Trimmed to a sharp ninety or so minutes and 'told' in flashback, (Othello's dead, Iago's a prisoner), Welles' version of "Othello" is naturally more Wellsian than Shakespearean and is none the worse for it, (no written credits; they are spoken by Welles and it's visually stunning despite, or perhaps because of, the five credited DoP's).
It had a troubled production and was filmed over a period of three years so it's not just remarkable that it's as good as it is but that it exists at all. It's not perfect and purists may hate it but if it seems less than great Shakespeare, it's certainly great Welles. He's a wonderful Othello yet even he is upstaged by Micheal MacLiammoir's Iago. Suzzane Cloutier's Desdemona is a weak link as is Michael Laurence's Cassio but when everything else is so good that's a small price to pay. It's also a hundred times better than Welles' disastrous version of "Macbeth".
It had a troubled production and was filmed over a period of three years so it's not just remarkable that it's as good as it is but that it exists at all. It's not perfect and purists may hate it but if it seems less than great Shakespeare, it's certainly great Welles. He's a wonderful Othello yet even he is upstaged by Micheal MacLiammoir's Iago. Suzzane Cloutier's Desdemona is a weak link as is Michael Laurence's Cassio but when everything else is so good that's a small price to pay. It's also a hundred times better than Welles' disastrous version of "Macbeth".