When one talks of the extravagance that Orson Welles is known for they usually have Othello in mind. When people talk of screen Othellos it's usually the one Laurence Olivier did in 1965 for which he got one of his Oscar nominations. It's good, but it's essentially a photographed stage version.If he didn't have the budget problems he did Welles might have done the acclaimed Othello for the ages. This took over three years of shooting and it's lucky that he was able to hold as much of his cast together as he did. As it was Suzanne Cloutier as Desdemona was a third choice and Michael McLiammor was a second choice after Everett Sloane had to leave for other commitments. Interesting because Sloane was apparently the only old Mercury Theater regulars slated for Othello although Joseph Cotten is reputed to be an extra as is Joan Fontaine. I searched for them and did fine.That all being said Welles really had a sure hand with Othello, the man who wrestled with the green eyed monster and lost. Although I think Everett Sloane would have done wonders with Iago we are privileged to see Irish player Michael McLiammor in his only feature film role and he certainly knows the right buttons to press with the man he serves.Welles started Othello after he had done MacBeth for Republic Pictures and he was certainly constrained by the notorious penny pinching Herbert J. Yates there. I think he needed a big studio to have faith in him to being this off the way Olivier did with his Shakespeare films. Failing that he went independent and pledged the salaries he commanded for three fine films, Prince Of Foxes and The Black Rose with Tyrone Power and The Third Man the last being one of the greatest films ever made to keep Othello going.Maybe this is not the definitive Othello film, but it's one fine piece of work achieved under remarkable circumstances. Maybe one day someone will make a movie about the making of Othello. It's a great story.

This adaptation of the Shakespearean tragedy manages to be compelling despite its infamous and troubled production. Othello's majestic coat lined with mink fur is none other than the same one stolen from the set of The Black Rose. Whole sequences seems missing and compositions and edits are at times jarring and sparse; ADR is visible in many instances. The moor's impressive army had to be cleverly concealed or else the truth would have been evident; nothing but a rag tag bunch of extras. The crucial death scene of Roderigo is shot within a bathhouse because of the lack of costuming. And Suzanne Cloutier's Desdemona seems perhaps a little thin compared to Welle's screen presence - then again, she was only the third actress cast in the role. But it is compelling all the same. The soundtrack's troubled restoration process does not take away from its presence. In one particular moment, right after Othello's mind has been corrupted by Iago's lies, he seeks to confront his guilty wife. As Desdemona floats into the frame, a demure flute tune sets the mood, but as Othello demands her hand to check if it is moist, the strings suddenly chime in ominously. It offers information alongside Welles' glare. A heavy piano note suddenly drops onto the track when Desdemona seemingly innocuously brings up the issue of restating Cassio, not knowing how damning this statement is in her husband's raging mind. And then they spar, with her not budging up the issue, and him demanding the handkerchief. Oh it's wonderfully ironic how at odds their intentions are. But Shakespeare has to be given credit for this confrontation. Here Othello is asking a question he already knows the answer to, condemning her even before she gives that fatal answer. Anything short of magically conjuring the handkerchief to show Othello (even that in itself might have been refused and called an act of witchcraft that Othello himself is initially accused of) is just confirming his suspicions. Early on in the film there is a narrator who introduces us to settings and happenings as if any viewer would not already be familiar with the famous Shakespeare play, but Welles wisely does away with him and his obtuse dialogue (then again, Welles' also does not include any of Iago's soliloquies which map out his plan like a step-by-step guide). The lines are cut heavily; despite being one of Shakespeare's longer works the film only clocks in at 91 minutes, nothing compared to some of the line-by-line mammoth adaptations that leave no word behind. There are some weird editing choices that accentuate this; Othello and Desdemona embrace and he whispers that they have but an hour to consummate their marriage, before we cut and suddenly it has been weeks at sea and they are eagerly reunited at Cyprus. But the narrative's most important moments remain and that is sufficient. It is not purely theatrical and relying on its performances; the film is full of disconcerting cinematography that is appropriate for the addled mind of Othello. There is no flat theatre stage here. When he slips into his trance, we get a reverse bird's eye of sorts, where we are looking directly up at the sky, and the camera spins and spins and spins as the upside-down crowd look up in puzzlement. The same disorientating effect is used when he is trapped in the room of his murder forever - the walls are blurred and closing in. The original play might prefer Iago to take the soliloquy spotlight, but Welles' visualises contemplation in his own way, by forcing the confusion and agony of his face back at him through the mirror. In a clever shot Iago is talking to Othello out of frame; oh but he is there anyway, in the mirror and seized up in concentration. Desdemona stares innocently right into the lens and into Othello's soul, and he later does the same to Iago; this technique effectively characterises his growing distress and unnerve. The lighting also aides this process; from the natural sun bathed beaches, Othello is then slowly enveloped by the darkness, until only his pupils, as green as can be even in the black and white film-stock, can be seen in the sunlight. In that final speech where he implores the men to record this story in an unbiased manner (although he himself shows signs of bias), his entire body save his face is wrapped by complete darkness. He has been enveloped and corrupted by his absolute jealously.

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.

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.