Rating: 
Summary: A near-perfect translation of play to film
Review: A must-see for fans of Orson welles and William Shakespeare alike, "Othello" is nearly as impressive and visually brilliant as Welles' masterworks "Citizen Kane" and "Touch of Evil"--maybe more so, considering the director/star shot it bit by bit over several years, jetting back to Hollywood to take acting jobs that helped finance this film and then later assembling it when every shot was finally complete. A Shakespearen expert, Welles superbly pares the source play's text down to the bare bones and uses powerful visual images to communicate the essence of the Moor's tragic story. Aside from fine direction, Welles also turns in an excellent, informed performance. Since many of the bit players weren't available for dubs when the film was near completion, listen for Welles' terrific vocal mimickry "covering" for the missing actors here and there. A fine example of cinematic storytelling, its style and technique surpass the limitations of its threadbare production values.
Rating:
Summary: A near-perfect translation of play to film
Review: A must-see for fans of Orson welles and William Shakespeare alike, "Othello" is nearly as impressive and visually brilliant as Welles' masterworks "Citizen Kane" and "Touch of Evil"--maybe more so, considering the director/star shot it bit by bit over several years, jetting back to Hollywood to take acting jobs that helped finance this film and then later assembling it when every shot was finally complete. A Shakespearen expert, Welles superbly pares the source play's text down to the bare bones and uses powerful visual images to communicate the essence of the Moor's tragic story. Aside from fine direction, Welles also turns in an excellent, informed performance. Since many of the bit players weren't available for dubs when the film was near completion, listen for Welles' terrific vocal mimickry "covering" for the missing actors here and there. A fine example of cinematic storytelling, its style and technique surpass the limitations of its threadbare production values.
Rating: 
Summary: Wellesian Shakespeare!
Review: A visually stunning and brilliantly staged production featuring an incredible quick-cutting style and improvisational settings, this film is probably better suited to audiences of today than when it was released nearly fifty years ago. Remastered from its original negatives, the film bristles with life in glorious black and white. While the sound dubbing is irretrievebly out of synch, the overall impact of this fantastic story of betrayal is not lost on the viewer. This is definitive Welles -- at his best.
Rating:
Summary: This is a real cinema, not a stagy movie version.
Review: Beautiful camera work, a treasure. You can also enjoy Chimes at Midnight on DVD sold in Spain if you have a PAL comppatible DVD player.
Rating:
Summary: Welles' images match the beauty of Shakespeare's language
Review: Considerable controversy has surrounded this 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 this 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 expolits 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 de-theatricalize the play, 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.
Rating:
Summary: Welles' images match the beauty of Shakespeare's language
Review: Considerable controversy has surrounded this 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 this 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 expolits 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 de-theatricalize the play, 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Cinematography, poor shakespeare
Review: For students of film, this is a must-see and worthy of five stars in that category. For Shakespeare, don't rely on this interpetation or editing as the story of Othello. Iago is completely misinterpreted. Othello would never trust this Uriah Heep-sinister-weasel version. Kenneth Branaugh has a much better interpretation of this role. Iago is someone you would trust and buddy with on first impression; that is why Othello is willing to listen to him. In this version, Iago runs away and does not die in the end. Many minor scenes and interplay between characters are eliminated. Roderigo is shrunk to an unrecognizable vestige serving almost no purpose except for the film to be able to make the claim the character was included. I know that most movie versions of Shakespeare must make choices. This version distills Othello down to Othello, Iago, Cassio, and Desdemona. Don't look for much else. It is stark, dark, and concentrates almost completely on the main plot, but beautiful in its cinematographic depiction, lay-out, and techniques.
Rating:
Summary: Wow!
Review: Great, just great. Yes, some of the music one wonders if Welles would have used, but it is pure Welles. If not updated the missing elements might take away from this work, instead they compliment it. A must own!
Rating:
Summary: Great film but NOT "lost"
Review: I will not go into the film as many alreay have said how it is a great work of art despite its "troubled" filming history. My rating of 4 stars is therefore for the movie itself. 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 unitelligible diaglogue was "voiced over." And second, the original score was redone, but not exactly as the original. You could 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. While many casual fans will not notice or care about the little changes, don't be decieved into thinking this is "Orson's intended version." Also DO NOT be decieved into thinking this is a lost film. It was only lost in the sense that it had no distribution until the early 90's.
Rating:
Summary: Why the LOST masterpiece?
Review: I'm sick of the general notion (mostly in print) that Welles virtually went down hill from Citizen Kane onwards. The fact of the matter is, no one would give him a break, ie; finance. In the few instances that he was given the money, his films were breathtaking ("Touch of Evil"-for example). With Othello, Welles had virtually no backing apart from his own money. Subsequently, he spent alot of time acting in other people's movies to make the expensive film costs. This is why "Othello" took so long to make. Welles had nightmarish problems with refilming when actors couldn't make the call after the long waiting periods (read Michael Macliammoir's "Put Money In Thy Purse"-his diaries during the making of "Othello"). Therefore, Mr Welles travelled through thick & thin to give us this incredible movie. From the first image of the funeral, the angles & the look of the film is staggering to say the least. Macliammoir is brilliant as Iago. The part where he is hoisted up in a cage, should be one of those scenes they always flash in a greatest scenes montage. Orson is in great Shakspearian form & shines through all his scenes. I don't think any film maker today could come close to this film's stunning beauty & innovative camera shots. To think it was made on a low budget makes you reconsider the quality of something like the "Blair Witch Project", considering the 1950's had yet to invent the low costing video camera. But this is besides the point. "Othello" is THE most underated film in the history of movie making, and it IS a true masterpiece. No wonder it won an award at Cannes at the time. God bless Welles' lovely daughter, Beatrice for restoring & caring for the film. It is an incredible restoration, considering the lack of existing negatives. It just shows how Welles' reputation was tarnished through the years by rediculous criticism. This movie has become "The Lost Masterpiece" because of the critics. It should never have been lost. Welles created many myths about himself, but the popular myth about him shared by most people is the idea that he made this amazing debut film & then everything from then on was substandard. The rise & fall nonsense. In reality all his films are of the same standard but are only marred by bad editing by other people's hands. Welles' genius was just as rampant in film-editing but he rarely got the oppurtunity. Besides, these movies were his babies, not some bespectacled "Barton Fink" character employed by the studio. If I had had money while the man was still alive, I would have given it all to him to make wonderful films. All these people standing around him like Peter Bogdanovich saying how great he is when they should have been pulling some strings & getting the man a deal with the studios. I can't believe his last film "The Other Side Of The Wind", has never been seen because of dodgey finacial deals at the time. This is a tragedy. What was there not to like about Mr Welles? I believe he was just too damn good. With him around, nobody had a chance. So we must be thankfull for the dozen or so films he left us. It's a shame that he is more respected now than when he was alive. It's as if the public & the movie community have suddenly realised the magnitude & importance of this great man's work. Whoops! Anyway, the DVD presentation is a joy to watch. A must own for all serious DVD collectors. I can pick out Joan Fontaine as the page boy but can't see Joseph Cotten for the life of me. Is this another one of Orson's illusions?
|
