medias res, with Othello and Desdimona being carried away, corpses, and Iago being suspended from a castle turret in a small cage. Unfortunately, the adaptation falters all the way until the very end. I can't say that I am any kind of expert on the play, but I know that there is a lot missing. The film moves at the speed of sound, when it really shouldn't. Suspense has no time to brood. The play loses a great deal of its power through most of its run. It's simply dry of emotion for about an hour or more of the 93 minute running time. Most likely, this wasn't Welles' fault. There were a lot of problems on the production, and it took many years to complete it (the credits list no fewer than five photographers), and it's probably the case that not everything was completed by the time they edited it all together.
The pace is the biggest problem. The actors, too, are not strong. Welles himself is great, of course. Unfortunately the character of Othello really doesn't have all that big a part in the original play. Well, he begins to come in more nearer the end, but, as far as the "main character," Iago is it. Until the very end, the play is told from the point of view of Iago. The actor who plays him is decent, but decent isn't nearly good enough. Many of the other actors are weak, too. Cassio, heck, I didn't even know which actor was playing him most of the time. Desdimona is played by a truly beautiful young actress, but she isn't worthy of the role, sadly. To tell you the truth, the only character besides Othello who has a worthy actor in the role is Emilia, Iago's wife, who really, like Othello, doesn't have much to do for most of the film.
So for most of the film's run, we're left to sate ourselves on Orson Welles' beautiful visions. They're great, of course. They are better, however, almost everywhere else in Welles' world. It only beats F for Fake, which can hardly count in this contest.
Fortunately, the film pulls itself together by the climactic sequence. Welles is especially good, both as an actor and a director, in the bedroom scene. There is an absolutely stunning moment where Desdimona's white radiance fills most of the screen. Suddenly, Welles (in black face, of course) turns his face and reveals himself - mere centimeters above her head. I jumped. -
rmax30482324 October 2014I'd heard so much about the troubles Orson Welles had in getting this movie finished that I was loathe to watch the thing, expecting something resembling a pretentious home movie. It took years. Actors came and went. The location shooting in Venice was done without sound and had to be dubbed later. The leading lady, Suzanne Cloutier, was French Canadian and needed to be dubbed. The important role of Cassio was dubbed by Welles himself, the actor not being available at the time. There were untimely interruptions, problems with money.
But what came out of it all is pretty easy to admire. It's not "Citizen Kane." It was assembled out of edited bits and pieces of different takes. The longest shot lasts about one and a half minutes. It's impressive nonetheless -- a black and white epic full of strange shadows, facades like the elaborate white frosting on a wedding cake, astounding compositions, and performances that hit the spot. And, after all, this is Shakespeare. He wrote a couple of clunkers, true, but everyone who has ever said that jealousy is "a green eyed monster" is quoting from Othello.
As the story goes, Othello is The Man on Cyprus, and a black man, who takes Desdemona for his wife. His friend, Iago, for no particular reason, manages to convince Othello that Desdemona had been unfaithful. Othello's rage leads him to strangle her and then kill himself. Iago has a satisfying explanation for his machinations. His first line is, "I do hate the Moor." And later, "I am not what I am." Or, as the Bard put it elsewhere, "Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly." The ending is a little weak. It amounts to pulling Iago into the bedroom with the two dead bodies and scolding him, as in, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself." To give Iago credit, he does seem a little put out, at least in the play.
Welles does Othello in blackface but the technology isn't what it would become. The dark make up shines whenever there's light around, giving the impression that Othello is constantly covered by a nice, even sheen of sweat. At least he doesn't jabber on in a Jamaican accent like Lawrence Olivier. Micheál MacLiammóir as Iago does a fine job. He doesn't look exactly evil. He looks like the kind of guy that would overcharge you a little if he fixed your computer. There is a striking action scene involving two men, one of them drunk, struggling in an ornate sewer. As Desdemona, Cloutier doesn't really have much to do but she certainly looks the part of the fragile, vulnerable, loving Renaissance wife, the kind of role Joan Fontaine would have handled expertly ten years earlier. -
mjneu5922 December 2010The re-release in the early 1990s of Orson Welles' cut-and-paste Shakespeare tragedy was greeted by near unanimous critical acclaim, but all the belated comparisons to 'Citizen Kane' couldn't hide the desperate circumstances under which the film was made. Welles himself gave an impressive, suitably moody performance in the title role, but all his efforts were undone by too many budget restrictions (consecutive scenes were sometimes shot years apart), leaving only a flimsy shadow of what could have been another masterpiece. Visually, the film highlights all the trademark eccentricities of its director, including some ostentatious, imitation Gregg Toland cinematography. But the shoddy editing and poorly recorded sound track diminish the impact and beauty of Shakespeare's language, and the occasional flash of brilliance isn't enough to salvage yet another compelling failure from a wayward genius.
-
colwood30 March 2003I will not go into the film as many already have said how it is a great work of art despite its "troubled" filming history.
This film is now advertised and available as a "restored" dvd of a "lost" Welles film. But DO NOT be deceived. Whereas the 1998 cut of Touch of Evil was "restored" using a Welles memo as guidelines, Othello was restored by presuming many things. First, dialogue was put in sync and unintelligible diaglogue was "voiced over." And second, the original score was redone, but not exactly as the original. You could almost say a new score was used in the "restored" film. The original cut was Welles' 1952 European version which has only ever been availible as a (OOP) 1995 Criterion LaserDisc. As Welles' daughter owns the rights to Othello, that's the 1992 "restored" version which she also helped on, it is the only one currently availible for purchase in the US (as she receives no money for the 1995 CR laserdisc, she forced Criterion to stop making it.)
While many casual fans will not notice or care about the little changes, don't be deceived into thinking this is "Orson's intended version." Also DO NOT be deceived into thinking this is a lost film. It was only lost in the sense that it had no distribution until the early 90's. -
TheLittleSongbird2 September 2011I love Shakespeare and learned to appreciate it from about aged 11. There are several fine adaptations based on his work, and for me this 1952 Othello is one of the best. The play is not my favourite from Shakespeare but it is a compelling one. The film does a lot of justice to the play and succeeds marvellously on its own merits. All the crucial scenes are done very well, especially the very intense and moving final scene, the dialogue is outstanding and the music compliments the film perfectly. Where this Othello really excels is in the superb direction from Orson Welles and the wonderful cinematography, costumes and settings complete with moody lighting. In terms of acting, Welles is extraordinary as Othello, Desdemona is appropriately poignant and delicate with evidence of intensity and Michael MacLiammoir is wonderful as the slimy and conniving irredeemable villain of the piece that is Iago. All in all, a brilliant film. 10/10 Bethany Cox
-
cdnhenry19 January 2001The black and white photography is quite fitting with the theme of Shakespeare's play of a black man in a white society. The art direction and the use of shadows is absolutely stunning. The scene where Emilia reveals all that is shot with a huge giant gate as a backdrop is most memorable.
However, some Shakespeare loyalists may be annoyed that the film does not try to follow the play exactly. As well, it takes a while for most people to adjust to the fact that Othello, that is Orson Welles, is not really black, but just very, very darkly tanned. Outrageous(Some will say)! Couldn't they find a good black actor back then? Did they try?
Overall, I would be quick to recommend this film over the (awful) 1995 version starring Laurence Fishburne (Even though Fishburne looks 10X better than Welles as Othello). -
Ariel-2821 June 1999I know the Shakespearian play very well and was delighted to see a movie version. The actors are good, especially Iago, and little Desdemona is very sweet - but I had always thought that she should have dark hair. Orson Welles expresses Othello's fury and jealousy especially well, but I think Desdemona should always speak in a very delicate voice - in this movie she may even shout. And I couldn't understand why she didn't cry when Othello said she had no more lifetime left - after all, she is "little Desdemona". However, the film is quite good, especially the beginning in which the men carry the dead Othello and Iago sees it from the cage.
-
writers_reign25 July 2008If you would seek some kind of perspective on the Motion Picture industry you could do worse than study the career of old Awesome; a string of masterpieces - Kane, Chimes At Midnight, Touch Of Evil - and nearasdammit masterpieces - Ambersons, Mr. Arkadin, Journey Into Fear -which he either wrote, directed and appeared in, sometimes all three, liberally laced with the trash in which he deigned to act - The Black Fox, Ferry To Hong Kong etc - in order to finance projects like this one, which belongs right up there with the masterpieces. I note that much verbiage has been spilled under this title on IMDb debating and disputing the pros and cons of the 'restored' version and whether or not it was indeed ever 'lost'. This is surely academic at best; what matters is that we now HAVE a close approximation of what Awesome intended and frankly if it were any closer I couldn't stand it. The pre-credit sequence alone is worthy of one of the great Silent masters, Gance, Dreyer and like that and the first shot proper is magisterial. Time and time again Welles uses the landscape to compose startling images only to contrast this with key speeches like 'farewell the tranquil mind ...' which he shoots more or less straight and who else but Awesome could make such a virtue out of necessity as in the scene slated for conventional filming until the costumes failed to turn up; his solution, stage it in a bath-house with the actors wearing towels which were themselves borrowed from their hotel. It was Welles himself who made the finest Shakespearean film of all time in Chimes At Midnight and with Othello he runs it a close second. Unmissable.
-
iquine27 August 2019(Flash Review)
Not realizing Othello was anything more than a strategic board game, primarily because I have a strong dislike for Shakespeare, I was happy to be able to follow the plot while understanding less than half what was spoken. Understanding zero story nuances, I enjoyed the confident voice of Welles bellowing out poetic dialog. Complemented by his masterful cinematic eye this was still an enjoyable viewing and from what I gathered the acting was convincing. If you like but Welles and Shakespeare this is a must see. -
jamesrupert201412 August 2022Duplicitous Iago misleads credulous Othello about the faithfulness of innocent Desdemona, leading to a typical Shakespearian body count. Welles (in dark-face) is excellent as the noble Moorish general serving Venice, as is Micheál Mac Liammóir as Iago (one of the First Folio's most loathsome yet ambiguous villains). This is the only version of the tragedy that I have seen (film or stage), so I have nothing to which to compare it, but the shadowy, moody black and white cinematography is stunning and the score is excellent.
-
a-tsitsos19 January 2015Orson Welles with skillfully and with highly narrative techniques manages to give the viewer a comprehensive view of the tragic history of black Venice, Othello .Not many movies and even fewer directors can adapt theatrical masterpieces of Shakespeare on screen .Welles uses his directing intelligence to guide the audience through the story without being boring.Of course the experimental photography and daring choice of frames may confuse the viewer in some cases.Also Welles again shows his talent in acting , like other actors of course since the acting is over the top.In conclusion maybe film does not fit naturally to the mainstream viewer but can leave integrated anyone haven't yet tasted the works of Wells and / or Shakespeare,but the lovers of the kind and of the director will be pleased to add "The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice" to their movie collection .
-
eparis29 September 2022The term "flawed masterpiece" should have been invented for Orson Welles. His Othello is visually enthralling, filled as it is with vast spaces that somehow seem to constrict and confine the humans who move through them. Welles' juxtapositions are as sharp as jealousies - the faces of Othello and Desdemona picked out of the dark or Desdemona talking to Emilia and looking through a window filled with spikes. The film begins with funerals and with perhaps the most striking of all the visuals, Iago hanging in a metal cage as the crowds and corpses go by below.
Orson Welles is a fascinating rather than believable Othello. His great strength as an actor is not the portrayal of innocence, but his voice is often magical.
Suzanne Cloutier is a pattern for all pure and elegant Desdemonas, and Micheál MacLiammóir (who seems to have been working up to Richard III) for villainous Iagos. -
I really like Orson Welles. I really like Orson Welles as a Director. I really like Shakespeare. However, watching Shakespeare without subtitles is very difficult for me, and the TCM copy has none. It's not simply the Elizabethan-era dialogue, and the challenge of keeping track of all the characters' names, but the poetic structure of the dialog as well (my hearing ain't what it used to be, either). So unless you're already familiar with the play (which I'm actually not, and I've been meaning to watch a version for awhile, thus my disappointment), you may have the same difficulty I had actually following the story. Perhaps I'll have an easier time when next they show the Olivier version. Assuming it's subtitled.
Also, Welles shoots it in that high-contrast black and white that he was so fond of in the 50s (see also The Trial and Touch of Evil); sadly, I am not as fond of it as he was. It kind of hurts my eyes; I tend to dismiss it as "NYU film school style".
So I'm going to try to struggle my way through this... 🤔😉😊 -
Steffi_P31 August 2011Some years ago I saw a comedy acting troupe called The Reduced Shakespeare Company, who would perform a series of sketches on the bard's work. This culminated with a three-minute version of Hamlet – a few key lines blurted out (plus a few they made up), characters hurrying on and off, but every strand of the plot just about accounted for. It was a good laugh. When I see this screen adaptation of Othello from half a century earlier, it feels like I'm seeing more or less the same thing. Except it isn't funny.
This is one of a number of productions which star and director Orson Welles had trouble getting off the ground. As such it was filmed in bits and pieces, very much on the cheap. Perhaps Welles also had trouble getting permission to film in certain places, as every scene seems incredibly rushed, as if cast and crew were eager to wrap up. And the amount of editing going on suggests that perhaps Welles was using cameras that wouldn't hold more than two feet of film. There's a section of voice-over narration about ten minutes in where there is a cut every two words or so. It looks like a joke.
Welles knew what he was doing of course, and there is some kind of method to all this. When Othello makes his first appearance (shortly after the aforementioned voice-over sequence) we do at last get a slightly longer take, which gives an air of power and dignity in contrast to the rush of what went before. But Welles gets the balances wrong. Most of the movie is too fast, too choppy. The actual images are some of the most breathtaking Welles ever shot (and that is saying something), beautifully baroque compositions of shadow and architecture, but a motion picture must be more than a series of pretty pictures.
The principle victim of this hurried version of Othello is probably Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare's dialogue, for all its brilliance, can be hard going on an audience at the best of times and it takes skilled interpretation to bring it to life. By condensing the play and rushing the performances, Welles has actually made it more impenetrable. In short, this one is probably only of interest to the Welles fanatics. Don't see it if you want to know Othello. It simply doesn't do the bard justice.