MovieChat Forums > Othello (2002) Discussion > I saw part of it--

I saw part of it--

posted 18 years ago by critic-2
4 replies | jump to latest

-and it is NOT Shakespeare's play; in fact, the credits should read "inspired by Shakespeare's play", instead of giving the impression that this is actually a film version of it. It follows the basic outline of the story, true, but Shakespeare didn't invent the plot; he borrowed it from an older source (I forget what). Nearly all of the characters' names are changed, and most important of all, Shakespeare's language is completely gone!

Some may welcome this, but I think it's rather insulting to take an author, adapt one of his plays, remove one of that author's greatest attributes from it, and then pretend that the film is truly representing the author. It's one thing to do it if you're composing an opera based on the play, but if you are going for a straight dramatic adaptation, stick with the original dialogue.

(And even Verdi's opera "Otello" does its best to follow Shakespeare's play.)

If they were going to change it as much as they have, they shouldn't have called it "Othello". As it is, the makers are only pandering to today's illiterate young audiences.

[–] LookinGood 17 years ago

Adaptations like this introduced me to Shakespeare in the original (I am not English-speaking, so the Bard was never part of the school curriculum, and I wasn't that impressed with the translated plays I saw in theatres).
I generally love to see different takes on a story. I went to see "Othello" at the Globe in London this week, incidentally with Eamonn Walker as Othello (!), and on returning home, got out my tape with this TV adaptation to have another look at it. With the original play fresh in mind, I loved the contemporary touch they gave this story. I love Shakespearean English (although I struggle with it to the point I took along the play in book form to the theatre, to use as "subtitles"). In this case however, I loved how the film shows that Shakespeare can be deeply relevant today, after 400 years.
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters."

[–] offendedasies 17 years ago

First of all, I believe this is a fantastic adaptation of a Shakespeare text, compared to the other films I have been so unlucky to witness: O, She's the Man, 10 Things I hate About You. If you really want to critize a film for "only following the basic outline of Shakespeare's play", start with those...

Secondly, the character's names are only slightly changed to suit its contemporary audience (I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone called Iago, Roderigo or Cassio...) The names are John OTHELLO, DESSIE (obviously short for Desdemona), Ben JAGO (close to IAGO, yet more believable in today's society), Michael CASS, RODERICK.

I personally think you need to re-evaluate your definition of 'adaptation'...
It's ADAPTED for a modern audience. His language is no longer used because we, as a society, are more likely to accept and understand modern lanuage (because we use it...)

Lastly, I disagree that this film is in any way shape or form made for the "illerate"... We do not speak in Old English. Therefore not understanding it is not being illerate. The people in this film are speaking correct modern English throughout.

[–] sophie_lou21 16 years ago

I think you're wrong. The beautiful thing about adaptation is that people can put their own spin of things. You couldn't take the entire of Othello and recreate it in a modern world without changing things slightly like this does. Would you speak in Shakesperian language today in everyday life? No, you wouldn't. Unless it is an artistic piece like Romeo + Juliet, it's only natural that the writer would use modern language.

Personally I think this film is a brilliant piece of film with good actors and a good take on a timeless classic.

-

Shooting Stars [HMC Site] - http://sophie-lou.tripod.com/

[–] meg23 13 years ago

In response to the comment two posts ago, Shakespeare wrote in modern English. This is a fact. You would literally not understand Old English because it is a different language.
I'm not going to weigh in on the debate here because there are completely valid arguments on both sides as to the virtues of adapting Shakespeare's language to appeal to a modern audience.
I will say, though, in response to the original post, that this IS certainly an adaptation of Shakespeare's Othello because Shakespeare was adapting a very bare-bones short story which had 1) never been dramatically performed and 2) never been adapted in English before him. This is both those things, as well as keeping all of the names which Shakespeare invented for these characters and the plot twists which were almost all of Shakespeare's invention.

2008 Little Ashes 1/10
2011 Your Highness 6/10
1981 Eyewitness 5/10