criterionforum.org

It was not. The film is owned by both Larry Kramer and Martin Rosen. A good chunk of all the movies released by United Artists are independent films. In many cases the rights are owned in perpetuity in other cases they have to be renewed after X years.

Tip of the hat to Yami at blu-ray.com for finding the story.

And hopefully this is where they release The Immortal Story as a supplement.

Drucker wrote:And hopefully this is where they release The Immortal Story as a supplement.

'Filming Othello' would be more appropriate and a better option. But hey, bung them both on there.

Calvin wrote:Criterion to release Orson Welles' Othello in Fall 2015

With Criterion handling the release, there is now a slim possibility the alternate 1952 edit will be included. Regardless, at least it won't be a bare-bones release.

Roger Ryan wrote:With Criterion handling the release, there is now a slim possibility the alternate 1952 edit will be included.

In glorious upscaled SD!

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:

Drucker wrote:And hopefully this is where they release The Immortal Story as a supplement.

'Filming Othello' would be more appropriate and a better option. But hey, bung them both on there.

Naturally, but do they have rights to that? Immortal Story is (was when I had it) up on Hulu!

According to Wikipedia, Oja Kodar holds the rights to Filming Othello. Assuming that is correct, if there is some kind of rapprochement between Beatrice Welles and Kodar (i.e. the Other Side of the Wind developments), perhaps there is some possibility Filming Othello could be included in the release.

So according to blu-ray.com, all the primary features on the Carlotta Othello release are English-friendly. But only one on the Macbeth disc is! So between Carlotta and Olive, there are pretty much no English-friendly supplements for the film

martin wrote:My post further up with the various versions is rather messy. I guess it t could be boiled down (or expanded) to:

1. 1952 Cannes version - not released on video
2. 1953 European theatrical release (could be the same as version 1) - not released on video but shown by BBC, May 1982
3. 1955 US (and UK) version - released on laserdisc by Criterion Collection
4. 1992 Restoration not approved by Beatrice Welles-Smith - unreleased
5. 1992 Restoration approved by Beatrice Welles-Smith (theatrical version) - released theatrically
6. 1992 Restoration approved by Beatrice Welles-Smith (video version with additional scene) - released on dvd by Second Sight, Image Entertainment etc.

Still according to Michael Anderegg: Orson Welles - Shakespeare and Popular Culture, New York, 1999.

Perhaps more of a curio than anything else, but there is also the Italian language version which Welles was obligated to produce for the Italian market as part of a financing deal that included some government funding.

According to Alberto Anile's Orson Welles in Italy, it was in fact this dubbed version that was shown at the world premiere of the film in Rome on November 29, 1951, and which was in general release in Italy before the presentation at Cannes in May of 1952. This version was also very nearly shown at the Venice Film Festival in August of 1951, according to Anile, after Welles realized he would be unable to finish work on the English version in time. Ultimately he withdrew from the festival altogether.

As with all things Welles there's always the possibility that there may be some variations in the editing. Or it may be essentially the version shown at Cannes but with a different soundtrack. François Thomas and Jean-Pierre Berthomé seem to suggest in Orson Welles at Work that it is a unique edit, even if only a provisory one as far as Welles was concerned.

Assuming it still exists, would definitely be a welcome bonus in a deluxe Criterion edition (one that also included Filming Othello and the 1952 version with the spoken credits, of course) . . . .

In an update on Wellesnet regarding potential extras, Schlossberg commented that he believed the 1955 U.S. edit would be included. Of course, this is pretty much the same edit that was restored in '92 and will be the main feature on Criterion's release; the major difference being that Welles' own soundtrack (with the original music score) can be heard on the '55 version. As many will know, the '92 restoration features a re-recorded music score which appeared in (distracting) stereo at the time but which, I believe, was remixed in mono for its recent theatrical release.

MUBI is streaming this in "an HD restoration". The same one that will be used by Criterion, I presume?

Guessing "Filming Othello" is too much to hope for from the "More!"?

ando wrote: What a marvelous film. I had forgotten how visually impressive and deliberately stylized this film is. Welles' turn as Othello is commendable but Iago (played by Micheál MacLiammóir ) is an obvious villain (reptilian, as I once read one reviewer comment), so the complexity of character is lost a bit. Though it's just as well - the play of images is really the centerpiece of Welles' treatment. Its complexity (if one can call it such) lies in the juxtaposition and interplay of images and sequences (where the quick cutting opposed to long held shots, for example, creates psychological implications). It's a rewarding film if you take the time to pay attention to what Welles is doing.

Taught Othello about two weeks ago and watched Welles' version on a rather low quality scan from youtube. I'm hoping this new release gives me more of an appreciation of it. My initial thought was that I wish Welles had played Iago, but I'm curious to look at the more cinematic elements with this much needed upgrade.

Interesting they managed to include the 1955 version. I guess I'll have to double dip after all.

They're also charging ten bucks more for the second disc, which is only sometimes Criterion's policy

solaris72 wrote:Guessing "Filming Othello" is too much to hope for from the "More!"?

One can only hope. Who owns it? It's an essential dessert for the film and I doubt it would sell on its own despite being Welles-directed.

Love the amount of scholarship and content these Welles releases seem to bring out - makes me really salivate the options when they inevitably get to Ambersons and eventually, a few years down the line, revisit Citizen Kane.

That's interesting. Did you show this Welles version to your class? If I ever had to teach it I would go for the 1965 Laurence Olivier version just give students a sense of Othello as a play, which includes the stage conventions (dress, Brits approach to the text, exceptional actors (Jacobi, Maggie Smith, Olivier - to name a few) and, yes, the horrible (imo) blackface) and sense of structure. Welles' film relies so much on film techniques to tell the story that Shakespeare's accomplishment as a poet, not merely a good storyteller (borrowed as it was), might be overlooked in Welles' treatment.

I think his Chimes at Midnight is a marked improvement in terms of featuring Shakespeare's text to its advantage - although with that film an adroit handling of Shakespeare's text culled from several plays was of necessity.

Including both cuts of this is indeed fantastic. Am I correct in assuming that the recent 2K restoration of the 1992 Beatrice Welles-approved version is largely looked down upon, and thus inconsequential to include?

criterion10 wrote:Including both cuts of this is indeed fantastic.

Agreed. But sometimes I feel that looking at Welles' Shakespeare is akin to listening to a Billie Holiday version of a standard then being faced with the sheet music to sing. You almost have to go the original, or at least a conventional version, to appreciate what Welles is doing.

Oh, sorry! I thought you meant Welles vs. Olivier. Would be interesting to look at how the two approached The Bard through productions of the same plays, though.

That's really one of the reasons I wanted to go through all the BBC Shakespeare productions, in order to get that kind of grounding in the fundamentals of each play.

criterion10 wrote:Including both cuts of this is indeed fantastic. Am I correct in assuming that the recent 2K restoration of the 1992 Beatrice Welles-approved version is largely looked down upon, and thus inconsequential to include?

And this is the one on the Carlotta release, correct?