Richard III on the Screen: 

Olivier (1955), McKellen (1995), Pacino (1996)

NB. All lines are indicated according to the Penguin Shakespeare edition.

Richard III (1955)

Laurence Olivier – Richard III

Ralph Richardson – Buckingham

Lady Anne – Claire Bloom

Mary Kerridge – Queen Elizabeth

John Gielgud – Clarence

Alec Clunes – Hastings

Stanley Baker – Richmond

Clive Morton – Rivers

Directed by Laurence Olivier.

Adapted by Laurence Olivier (uncredited), Colley Cibber and David Garrick.

Colour. 161 min. 

Richard III (1955), starring Laurence Olivier in the title role and directed by him, has come to be regarded as a classic, even though it appears to be less critically acclaimed than his Hamlet (1948) or Henry V (1944). As it might be expected, the movie is a traditional adaptation, closer to filmed theatre production than to cinema, with historical sets and costumes. It's a sumptuous affair, if a little artificial by our modern and very spoiled standards, shot in vivid Technicolor.

The cuts are the usual ones – Margaret, citizens, etc. – and not very extensive in comparison with other versions. There are, indeed, some charming additions, most notably the beginning with the coronation of Edward IV which gives you an excellent opportunity to get introduced visually to the King, the Queen and the princes. There are also several other substantial re-arrangements. The most imaginative of these is the splitting of the ''wooing scene'' into two parts, with Anne twice spitting on Richard's face and his giving her two passionate kisses in the end. On the whole, the changes are ingeniously done; the movie flows as smoothly as does the play.

Additional confusion when comparing the play with the movie may come from the fact that Olivier reportedly used, not just wordless scenes from other plays (such as the opening one which comes from Henry VI, Part III), but even some lines not by Shakespeare at all, such as interpolations by Colley Cibber and David Garrick (both duly credited). Never mind that. On its own, the movie suffers from no structural deficiencies.

Laurence Olivier as Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Blu-ray)

Laurence Olivier as Richard, Duke of Gloucester  (Blu-ray)

Olivier in the title role is unforgettable. The straight, black hair; the large, well-shaped nose; the sly look in the eyes; the brisk movements; the suave gestures: everything seems to fit like the pieces of a puzzle. He delivers the text in a curiously high-pitched, not very pleasant voice, and often rather fast, but nonetheless very fluently, with perfect diction, superb confidence and many subtle inflections. His direction is equally fine, my only qualms being the scarcity of close-ups and the too static presentation of some scenes. That said, there are some imaginative angles that work almost like flashbacks (e.g. during Richard's opening soliloquy which is also cut into several pieces to a great effect) and a great deal of effective work with lights and shadows.

Laurence Olivier as Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Great moments abound. There are hardly any others. For example, note the killer look to the younger prince when he makes a joke about Richard's deformed shoulder, or his malevolent face, only half lit, when he says that his kingdom ''stands on brittle glass''. A particular favourite of mine is Richard's demonstrating to Tyrrel how to use pillow as a most effective weapon. Another innovation that fits the play like a glove occurs after the charade with the Lord Mayor and the crowd. Here Richard comes down by the bell rope and, though not yet a king, offers his hand to (the unpleasantly surprised) Buckingham to kiss, and kneel. This also makes the later fall-out between them somewhat more credible. The final monologue is unfortunately badly cut, but Richard's face during the nightmares is positively scary.

The supporting cast boasts at least two other Shakespearean legends: John Gielgud (Clarence) and Ralph Richardson (Buckingham). The latter is especially memorable as the cunning master of the court intrigue, but the former is a little stilted (but Clarence is not a very grateful part anyway). Claire Bloom (Anne) and Mary Kerridge (Elizabeth) are serviceable rather than memorable.

All in all, a great way to start your video exploration of Richard III. The other two versions, whatever their merits, are much more abridged and take much bigger liberties with the original.

Richard III (1995)

Ian McKellen – Richard III

Jim Broadbent – Buckingham

Kristin Scott Thomas – Lady Anne

Maggie Smith - Duchess of York

Annette Bening – Queen Elizabeth

Nigel Hawthorne – Clarence

Jim Carter – Hastings

Dominic West – Richmond

Robert Downy Jr. – Rivers

Directed by Richard Loncraine.

Adapted by Ian McKellen and Richard Loncraine.

Colour. 104 min.

Richard III (1995), directed by Richard Loncraine and with Ian McKellen in the title role, transports you from fifteenth century England to a fictional place that looks, and sounds, very much like England from the 1930s. Appropriately, Richard is a Nazified maniac who enters into a civil war with tanks and bombs. The only difference is that his huge red flags, instead of swastika, have, of course, a boar.

Visually the movie is spectacular, with lavish sets and costumes that make for a great atmosphere, no expense spared. It's a little too graphic at some places, but I daresay this fits the plot very well. Clarence's throat is cut in his bathtub, Rivers is stabbed through while entertaining a lady in the bed, the young princes are suffocated with handkerchief, Hastings is hanged, Buckingham strangled: all this more or less ''onstage''. Richard topped them all by throwing himself from a high building into a great fire below, smiling all the time; a little overblown but not entirely inappropriate solution. The ''wooing'' scene takes place in the morgue, around the naked body of Edward, shot in the chest and in the head by Richard in the very beginning of the movie. Altogether harrowing yet haunting spectacle.

Unfortunately the original is very substantially cut; at least half of it is missing, but the rest is very cleverly arranged. I understand it was McKellen himself who did the job, and since he had reportedly played the part (nearly) complete on stage many times before, it is no wonder that he achieved excellent continuity and admirable preservation of the spirit. The movie is extremely fast-paced, it runs for only about 100 minutes or so, and makes a most effective use of modern (for the 1930s) technology. There are also some smart changes in the order and the nature of the events, none of them really detrimental. For example, Richard meets Tyrrel in the beginning and later turns him into his most trusted hired killer. He appears as one of the two murderers of Clarence and then continues to remove human obstacles from Richard's way to the top.

Ian McKellen as Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Not all cuts or changes are commendable, though. Inserting Richmond's marriage to Elizabeth (not the ex-queen; her daughter) is both unnecessary and unconvincing. It is mentioned as arranged but it never happens in the play, rightly so. Even more misguided is the showing of Richmond and Elizabeth naked in bed, apparently having spent their first night together right before the final battle. There are also some lines that are cut very badly indeed. For instance, ''He hath no friends but what are friends for fear, / Which in his dearest need will fly from him'' (V.2.20-21) has, for some obscure reason, been reduced merely to ''He hath no friends''. No matter. These are small quibbles in an otherwise clever and exhilarating adaptation.

The cast is quite impressive. Ian McKellen steals the show completely. 'Tis a pity that such a great actor is mostly known worldwide from movies like The Lord of the Rings and The Da Vinci Code. He plays a sinister Richard not easily forgotten. Most of his soliloquies, or what's left of them, he delivers directly to the camera (as did Olivier), and there's nothing better to put you in Richard's confidence. One of the movie's most unorthodox touches is to make the beginning of ''Now is the winter of our discontent'' a public speech during a lavish royal party. The rest of it, very ingeniously, takes place in the toilet.

For Ian McKellen alone the movie is very much worth seeing. The only unconvincing part is ''A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!'' which Richard shouts in a military jeep in the middle of explosions and roaring machine guns. The line, notwithstanding its fame, should have been omitted. Interestingly, these are not Richard's last words. Instead, before flying off the edge, he says these two lines which occur a little earlier in the play:

March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell;
If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.
[V.3.313-4.]

The rest of the cast includes some great hits and some near misses. Annette Bening plays a Queen Elizabeth not without some weak moments, but she is especially fine in the powerful last scene with Richard. Robert Downey Jr. is pretty dull as the bohemian and lecherous Rivers, a radical but convincing departure from Shakespeare. Kristin Scott Thomas does a thoroughly mediocre job as Lady Anne, sufficiently mentally unstable to do what she did and end as a drug addict. Maggie Smith is excellent as the Duchess (Margaret is of course completely omitted), but Jim Broadbent (Buckingham) and Jim Carter (Hastings) are rather stodgy, quite overshadowed by McKellen.

The movie is not lacking in insightful moments that bring something like revelation to the text. Perhaps my favourite example, apart from McKellen's solo passages, are the short but good laugh that Richard and Buckingham had after the farce they played for the Lord Mayor. It's one of the most amusing scenes in the play (III.5.) and it's terrific to see it acted so marvellous over the top. Ironically, it led straight to Richard's being elected King in a spectacle that Adolf would have relished.

Ian McKellen as Richard III

Another very perceptive touch is Richard's speaking to the camera his line ''I thank my God for my humility!'' in the end of the scene where he ostensibly declares his good intentions towards everybody. In the play (II.1.74) the line is not marked to be spoken ''aside'' but this fits the scene to perfection. It's also in line with Richard's passion for mockery and his fierce delight in his own artistic skills. One almost expects him to say something like ''I'd like to thank the Academy''.

If you are not afraid of controversial adaptations, give this one a try. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Looking for Richard (1996)

Al Pacino – Richard III/Himself

Kevin Spacey – Buckingham/Himself

Winona Ryder – Lady Anne/Herself

Penelope Allen – Queen Elizabeth/Himself

Alec Baldwin – Clarence/Himself

Kevin Conway – Hastings/Himself

Aidan Quinn – Richmond

Madison Arnold – Rivers/Himslef

Estelle Parsons – Margaret

Directed by Al Pacino.

Adapted by Al Pacino and Frederick Kimball.

Colour. 112 min.

Looking for Richard (1996) is an entirely different stuff than all previous movies. It's a kind of documentary about a stage production of the play, starring Al Pacino in the title role. The movie is his debut as a director.

It's a strange mixture, this film. There are only several excerpts from the play but they include the most important ones: the opening soliloquy, the ''wooing'' scene, the murder of Clarence, the fall-out with Buckingham, the hiring of Tyrrel, Richard's nightmare, the final battle and his death. So, in fact, this version is not so much more abridged than the Loncraine-McKellen one.

In between there are fascinating outtakes, rehearsals, readings around the table, discussions about casting, characters, plot and historical background. It's all very informal and amusing, often shot in a deliberately amateurish manner and edited not without a sense of fun. As a special bonus, there are even some interviews with people from the streets (in New York?) apparently taken by Pacino himself. Sadly, but hardly unexpectedly, most of them knew Shakespeare by name only and had never heard of Richard III at all. There are also several interviews, much too short unfortunately, with renowned Shakespearean actors from the other side of the Atlantic such as John Gielgud, Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh.

For Pacino fans, of which I am one, it's a compelling opportunity to see the man who played Michael Corleone and Tony Montana (excellent preparation for Richard!) in a somewhat unusual light. He frankly admits that he doesn't quite know why they (he and some of his friends) are doing this movie at all, but it's been a dream of his to show how he feels about Shakespeare and they'll give it a try. I am glad they did. Pacino's performance is stellar at all fronts: delivery of the text, facial expressions, moving like a hunchback, even the direction itself. In the ''wooing'' or in the ''nightmare'' scenes he is positively mesmerising. His is a very human Richard.

Memorable moments abound and reward re-watching. One of the most compelling is the doubling of that magnificently shouted ''If'' in the scene where Richard confronts Hastings as a traitor. Had he been there, Pacino might have torn down the walls of Jericho with this voice of his. His laughter at ''I will not keep her long'' is an epitome of mockery, his final soliloquy (or what's left of it) sounds like a deeply affecting confession. Some of the explanations of the plot – by Pacino, his friends or some scholars – are also illuminating. For example, the elusive role of Mistress Shore is well explained as an important link between Edward IV and Hastings.

The supporting cast is intriguing, to say the least. Winona Ryder is hardly the best Lady Anne imaginable, but she is at least pretty enough to explain Richard's unholy desires. Alec Baldwin (Clarence), Kevin Spacey (Buckingham) and Kevin Conway (Hastings) are impressive. Penelope Allen is a little wooden as Elizabeth, but she compensates by lots of passion. Harris Yulin (Edward IV) and Estelle Parsons (Margaret, not entirely cut here) are disappointing, but no matter. The movie is worth some 110 minutes of your time, especially if you are interested in Shakespeare's Richard III. Indeed, if the play moves you, the film is a must-see.

By the way, somewhat strangely, the movie starts and ends with Prospero's words about the ''stuff as dreams are made on'' from The Tempest. The voice sounds much like Laurence Olivier's, but he is not credited anywhere, at least so far as I have noticed.

One last interesting coincidence. In Nuremberg (2000), where he plays the role of Justice Jackson, Alec Baldwin quotes in his final speech one memorable part from the ''wooing'' scene (I.2.89-90)*, trying to convince the jury that if they do not find the defendants guilty, this would mean that there had been no war and no crime.

*Richard: Say that I slew them not?

Anne: Then say they were not slain. But dead they are…

Al Pacino as Richard III

The major problem with all movie versions – most notably with McKellen's – is that they present only part of the play. Leaving aside that comparisons between both mediums can be very confusing, reducing the minor characters as well as cutting many of Richard's own lines lead to oversimplifying of the protagonist almost to the point of caricature. The main message about the evil genius who craves for power comes through well enough. But there is much more to Richard than that. Moreover, cutting some scenes down to their bare bones usually makes them look perfunctory and unconvincing. It is sometimes difficult to believe how Richard actually manages to take in some of the other characters (even when they look more cardboard than ever). If you come to such moments, have a look inside the book and you will know the truth.

That said, all three movies compensate for the butchery by supplying feasts for the eye and very insightful treatment of certain scenes.

Othello on the Screen: 
Welles (1952), Olivier (1965), White (1990), Fishburne (1996)

Othello (1952)

Orson Welles – Othello

Micheál MacLiammóir – Iago

Suzanne Cloutier – Desdemona

Fay Compton – Emilia

Michael Laurence – Cassio

Robert Coote – Roderigo

Directed by Orson Welles.

B&W. 90 min / 93 min (TCM print)

Orson Welles turned out to be much more disappointing than I expected – at least as an actor. He greatly downplays the character, emphasising the nobility inherent in it, and that's fine with me. The trouble is that he goes too far and Othello comes off very unconvincingly as a meek lamb. Welles, moreover, often seems too preoccupied with the words and pays too little attention to their meaning. At least to me, he seldom sounds like a human being.

Orson Welles as Othello

As a director, however, Welles is brilliant. Except for a few rough moments, when one is at loss what actually happens, the movie is a visual tour de force. It's black-and-white, of course, and the camera work is not up to modern standards, but there are many moments that are visually haunting. The opening scene provides a memorable example. It shows the funeral of Othello and Desdemona, with Iago being locked up in a hanging cage. This is not in the play, but it looks majestic on the screen. Throughout the whole movie Welles' use of visual angles and lighting is masterful.

Unfortunately, the visual side is the only real merit of this film. Why it is generally and generously praised I really don't know. The play is severely cut, with explanatory narratives inserted occasionally, and both the continuity and the characters suffer from that. Orson Welles is easily the finest part of the cast, but that's simply because the rest is dismal. I don't even remember the names of those who played Iago, Desdemona and Cassio. They are not worth remembering anyway.

It's a fascinating historical curiosity, Welles' Othello, but hardly anything more.

Othello (1965)

Laurence Olivier – Othello

Frank Finlay – Iago

Maggie Smith – Desdemona

Joyce Redman – Emilia

Derek Jacobi - Cassio

Robert Lang – Roderigo

Directed by Stuart Burges.
Colour. 165 min. Based on the 1964 production in the National Theatre directed by John Dexter.

Trailer with Laurence Olivier.



Stuart Burge's movie is remarkably fine visually. It is rather static compared to the modern Hollywood wonders, but for a filmed stage production it is very well shot and very well directed. The sets and the costumes are simple and repetitive, but effective enough. The movie now comes in superb stereo sound that renders every word with exemplary clarity, and in splendid colour that's quite amazing for a 1965 production of BHE (British Home Entertainment). Last but not least, there are relatively few cuts, mostly judicious ones (e.g. the rhymed couplets of Brabantio and the Duke in Act I), occasionally not so (e.g. Iago's turning Desdemona's goodness into a pitch to enmesh them all).

Leaving aside problems with interpretations, the acting is absolutely outstanding. People who still claim that Shakespeare cannot be spoken naturally should really see this film. The flow of speech is nearly flawless, the rhythm and the various inflections are magnificently executed. Nearly every word is audible, and it is worth hearing. Looking into the parts themselves, however, reveal some disturbing nuances.

Laurence Olivier as Othello

The chief bone of contention is Olivier's Othello. This is an extremely unorthodox and controversial interpretation. And I would lie if I said that I enjoy it half as much as Olivier's Hamlet or Richard III. For the sake of charity I will pass over the horrendous make-up (this Othello evidently comes from Sudan, if not from Congo), the weird accent and the clumsy walk: all this was no doubt quite acceptable to the Elizabethan audience, if not to the modern one. My only concern here is not that this is a slightly racist treatment of the character (though that's bad enough), but that I am not sure the delivery of the poetry is true to Shakespeare's spirit.

Olivier's Othello is a perplexing affair. Virtually all great scenes with him – with the Venetian senate in Act I, with Iago in Act III, with Desdemona and Emilia in Act IV, the final one in Act V – are bizarre mixtures of deeply moving moments that nearly bring tears to my eyes and hammy histrionics that border on farcical caricature. It goes without saying that Othello is a part that would benefit from some overt-the-top acting – but within a reason. Olivier's Moor all too often looks and sounds like a savage, and hardly the noble one. Now, Othello is keen on exaggerating his own crudeness and lack of social graces – ''Rude am I in speech'', ''And have not those soft parts of conversation'' – but there is hardly anything in his lines to suggest such shouting and crying, not to mention the elaborate gymnastics, as are regularly employed here. In his more restrained moments, most notably in the great final speech which he delivers with tears in his eyes, Olivier is deeply affecting.

Whatever misgivings one might have about Olivier's interpretation of Othello – and I have many – it cannot be denied that his acting has consistency and coherence that are quite extraordinary. It's nearly impossible for me to believe that this is the same man who played Richard III ten years earlier and Hamlet still seven years before that. It's not just the make-up, although it does help. The voice, much lower than usual, and the whole body language are startlingly different in every aspect. I have seldom been convinced in Olivier's nearly mythical status as strongly as when I watch his Othello. I completely disagree with a thousand things, yet I find him totally compelling. I can't get my eyes off him. This must be great acting all right.

Certainly, if Othello moves you deeply, you should see this movie. If it doesn't, of course you shouldn't. Despite my reservations, I am glad that Olivier (58 years old in 1965) finally managed to preserve his Othello for posterity.

Othello (Laurence Olivier) and Iago (Frank Finlay)

Iago of Frank Finlay is every bit as accomplished but very nearly perfect, interpretation-wise. I often see his performance described as ''underplayed''. This, thank Heavens, is quite true. It is absolutely essential that Iago must not be made into a bluff jester, for then the rest of the cast look very stupid for being taken in. There are at least four Iagos in the play – with Othello, with Cassio, with Roderigo, with Emilia – and Finlay is totally convincing at all fronts. Not only the other characters, but the audience, too, is never in doubt about his honesty. Because of his marvellous restraint, the few slightly outlandish gestures he allows himself (e.g. imitating a bull with horns) are all the more charming and effective.

(A piece of trivia for movie buffs. If you have the nagging doubt that Frank Finlay seems familiar to you, that you have seen him somewhere else much older, this may be because he played the part of the Father in Roman Polanski's The Pianist, some 37 years after this Othello. Mr Finlay has aged well; his face is still recognisable, although Iago's grey hair has become snowy white.)

Clockwise from top left:
Othello (Laurence Olivier), Desdemona (Maggie Smith),
Iago (Frank Finlay), Emilia (Joyce Redman)

The rest of the cast is very fine indeed. Maggie Smith actually makes Desdemona better than she is on paper. Who cares about Desdemona really? She is just a piece of stage furniture, dramatically very convenient but with no character at all. Well, Maggie Smith made me feel almost sorry for her in the end. The young and dashing Derek Jacobi is a terrific Cassio to the last word; his drunken scene is hilarious. Joyce Redman, apart from her nearly losing her voice from shouting in the final scene, is a most decent Emilia.

All in all, this is a most powerful production, warts and all. I was astonished to read once Olivier's describing his performance here as ''tired''. If that amount of raw energy is ''tired'', I do wonder what he must have looked like on the stage. It is regrettable that this production never made it into a full-scale movie, but we should be grateful that it was preserved at all. In addition to the explosive Olivier, the movie boasts superb supporting cast and accomplished direction by Stuart Burges. A must-see; even if you came to detest Olivier’s Othello, there is a lot more to enjoy here.

Othello (1990)

(Theatre Night: Season 5, Episode 1)

Willard White – Othello

Ian McKellen – Iago

Imogen Stubbs – Desdemona

Zoë Wanamaker – Emilia

Sean Baker- Cassio

Michael Grandage – Roderigo

Directed by Trevor Nunn.
Colour. 204 min. TV version of the Royal Shakespeare Company production from their 1989 season in Stratford and London.

In a single sentence, Ian McKellen ruins completely a remarkably hideous movie.

Ian McKellen does his ruining effect by being far too brilliant for this outstandingly ugly production, full of mediocre acting and amateurish direction. He is the only reason to inflict a good deal of pain on your eyes by seeing this movie.

Ian McKellen is a born actor. Especially when he obviously relishes the part, as he did Richard III also, he has the miraculous ability to invest every word with a special meaning. At the same time he remains perfectly natural – an even greater miracle. Even when he resorts to histrionics, which is seldom as in the passionate "I hate the Moor", he still sounds, and looks, totally convincing. He delivers all soliloquies directly to the camera, a most compelling illusion of intimacy, and it's not hard to see how, in all other scenes, he takes in all the rest of the cast that he is the jovial, hearty, "honest Iago". This is a superb portrayal of complex and fascinating character, more than worthy of standing besides Frank Finlay and Kenneth Branagh.

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast, though not really bad, is quite a bit below McKellen's level.

Willard Whyte has a magnificent voice and his pronunciation is exemplary; you need no subtitles to write down the complete part under his dictation. But in the beginning he underplays the character so much, that his outbursts later seem unconvincing. Some of his more robust moments – like his blowing his love to heaven – are pretty ridiculous. As a general rule, he is too mechanical and too artificial in his delivery; too calculating and careful to infuse the Moor with passion. He suffers from TWS (The Welles Syndrome). For the most part he sounds like an actor who tries really hard to do justice to a part which is just beyond him; his delivery is more like a dictation or recitation. An interesting and decent performance, on the whole, certainly worth seeing, yet vastly forgettable.

Imogen Stubbs does nothing special to elevate the role of Desdemona above the level of a foolish girl who has a crush on the war hero – only to become his nagging wife. The part has more to it than that, but Miss Stubbs doesn't know how – or simply can't – bring it out. Emilia, Cassio and Roderigo are rather fine, but none of them – despite very few cuts in the text – is especially notable either.

I have never understood the passion for modernized staging that seems to have obsessed both the theatre and the opera stage for quite some time now. To justify itself such staging must either improve the dramatic strength of the original or has a special aesthetic appeal. Trevor Nunn's doesn't and hasn't. The 19th century costumes and sets are bare and drab to the extreme. The lighting is much too dark. The embarrassingly clumsy direction might have come from some of the less talented students of the local art academy.

All in all, TV theatre at its worst. I am awed by people who find such productions beautiful and/or dramatically strong. I find them ugly and tedious. Still, for Ian McKellen's subtle and cunning Iago this film is a must-see for all fans of Shakespeare's Othello. The rest of the cast provides but an occasional moment of mild insight diluted with much lacklustre reciting of great poetry. The abominable direction and the hideous production is the necessary evil to be endured.

Othello (1995)

Laurence Fishburne – Othello

Kenneth Branagh – Iago

Irene Jacob – Desdemona

Anna Patrick – Emilia

Nathaniel Parker – Cassio

Michael Maloney – Roderigo

Adapted and directed by Oliver Parker.

Colour. 123  min.

Oliver Parker's movie is visually impressive and makes a fine use of the many advantages offered by modern cinema. The diversity of locations is wonderful, the sets and the costumes are sumptuous historical affairs, the direction is nearly perfect, with lots of fine close-ups and many gorgeous mass scenes. The play is greatly cut, of course, but most of the finest passages – Iago's soliloquies, Othello's final speech – are retained, although the action may seem a little rushed from time to time.

I am dismayed to see the movie accused of ''excessive sexuality''. There is no such thing. There are some steamy scenes, certainly, but all of them, the consummation of Othello's marriage and his fantasies about Cassio and Desdemona, are crucial to the plot – unless one takes a prudish point of view that hardly suits Shakespeare. All sex scenes, of course, are very stylishly done. For my part, they add a special flavour which makes the whole story more convincing. It might be argued, on the other hand, that this shifts Othello's feelings too much to the carnal side. Then again, this is an adaptation, and it should be expected to take liberties with the original.

The cast is the real problem in this movie.

Othello (Laurence Fishburne) and Iago (Kenneth Branagh)

Laurence Fishburne looks fine for Othello, and he is an excellent actor, but his delivery of the text is problematic. Only in the final scene he finally manages to convey something of the Moor's innate nobility of soul. But in many other places – the Venetian senate, the brawl – he completely fails to project Othello's natural authority. (''Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them'' always make me wince.) All too often he sounds too mechanical, too calculated, too artificial. He seems much too concerned about his pronunciation, but not enough about the meaning of the words; again the Welles Syndrome, only much aggravated. When there is no talking – the epileptic fit, the first jealous thoughts, the smothering of Desdemona – Fishburne delivers passionate and compelling performances.

Irene Jacob is an even greater disappointment. Leaving aside that her large features don't fit my personal ideas of feminine loveliness, she is even more stilted and wooden than Fishburne. Even in the final scene she doesn't manage to do anything memorable. Then again, as I have said many times, her character is hardly worth bothering about. One nice little change of the original is Desdemona's recovery of consciousness only to die without uttering a word. Perhaps I am too harsh on the girl. Considering that this is not just her first Shakespearean experience, but first movie in English at all, she could have been much worse.

Kenneth Branagh completely steals the show. That's to be expected, of course. He is the only one among the principals with any experience with Shakespeare. In fact, he is a Shakespearean veteran: on the next year he made his Hamlet (1996), behind his back he already had Henry V (1989) and Much Ado About Nothing (1993).

Now this is a tremendous interpretation of Iago. I am as much fascinated with it as I am disappointed with Branagh's Hamlet. There are no hammy histrionics here. This Iago is no cheap buffoon that makes you wonder how anybody, let alone everybody, could trust him. Branagh's acting is so convincing that one can almost believe that Iago really cares for Othello's suffering, really wants to help Roderigo, really is sorry for Cassio's loss of reputation. Indeed, in his first soliloquy Iago may almost make you feel sorry for him!

Kenneth Branagh as Iago

Much of this fascination comes from the fact that Iago delivers all of his soliloquies directly to the camera, an approach I have always found extremely compelling. Occasionally, he also glances furtively to the camera, as if to invite you in his private machinations. One such moment is when he hugs Roderigo, who is totally taken in that the Ancient would give everything to help him. We know better: a single glance by Branagh is enough to convince us that Roderigo is already a dead man. And there is one other moment, even more effective, when Iago, while reflecting how he would turn Desdemona's virtue into a net to enmesh them all, actually blackens the camera with his own hand. Now this is brilliant, or, in another four words, great acting, great directing.

My only slight disappointment with Iago, or rather with the adaptation, is that in the final scene he should lie, stabbed and probably dying, together with the other three corpses. It's not that Iago doesn't deserve death. It's just not dramatically effective. A much better solution would have been his regarding the bloodshed in the bed with an ironic smile.

The supporting cast has some fine members. Michael Maloney is a great Roderigo; quite an achievement considering how ungrateful the part is. Nathaniel Parker is good if a little bland as Cassio. (Interestingly enough, both of these actors have played Laertes on the screen: Michael in Branagh's adaptation, 1996; Nathaniel in Zeffirelli's, 1990.) The completely unknown to me Anna Patrick, an actress with singularly square but not unattractive face, is a superb Emilia; in the final scene she almost steals the show from Othello. Pierre Vaneck is remarkably memorable in the minor part of Brabantio. It was a pleasure to see again Gabriele Ferzetti (the Duke). Nearly three decades earlier he had become well-known as the railroad tycoon Morton from Sergio Leone's classic Once Upon a Time in the West (1968). Enough trivia.

In conclusion, this is visually beautiful, briskly paced, and imaginatively directed movie. As an adaptation of Shakespeare's mighty tragedy, it is worth seeing mostly for Branagh’s mesmerising Iago, to a much lesser extent for Fishburne’s Moor or Anna Patrick’s Emilia. As an introduction to Othello on the screen, it is an excellent starting point before you switch to longer versions with fewer cuts.