Othello

THE TRAGEDY OF OTHELLO: THE MOOR OF VENICE/ US/France/Italy/Morocco 1952 (3.5 STARS)

The recent restoration of Othello brings to cinematic space the magic of another masterpiece from Orson Welles. To think that a whole master negative of this film (which won the Best film at Cannes in 1952) was lying abandoned in a New Jersey warehouse, was discovered by accident and is the reason for this print that we now have access to, is enough to send shivers down the spine of any Welles-phile. . Mise-en-scene: Like with many of his other works involving especially Shakespeare, be prepared for Welles' licenses and personal interpretation of subject matter pertaining to Othello. Yet at the end, we are left with a feeling of deep tragedy and loss for Othello, played by Welles himself, and though we feel that Othello was quite an idiot, we at least feel that he was a very unfortunate idiot at that! . The problem may have been that the critical scene where Iago poisons Othello's mind and fuels his suspicion is scrappy and left unexplored. This may well have had little to do with Welles' artistic choices, and more with his monetary situation at the time. Welles' penury through his European sojourn is widely known and the passion with which he would invest into his films, every penny earned through moonlighting his booming voice and above-average acting skills is legendary, and should put this in context.

. The figure behavior of Micheál MacLiammóir is utterly convincing as the detestable Iago who is consumed by jealousy and rage at being overlooked as the second-in-command. But the person to steal our hearts is Suzanne Cloutier who portrays the fair-dame Desdemona. She is every bit as dainty as we would have imagined her to be. . The stripped down set design works wonderfully for the film and even though budgets may have been the driving force, Othello's barren palace is preceded only by the barrenness of his blinding jealousy and irrational actions. . Cinematography: As we have come to expect, Orson Welles has a unique cinematic language, through which he creates a Wellesian world of skin-burning close ups, dutched crazy world-frames and low angle shots to create a tense atmosphere of foreboding. But there is no better example of exploring and using frame depth than in Othello. Time and again Welles plays with foreground element to reveal psychologically subjective and meta-diagetic moods while cleverly using the depth in the frame to forward the narrative and plot the next progression. The title shots of the film are harrowing in their effect, with the interplay of high-contrast earth and sky contours that at once establish the mood for an intense cinematic experience. . Sound & Editing: The restored version has a brand-new soundtrack mentored by Welles' daughter, and while it enhances the experience to telling effect, it is irony to note that just the new soundtrack cost much more than what Welles assembled the whole film for. The fact that parts of the film were shot MOS and other parts used ADR is distracting due to the obvious lack of lip-sync, but in the final analysis, we watch Welles with reverence almost as if on a visit to Sunday Mass, paying homage, never once forgetting that were are witness to a filmmaker stripped of resources, devoid of many essential tools, but one with indomitable spirit who refused to be cowed-down. Othello is magical in its story telling and another worthy showcase of the genius of Orson Welles.

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.

I 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.

Right 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...

Othello, 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...