Othello, 1965
By Karl Waterbury
It is an unfortunate truth that some of the great works of art from the past do not align with our modern-day moral sensibilities. While this is undoubtedly true for great works from 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years ago, the further back the piece of art goes, the more problematic it becomes. This is especially true of many stories we call “classics” (i.e., those that have stood the test of time). How can a story with such dated moral views be considered classic? Why do we keep them around once our morals have progressed beyond the mindset in which they were written? This question will be answered with an example from a man who needs no introduction, William Shakespeare.
Among the many Shakespeare classics, few are as controversial and iconic as Othello. The story tells of a noble Moor, living in Italy, married to the love of his life, Desdemona, a beautiful white lady of noble birth. However, unbeknownst to Othello, the man he considers his most loyal friend, Iago, is really his greatest nemesis. This vile schemer concots a plan to ruin the Moor’s life once and for all. Throughout the play, he poisons Othello’s mind into believing that his wife is having an affair with the handsome Cassio. Othello falls victim to anger and jealousy, resulting in his murdering his wife. Only after he executes his execution does he realize that Iago had deceived him. Othello, if a fit of grief, kills himself.
The tragedy is compelling, but it is also plagued by controversy. Shakespeare, a white man, wrote about a black man in 1604. It is rife with racism. The mixed marriage is compared to a black ram tupping a white ewe (Act 1, scene 1, lines 97-98). Othello and Desdemona’s theoretical child is referred to as the “beast with two backs (Act 1, scene 1, lines 130-131).” This implies that it will be half-human. Desdemona’s father describes their mixed marriage as ‘unnatural’ and compares it to witchcraft. “She is abused, stolen from me, and corrupted by spells and medicines bought of mountebanks (wandering quacks); for nature so preposterously should err, being not deficient, blind, or lame of sense, sans witchcraft could not!” (Act 1, scene 3, lines 73-77). “Against all rules of nature, and must be driven to find out the practices of cunning Hell, why this should be. I therefore vouch again that with some mixtures, powerful over the blood, or with some dram (magic potion) conjured to this effect, he wrought upon her.” (Act 1, scene 3, lines 119-124). This argument against mixed marriage being unnatural is no different than homophobes who call same-sex marriage unnatural. It goes to show that prejudice is a distortion of the human mind, regardless of who the bigotry is targeted against.
To be fair, the vast majority of the racism comes from the villains. Iago refers to Othello as an “erring barbarian.” (Act 1, scene 3, line 398.) Iago also finds it hard to believe that a person can be black and intelligent at the same time. He sings, “If she be black and therefore have a wit, she’ll find a white that her blackness hit.” (Act 2, scene 1, lines 147-148). Iago believes he can not only trick Othello into believing that his wife is having an affair, but that he can convince Desdemona to have an affair with Cassio because white men are more attractive to black men. “What delight shall she have to look on the devil? When the blood is made dull with the act of sport, there should be, (again) to inflame it and to give satiety a fresh appetite, loveliness in favor, sympathy in years, manners, and beauties, all which the Moor is defective in.” (Act 2, scene 1, lines 248-252). The ‘blood’ in these lines refers to sexual desire. The act of sport refers to lovemaking. Basically, Iago believes Desdemona will cheat on Othello because she will grow bored with their sex, and will seek a white man who has all the traits that Othello supposedly can’t have because he is black. He even mixes religion into his prejudice by calling Desdemona a sinner for loving a black man. “If she had been blessed, she would never have loved the Moor.” (Act 2, Scene 1, lines 274-275). However, Desdemona remains loyal throughout the play, making her the only non-racist central character.
So far, the examples of racism cited come straight from villains or antagonists, but even Othello joins in. He literally says that he is not as eloquent a speaker or as peaceful as his white counterparts! “Rude I am in my speech, and little blessed with the soft phrase of peace.” (Act 1, scene 3, lines 96-97). He even worries about Desdemona having an affair because he views himself as inferior to white Cassio. “Haply for I am black, and have not the parts of conversation,” (Act 3, Scene 3, lines 265-270).
Even when the play attempts to complement Othello, it still manages to be racist. The duke tells Desdemona’s father to calm down and to accept the marriage. He then says the following, “Your son-in-law is far more fair than black.” (Act 1, scene 3, line 331). As if being fair and black were somehow opposites, or contrasted with each other.
Othello has aged terribly, but for 1604, depicting a mixed-race couple was considered a groundbreaking move. People’s understandings and moral principles were just not the same back in those days as they are now. While the play’s racism is not justifiable, it is understandable. Although its racism is inseparable from the play, it would be foolhardy for a modern adaptation to add more needlessly. So, why was a white man chosen to perform in blackface for the 1965 adaptation?
Laurence Olivier starred as Othello in the 1965 version directed by Stuart Burge, in association with the National Theatre of Great Britain. While Mr. Olivier’s performance in the play was gut-wrenching and tragic, it was still uncomfortable to watch. Now, Othello does have a tradition of being performed by white men in blackface,1 so Laurence probably thought, “Well, this is the way that it’s always been done,” but this movie came out during the middle of the 60s, when everyone was at each other’s throats over civil rights for black. The Civil Rights Act had already been passed, and Sidney Poitier had won an Oscar.1 People’s attitudes toward blacks were starting to shift. So, why would Laurence Olivier do this?
Laurence’s makeup wasn’t even a convincing portrayal of black people. I had never heard of or seen Mr. Olivier before discovering this movie, and even I was able to identify him as a white man at first glance. I wasn’t the only one. Bosley Crowther in his New York Times article had some very harsh words to say about the makeup used on Laurence Olivier: “…he caps his shiny blackface with a wig of kinky black hair, and he has the insides of his lips smeared and thickened with a startling raspberry red. Several times, in his rages or reflections, he rolls his eyes up into his head so that the whites gleam like small milk agates out of the inky face. The consequence is that he hits one—the sensitive American, anyhow — with the by-now outrageous impression of a theatrical Negro stereotype. He does not look like a Negro (if that’s what he’s aiming to make the Moor)—not even a West Indian chieftain, which some of the London critics likened him to. He looks like a Rastus or an end man in an American minstrel show.”2
Was Laurence Olivier the best man for the job? He’d performed in Shakespeare plays before,1 so he was definitely qualified in the skills department (as evident in his acting in the movie). Shouldn’t the job go to the most qualified actor? Well, there were plenty of other talented black actors at the time who could have played the Moor. There’s the above-mentioned Sidney Poitier, but there was also Louis Gossett Jr., Ivan Dixon, and Joel Fluellen. Well, it turns out that Sidney Poitier was initially planned to be cast as Othello, but refused to “Go on stage and give audiences a black man who is a dupe.”3 That right there should have been the director and producers’ first red flag about this project. Somehow, they managed to make it even worse!
While there have been many adaptations of Othello (and most modern versions are nowhere near as bad as this), Laurence Olivier’s portrayal remains a black sheep within the world of Shakespeare. Debate arises as to what should be done with it. There are two real options: sweep it under the rug and act like it never happened, or simply accept it as a stain on The National Theatre of Great Britain that it is.
The first option evokes a memory of a highly controversial character from Disney’s 1940 Fantasia, named Sunflower. She was a blackface centaur who was portrayed as ugly and dim-witted compared to the more attractive white female centaurs, whom she served in preparing them for the males’ arrival. However, she was edited out of all versions released after 1969 due to the rise in the Civil Rights movement.4 While Disney is right to try to change the direction of the company, this specific choice is gaslighting. It’s not enough that the studio needs to change. It also needs to cover its butt to give the illusion that it never had this problem to begin with. This is a slimy tactic that is manipulative, cowardly, and more racist.
Compare that to how Warner Bros. handled their controversial cartoons of the past. If you put in a DVD, Blu-ray, or VHS (I’m not the only one who still uses those, right?) of old Looney Tunes, you will be greeted by the following disclaimer before one of the controversial episodes starts: The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then, and are wrong today. While these cartoons do not represent today’s society, they are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.
To sweep this version of Othello under the rug would be the same as Disney gaslighting their fans into believing that Sunflower never existed.
The final option is to retain the adaptation in its entirety. However, this raises the question: What value could this racist depiction possibly serve in today’s world? Well, there’s a reason why the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Imagery exists: to preserve and hold up relics of the past so that we do not repeat the same mistakes of the future.5 This is the only value that can be found from the 1965 Othello. This is the only good it serves in our modern era. It shows us the bleak past, how far we have come, and what we must never do to have a healthier and accepting society.
In conclusion, Laurence Olivier’s 1965 adaptation of Othello was a racist piece of work that, even for the time, was quite controversial. It depicts a white man in full minstrel blackface because an award-winning black actor refused to be a part of it. However, it remains a critical example to all who wish to influence our culture through the art of the follies of the past that must never be repeated.
Work Cited
- Laws, Zach. “Laurence Olivier Movies: 15 Greatest Films Ranked Worst to Best.” Gold Derby, Gold Derby, 17 May 2025, http://www.goldderby.com/gallery/best-laurence-olivier-movies-ranked/the-boys-from-brazil-2/.
- Crowther, Bosley. “The Screen: Minstrel Show ‘Othello’:Radical Makeup Marks Olivier’s Interpretation (Published 1966).” The New York Times, 2 Feb. 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1966/02/02/archives/the-screen-minstrel-show-othelloradical-makeup-marks-oliviers.html. Accessed 20 Oct. 2025.
- McNulty, Charles. “Commentary: Must Laurence Olivier’s Blackface Othello Be Banned? I Showed the Film and Wasn’t Canceled.” Los Angeles Times, 20 Oct. 2021, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-10-20/blackface-othello-lawrence-olivier-bright-sheng. Accessed 20 Oct. 2025.
- Demneri, Erlisa. “Remembering Sunflower and Atika: Racism and Erasure in Disney’s ‘Fantasia’: Arts: The Harvard Crimson.” Arts | The Harvard Crimson, 2023, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/11/30/fantasia-walt-disney-anniversary-representation-racism-animated/. Accessed 20 Oct. 2025.
- https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/index.htm
Sprockets and Springes 