Why has the DVD gone out of stock?

Is it because it's now considered politically incorrect by some for a white actor with black makeup to play Othello?

Very possibly. Though I heard it was over restoration and copyright issues, yet nobody seems to mention what I know...

I saw this when I rented "O" on dvd many years ago, and it was on the special features. So if you can pay for "O," you can have Othello on DVD.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184791/

I'm pretty sure it is this rendition of Othello, and not another version but it's hard to know because it was many years ago that I watched it and most Othello films don't have a large amount of images out for me to check out online. But I do recall the black face more than anything else. The image really sits in one's mind in an unsettling way. I know I can't enjoy the film as it's distracting. Though I do recall it being dull and hard to understand with the poor sound.

In Cloud Atlas, the yellowface was distracting, but at least it wasn't in every scene or even every other scene, so there were times I wasn't distracted by it, and I could enjoy the film for the most part. I don't get why people are still doing it today when we have biracial actors that can do white and Asian roles without weird racist make up. At least something like Tropic Thunder made it ironic and socially ridiculous in the film.

I get at the time most white people accepted it but I'm sure most black people didn't. It's not about people being ridiculous about it now, it's that people were ridiculous and cruel about it then. It's not like they didn't have black people around to do it, they just wouldn't hire them, and instead Orson Welles did it himself. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. I know there were budgetary issues, but I wonder what else lead him to cover himself in black makeup. I know it wasn't his first time going that route (ie Voodoo Macbeth).

reply share

add reply

formatting help

i think what happened is nobody bought it....it was released on Criterion....it has nothing to do with politically incorrect issues....i worked on the restoration.....only film buffs bought it

reply share

add reply

formatting help

nope nope nope nope. The real reason - and a twisted one at that - is Welles's daughter who made a second version, claimed that it's the definitive one, and threatens to sue anyone who airs the original. Orson might enjoy that she's making money but then he also prided in not having people remake his films.

It's so she can make money. I have the second one, and immediately noticed how STRANGE the music sounded. She claims it was to offer a stereo version to young people. Beatrice was left the rights of the original and took advantage of a re-release film that isn't the same as the original, to profit because the copyright is solely hers. Original films have been out of print and the whole thing makes his movie hard to acquire. There is also dubbing and different voices than the Welles original. I certainly hope a Criterion disk release this fall returns to the original because the music in version 2 (there are three versions, as if no one would return to giving Orson credit for his OWN movie) really sounds out of place.

reply share

add reply

formatting help