Othello

A masterclass of composition and framing, movement and timing. The dubbed audio survives in a rough state, but it's a small blight on a film which recalls the bold expressions and physicality of both silent cinema and theater production. Welles in blackface is problematic, to say the least, and the material's racial text is left behind in favor of a sheer aesthetic exercise.

Welles's genius (and Shakespeare's) shines through, despite the evident limitations of the production, in every shot and every decision, in this tragedy of manipulation, envy and jealousy that is also perhaps the greatest cinematic representation we have of the domestic madness and disordered masculine desire that leads from reason and light to unreason and the darkest of shadows and ends in murder-suicide. Watched the 1952 version on the Criterion Blu-Ray.

Not as great as Welles' other Shakespeare adaptations, but still pretty great. It just feels a little less magnificent; the photography is less stunning, the story less involving (though I love the play), the acting less impressive. Or maybe I'm letting my opinions be colored by the rougher, unrestored cut I saw. Either way, it's still an excellent, taut film and technically outstanding as always.

Perhaps this, most of all, best exemplifies Welles’ tychastic, anancastic and agapistic approach to film making. It could just as appropriately be called ‘Honest Iago’ such is the way that Welles provocatively positions a very willing and able Mac Liammóir front and centre. You could watch this with the sound off and still have a profound Shakespearian experience, such is Welles’ genius, which surely is the ultimate test of whether a film adaptation of Shakespeare’s work is worthy cinema.

Welles' Shakespeare films possessed a rare grit and vitality that clearly distinguished them from the overly mannered adaptations of times past as well as contemporary versions that are too self consciously modern and (pseudo) rebellious. Othello is an inherently flawed film that was obviously hurt by budget constraints, but Welles bold vision is a complete auteurist triumph over adversity with its angular compositions, imaginative staging and superb use of real locations.

not even welles' deliciously corrupted atmosphere can convince me otherwise that shakespeare's dialogue is pointlessly convoluted and his scenarios insufferably trite. like, this one is about the tortured soul of a man who mistakenly believes his wife is cheating on him. who gives a fuck?

Themes and editing don't make a film good, but in this case they at least make it worthwhile. The plot is just frustrating to watch when everything is telegraphed from about 10 minutes in and the themes, while plentiful and important, are criminally underdeveloped. Still Welles did some interesting things visually and, while I think he would have been better as Iago, he made for an interesting Othello. The final minutes also were good enough to make up for some of the preceding slowness.

This is compromised by Welles's limitations as an actor; as usual, he makes virtues of his faults. A muscular film, bounding rather than smoldering with jealous energy. Exultantly theatrical and filmic.

Shines visually. Story wasn't hitting as hard. Still a unique creation which feels like it's from a different time.

I think all of us would watch Orson Welles read the dictionary.

This is really well done, but runs into my usual issues with Shakespeare adaptations, which is that my brain is just not fast enough to translate Shakespearian English to modern English to actually enjoy the movie. I spend most of my time trying to keep up with the language and figure out what was just said, and it's never the experience I want it to be. Some of the visuals are fantastic, though, and if you're a Shakespeare adaptation fan, I'd imagine you'll love it.

While it's not without its weak moments (e.g. the unconvincing, poorly executed murder scenes), "The Tragedy Of Othello: The Moor Of Venice" is a captivating film, balancing deftly between Shakespeare's beautiful, demanding dialogue, the theatrical elements and an atmosphere more akin to that of a thriller. The story's tragicalness comes through, the score is excellent, some of the shots are very inspired, MacLiammóir is great as Iago, and Welles gives a terrific, nuanced performance as Othello.

iftira, komutan, evlilik, venedik, kibris, osmanlilar (filmde bahsi geçiyor), entrika, IAGO nefretimsin! Ne pis adam çıktı Iago. Mide bulandırıcı bir karakter. SPOILER Mağripli (Moor) Othello Vanedik'te yaşamaktadır. Burada Desdemona ile evlenir. (Kaçırarak) Osmanlılar, Venedik'te saldırınca Othello komutan olarak Venedik'e atanır. Eşi de peşinden gelir. Hain yaver Iago, kadına iftara atar. Othello Iago'nun yanlarına inanınır. Final'de eşini öldürür. ÇOK ACI

Another unbelievably dense visual spectacle - curious to know if the rapid cuts and changes in perspective were a creative decision, a necessity from the production troubles, or a combination of both. Iago's performance is pretty solid but one can't help but think that kind of conniving sinister role is most suited for Welles himself.

85.00

I was saved by my lack of comprehension of Shakespeare dialogue in this film! I have actually read this play, so it was much easier to follow. I actually really enjoy the play, and to some extent, the modern film adaptation, O. However, O doesn't exactly compare to this. Welles remains faithful to Shakespeare again with this adaptation, but adds his own flares, particularly with lighting, that work so well - especially that final scene.

Star Rating: ★★★★1/2

Welles' take on the classic tragedy cuts out a lot of content, but it's wonderfully performed by the two leads, with Welles (in blackface) as Othello and Irish stage legend Micheál MacLiammóir as Iago. Despite continual budget issues, the costumes and locations look great, but unsurprisingly with Welles it's the camerawork that's the most memorable aspect, with many beautifully framed and imaginatively lit shots.

Might actually be my favorite Orson Welles' movie. He runs rampant with low-angle shots, shadow-filled compositions and disorienting cuts. It is cinematic madness in the best way possible, as I spent most of the 90-minute runtime with my mouth agape at the visual prowess on display.

83.500

It is visually bold, sharply edited, generally acted well (Welles is of course the highlight) and feels far more cinematic than Welles' stagy and rigid Macbeth adaptation. The best scene is the much praised scene in the Turkish bath, though other scenes certainly stand proud like the final murder and the glorious opening and closing marches. It is a really good adaptation that is ruined by its rubbish sound quality - you literally can't hear something like a quarter of the dialogue!

Bizarrely edited, murky of image and sound (though with an incongruously pristine score), and forced along by VOed exposition. Welles' genius shows throughout, but despite his efforts and the restorers' to turn this into something cohesive, I never get the sense that it's anything but a guided tour through what could have been.

The extreme low budget unfortunately does detract a bit of the overall experience but this powerful adaptation remains one of the finest pieces of proof that Welles was a master director; bringing so much power out of so little, each shot as evocative as the next and some great performances to go along with it. Still better than pretty much everything that is shoved into the movie industry, which includes a plethora of expensive, good-looking CGI crap. One of the best Shakeapeare adaptations.

82.000

#526

Considering the circumstances under which it was made, it's sort of the best home movie ever made. Wonderfully shot and acted (I could watch Welles all day), but emotionally distant - probably due to the jarred and threadbare filming.

Goes about as well as could be expected for a play I was never fond of, and a particularly rough period for the Welles man.

Some very interesting camera angles, and an extremely nasty Iago played by Michael MacLiammoir, but the film looks rushed and cobbled together, and the audio is always poor and sometimes unintelligible. Welles didn't have the money he needed, and it shows.

655

I will be forever in awe of Orson Welles; especially for not letting hardships and obstacles to dampen his flair and vision. Had he had money would have he produced even more memorable masterpieces? Maybe, or maybe not. Perhaps his genius has been specially triggered by all the drama. Not his best (Well, his best is THE best) but certainly commendable.

I didn't comprehend roughly 40% of the dialogue, and spent the first act feeling very confused. The film itself feels rushed, and undoubtedly large portions of the tale have been excised. But it's still a really compelling tale, and although it's not one of my favorites by Welles, I liked it far more than I expected to. Except for the incosistent blackface and some poor ADR work, the film is technically stunning. Almost every shot is breathtaking or unusual or just looks freakin' cool.

588

Sorry, but like with so much Shakespeare I was bored stiff

# 551