Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

  • Othello (1965, Great Britain, Stuart Burge) ****

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Othello  (1965)

     

    It’s hard to imagine two Shakespearen adaptations that are more different, yet almost equally impressive as the Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier versions of Othello.  Welles took the Bard’s tragedy and reduced to the level of a fable, shooting on location in Italy with a highly expressionist, formalist style that was stylized as Shakespeare’s prose.  The director of Olivier’s version, Stuart Burge, emphasis the psychological aspects of the characters, with sparse sets that make us focus on the actors and little else.  Welles’s film runs ninety one minuets, Burge’s is nearly twice as long at two hours and forty five minuets. 

    According to the super reputable site known as Wikipedia, Olivier was unable to raise the money for a full film version, so used his meager budget to adapt his award winning stage version produced by the National Theatre of Great Britain.  However, as the actor explains in a bonus short on the DVD, it is not a filmed stage play (thank God).  “It is a film of  a stage play” he explains and he’s right.  Burge is not a respected director, and his credits are mostly for TV, but he makes the National Theater production a real move. 

    He is helped immeasurably of course, by the actors, all of which tone done their performances for the film and four of whom were nominated for Oscars.  It is understandable why some may object to the idea of a white actor playing Othello and I while agree that in general it is a bad idea for actors to play characters outside of their own ethnic group, it is sometimes not a bad idea in the particular.  Laurence Olivier wears realistic black makeup for the part, learned a new accent, and endows Othello with a deep humanity, based on real psychology.  There are no stereotypes here. 

    Although cineastes can deabate whether Welles, Olivier or Laurence Fishburne was the Othello, there is no question that the greatest of all Iagos is Frank Finlay, who is one of the great screen villains, a force of evil right up their with Hannibal Lecter or, yes, Dracula.  The remarkable thing about Finlay’s performance is that we kind of get why Iago is so bad- he is negative, mistrusting type, and failed promotion was the last straw, so he’s gone postal. Iago is like a force of nature- he’s evil, he can’t help it, he just is.

    The entire cast is great.  Unlike Welles film, which was essentially a two character show (Welles and Michael MacLiammoir) this picture features an amazing Desdemona (Maggie Smith) and even a complex Cassio (Derek Jacobi), usually seen as a boring character.

    The sparse sets, lack of music and focus on dialogue are reminiscent of the of early films of the sound era, we are drawn in to the lives of these character.  The film is features nearly the unabridged text of the play, is never boring, and is one of the screen’s great Shakespearean achievements. 

     

    Othello (1965)


  • Dishonored (1931, USA, Josef von Sternberg) ****

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Dishonored  (1931)

    Let's talk about sex.  Eroticism is infused with almost every frame of Josef von Sternberg's Dishonored. I say "almost" because the film is not sexual at all in the few scenes that Marlene Dietrich does not appear in.  Like her contemporary Greta Garbo and her modern day successor, Angelina Jolie, Dietrich is one of those cinematic goddesses who seem to transcend mere humanity and become one some kind of mythic figure.  Based on their screen personas, you sometimes wonder if the trio listed above actually exists, or if they are a fictional creation of some social psychologist.

    Dishonored is about a former prostitute who becomes a spy (she is known only by her code name, X-27), and gets men to tell them secrets by seducing them.  Because even the most average looking man would like to believe that an attractive woman would be interested in them, this is not surprising, but what is surprising is the way that the movie portrays the character.  It is not pornography.  It is about a smart woman who uses sex (or more accurately, her own eroticism) to gain her own ends rather than the viewers ends. The movie depicts her experiences as spy for Austria-Hungry during WWI, as she tries to expose two high level traitors (Warner Oland and Victor McLaglen) who really have loyalty to Russia.  Both missions end in a different, and surprising, way, and I am not going to ruin the film by saying more.

    And the movie must be about eroticism, because X-27 is never in a state of undress.  She is a beautiful woman, yes, but her appeal is entirely due to how she acts and what she does.  She does not get what she wants by showing people her body.  X-27 is one of the most powerful female characters of its era, and she is treated by her colleagues as an intelligent professional.  In a strange way, this could be considered a feminist film.

    Of course, Dishonored takes place in von Sternberg land, where everything is grandiose and somewhat ridiculous, but nothing is ever campy.  Perhaps von Sternberg's greatest asset as a director was to treat everything seriously, even when no human beings have ever, ever, been in the situations he puts them in.  But the movie is not stupid, and indeed it quite intelligent.  Towards the end of the film, X-27 does something surprising, that is moving only in retrospect, when you think about it after the movie is over, which is what the character would want.  She would never want you to feel sorry for her.

    Dishonored (1931)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement