Othello (1951)

Lack of good storyline.

Brilliant and touching

A Disappointing Continuation

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

"Citizen Kane" was certainly a tough act to follow, which is why you're not familiar with most of Orson Welles' other films. I truly believe that you should check out all of his movies as most of them are great, but sadly not on the level of "Citizen Kane". Welles was rather fond of Shakespeare and had a great starring role. I have never seen an adaptation of "Othello" before or even read (or seen) the play performed. It actually fascinates me how it's easy to sum up. There's certainly a lot going on, but it's easy to summarize. Othello is being manipulated by Iago into thinking his wife is having an affair.The only Iago I was familiar with was the one from "Aladdin". It's great to be familiar with a character that many people consider one of the most classic villains in all of pop culture. The atmosphere is as great as you would expect it to be. It really did feel like a big epic movie even though it was only 93 minutes long. It's just hard to imagine such a great story condensed into that running time. This makes the pacing work wonderfully and it's so rewarding in the end. While not as good as his version of "Macbeth" still great. ***1/2

***User reviewer Abhijoy Gandhi ("Welles' indomitable spirit in the face of penury shines in yet another Wellesian Masterpiece", Abhijoy Gandhi from Philadelphia, USA, 10 January 2004) has a nice summary and good background info. Also, Jonathon Dabell ("Excellent version of the great Shakespearean tragedy, distinguished by fine camera work and powerful performances", Jonathon Dabell ([email protected]) from Todmorden, England, 17 January 2007) also has a nice summary. Finally, EddieK discusses ("Welles' images match the beauty of Shakespeare's language", EddieK from United States, 3 January 2006) the controversies associated with the restoration.***"Othello" (1952, Orson Welles) is an enjoyable trip back in time. The difficulty that Orson Welles had making it is another piece of his legend. It is low-budget and was filmed over three years. Welles took several breaks to act elsewhere in order to raise more money for the financially-starved project. When period costumes don't arrive in time he famously improvises scenes in a Turkish bath. When his actor playing Roderigo (Robert Coote) isn't available for post-production dubbing, Welles (capably) dubs the other man's voice himself.The result is very entertaining, clearly one of the greatest adaptations of William Shakespeare so far. There are many reasons to admire it. The most obvious is how it looks. The starkness of so many exteriors and the oppression that is felt with the palatial interiors is vintage Welles. Then there are the relatively quick jumps and fragments of Shakespearean dialog that are always spoken by quickly (without regard for whether a contemporary audience can decipher it in time before the next line). All of these details contribute to the sense that the viewer has been transported back to the Middle Ages.Welles in (very inconsistent) black makeup plays Othello the general, another leader in Shakespeare's canon who loses his sanity. Welles' familiar, rich baritone, so unique and pleasant to the ears, lends much gravity to the unwell Moor. (BTW, there is a funny moment when we see the back of Welles' neck and can see the makeup line between his artificially dark complexion and his natural skin color--woops.)The rest of the cast hangs with Welles. Suzanne Cloutier is a very beautiful and tragic Desdemona that serves to make Othello seem crazy in comparison. Some Shakespeare purists may object to Robert Coote's somewhat dim Roderigo, but the actor seems to be living the role. Doris Dowling, who must have been one of the prettiest actresses of that era, has a minor role as a GF/prostitute of Cassio (Michael Laurence. Also, Joseph Cotton apparently appears, but I missed him.) However, the essential figure in the cast is Micheál MacLiammóir as Iago. This Iago is depicted as a wretched, diminutive fellow incapable of charm. This interpretation of Iago may be controversial, as his treachery is always very obvious. However, along with Welles's Hellish direction MacLiammóir's grave delivery fits perfectly (making The Middle Ages seem a more difficult era to endure than the post-911 present).Desdemona's fate not withstanding, watching Iago manipulate Othello into the latter's downfall is fun. The little guy is quite the nasty bastard. The great Orson Welles is sorely missed today.

I 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

The 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.