Review scorned

Sirs,—Mr. Benson's criticism of Othello (Salient—March 31, 1967) is probably true (in the cinematic sense). He says that Othello "cannot be criticised for being a virtual non-film (in the cinematic sense), since it could claim to be nothing more than a record on celluloid of a stage performance." Having said that he criticises the film for its lack of cinematic merit.

I will, however, ignore this inconsistency. Criticism is mainly pointed at Olivier's style of acting, examples of over-acting. "Over-sized emoting and large scale theatrics," the lack of sets, and a breathing corpse. This criticism presents the conclusion that, in fact, Othello was a record on celluloid of a stage performance—the very thing which Mr. Benson said could not be criticised as "being a virtual non-film."

Further I find criticisms pointing to the lack of sets and a breathing corpse as nauseating. The action and the text are the two important features of a Shakespearian play; not the practically irrelevant sets, costumes, breathing corpse and similar technicalities. These last mentioned items seem to capture Mr. Benson's mind in his search for the technically perfect.

Anybody reading Mr. Benson's criticism would be astonished by the words "or whatever the sobbing, slobbering and gymnastics are meant to indicate." Even a small knowledge of Shakespeare's Othello would enable Mr. Benson to realise; that this was Shakespeare's method of indicating insanity. Perhaps a primitive attempt when compared with the technique used in films such as REPULSION, but equally effective I believe, especially when it is remembered that Othello was written in an age when a totally different approach was taken towards the insane, for people of that age.

Mr. Benson admits he "went to see Othello with some misgivings." It is a pity he went unprepared to give, take, and use his imagination as is so necessary in any theatrical production of Shakespeare, whether recorded on celluloid or not.

J. A. Coleman