Abbigail Bush
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
Lucia Ayala
It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
Fraser Rew
No, I'm not trolling. I like a lot of Shakespeare's plays so I thought I'd try Othello. I hope it's the last time I see any version of probably the most implausible movie I've ever seen. In case you missed it:
* Someone suggests to Othello, a newly married man who's infatuated with his wife, that she's cheating on him. Instead of telling him he's out of line, Othello believes him.
* He goes on a military campaign and takes with him not just his wife, but also her maid.
* He tramples on a handkerchief that he later says is of utmost sentimental value to him.
* Despite being in charge of the Venetian army, he has hours every day to talk one-on-one, to one of his advisers, about his personal life.
* Iago and Cassio have a conversation about Bianca in which Cassio doesn't once mention Bianca's name.
* Desdemona mentions Cassio all the time. If she was having an affair with him, wouldn't she try to make it a bit less obvious?
* Roderigo tells Iago that he doesn't trust him, and not thirty seconds later agrees when Iago suggests he kill Cassio.
* Cassio, dying, says that he had two killers, but nobody bothers to look for the second one.
* Othello overhears a conversation between Emilia and Desdemona which makes it clear that Desdemona has done nothing wrong, but still thinks she's being unfaithful to him.
* Despite the fact that there's precisely, exactly, zero chemistry between Cassio and Desdemona when they're together, and the fact that nobody but Iago is suspicious, and that Cassio is already seeing someone else, and that Othello raises his suspicions with not a single other person, and the overheard conversation, he still thinks she's unfaithful.
* He locks himself in their bedroom, knowing that Emilia has seen him, before he kills her, making him the only possible murderer.
* When Emilia points out that Desdemona is (was) innocent, Othello, having been sure enough of her guilt for days and days, and sure enough to kill her only ten minutes earlier, suddenly decides she was innocent.
OK, so I get that people don't always act rationally when love is involved, but seriously, that doesn't even explain even half of the above.
I did battle my way to the end of it, but honestly, that's an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back.
a-tsitsos
Orson 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 .
Steffi_P
Some 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.
kirksworks
I first saw the movie in junior college in a special screening my film instructor gave. He showed a rather dark black and white 16mm print. Even in that dark form I could see it was one of the most beautiful b&w films ever shot. It has since been restored, the picture now bright and beautiful. It's worth seeing for the photography alone, but it has so much more. If you're reading this you may know at least something about the history of this film, but in a nutshell it was made across 4 years, from 1949 to 1952, because Welles financed the film himself and whenever he ran out of money he would go act in other films to raise the money to reassemble the cast and continue. Some conversations would have one character talking with the reverse shot of the other actor being shot three years later! You never notice it! It's just a stunning achievement considering the difficulty he had in making the film that it even got finished let alone be as excellent a film as it is. If you've never seen filmed Shakespeare, this is a great place to start. I'm sure purists would complain since the text is quite edited, but Welles uses his own narration in fairly modern English to make the story easy to follow. As Othello, Welles is believable, regal and in the end, chilling and sad. He brings the man to life. The rest of the cast is outstanding, including Micheal MacLiammoir as a cunning and wicked Iago, and Canadian actress Suzanne Cloutier, giving an absolutely heart wrenching performance as Desdemona. The deathbed murder scene between Welles and Cloutier has powerful emotional impact. I believe this version of the story outshines the 1996 adaptation with Laurence Fishburne and Irene Jacobs, even though the newer film sticks closer to Shakespeare's text. Kenneth Brannagh was a good Iago, and the film has a wonderful score by CHarlie Mole, but Welles version is better paced and it hit me more emotionally.This restoration of Welles' Othello was a labor of love for the people that had to track down the film elements and try and reconstruct what Welles originally intended. Unlike Welles' "Touch of Evil," which was re-edited by the studio and compromised in the process, Welles' owned "Othello" so the version that got released was his. Unfortunately, he was severely let down by the sound department. The original track was muddy, some voices had sync problems, and the music was badly recorded. The restoration crew cut out the dialog line by line, re-cut it to match the mouth movements, redid the Foley and all sound effects, and rerecorded Francesco Lavagnino's bold score in the exact tempo of the original recording. The final result is pretty amazing. And though this is not really the definitive version since Welles is no longer here, it's probably as close as we'll ever get to what the film could have been, if Welles had more money and time. Even so, back in 1952 it won the Palm d'Or at Cannes in its original form. Orson Welles' "Tragedy of Othello" is beautifully filmed Shakespeare with a strong cast. I believe it lives up to its reputation as one of Welles' finest efforts. For fans of Welles and Shakespeare, you'll probably find much to appreciate.
