Aside from maybe a silent film, I cannot think of a production that carries with it so many hurdles to enjoy a film in 2020 than Othello. For some, it being in black-and-white would be one such hurdle, although I have no issue with films in black-and-white, except insofar that it's usually a sign that it's from a period of time where actors felt the need to be theatrical and broad.
Shakespeare films are extremely hard for me to enjoy, because I barely understand the dialogue to be perfectly honest. The whole thing feels like homework, because I'm concentrating so hard on hearing what the characters are saying. Watching a film should feel effortless. Watching Shakespeare, unless you're well versed in his plays, is not.
And then there are the problems unique to Orson Welles Othello. Well, one such aspect is unfortunately not unique at all given the time period: blackface. I've seen critics refer to it as "bronze" face which I guess makes it better. Certainly looks better than Laurence Olivier in Othello. Look that shit up. But this is still something that hasn't aged well.
The problem unique to Othello is that Welles shot the movie with no money, or rather, he was constantly forced to accept acting jobs to complete the production, and the production took stops and starts over the course of three years before being done. The result is a production that is filmed in different countries, with re-casting in the middle of production, and pretty much every nightmare you can imagine when trying to make a film.
As far as the location is concerned, black-and-white is a benefit, not a hindrance to the problems the production faced. You cannot tell that one scene is filmed in Morroco and ends in Rome. The illusion of it being in one place is preserved. Would this be the case in color? I doubt it.
But a consequence of filming the movie on the fly with no money is that he couldn't afford to film it with sound, which is very, very noticeable. I'm not entirely sure which version I watched - there's an original cut shown at Cannes, it got released in America three years later in a different cut, and then there's the 1992 restored version that is apparently an entirely different cut.
Whichever version I watched, and I think it's the latter one, it's very clear that actors' voices are dubbed over many, many times, and oddly enough the biggest offender is Welles himself. Some of the other actors can fool you into imagining you're really hearing their voice, but Welles sounds like he's in a sound studio the entire time.
The other difficulty with watching a Shakespeare play is not that different from watching a normal movie from 1951: the acting. Shakespeare acting is always extremely theatrical. As far as it goes, the acting is good, but I'm not a huge fan of theatrical acting in movies. It's too impersonal, none of the emotion lands for me, it's just extremely over the top by design.
I was also at a disadvantage because, while I'm hardly a Shakespeare neophyte (took a Shakespeare in film class in college), I apparently have never in my life come across Othello. And you should at least be passingly familiar with Othello when watching this movie. Welles evidently significantly reduces the play to its most important elements - which I am grateful for personally - but it might have the effect of making it harder to follow than normal for a newbie.
Like, one question I ask, and this is nothing against the performance of Micheál Mac Liammóir, who seems appropriate for the part: is Iago slimy the entire play? Cause it's very hard to believe he gains anyone's trust with how openly slimy he is. There is not a moment where he's not slimy. But literally everyone believes every lie that comes out of his mouth. In a modern film, I'd demand that there's a scene or two that shows him before he gets passed over for promotion.
Otherwise, we're just watching 90 minutes of a clearly untrustworthy guy be trusted by everyone. I suspect the approach here is to either go entertainingly over the top, although it would make a joke of the play, or try to somehow instill the character with some semblance of reasonableness at the beginning. As it stands, this Iago does neither.
There are certain older movies that seem to be praised even among the last 30 years. Because again, nothing Welles did in his life was immediately hailed as a classic, but a good portion of his movies were eventually hailed classic. Othello is a case where I do not understand that. His filmmaking is undoubtedly impressive, but good filmmaking alone does not a good movie make.
Maybe a theme in Welles' works will be the excellent cinematography and mood that this movie creates. The movie has three credited cinematographers. His cinematographer on Citizen Kane had died by the time he filmed this movie, so he must have taken the right lessons from that movie. That's probably the greatest strength of this movie.
Anyway, I've illustrated the problems inherent in this movie that would have made it a tough sell for me to enjoy it. And it didn't overcome those problems. But this doesn't really worry me, because I'm sure the other two movies from Shakespeare he made had a bigger budget.
2/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment