O

 3/4

Starring: Mekhi Phifer, Josh Hartnett, Julia Stiles, Martin Sheen, Andrew Keegan, Rain Phoenix, Elden Henson, John Heard

Rated R for Violence, a Scene of Strong Sexuality, Language and Drug Use

When it comes to William Shakespeare, everyone has their favorite.  "Hamlet" is undoubtedly his most popular and enduring play, but others will stump for "Macbeth," "A Midsummer Night's Dream," or "Much Ado About Nothing."  Not me, though.  My favorite Shakespeare play is "Othello."  The idea of a man being manipulated into bringing his own tragic downfall by a psychopath posing as his friend sticks in my mind.  The level of malice and psychological violence is such that I can't forget it or turn away.

It's strange, then, that we don't see more versions of it.  After all, the sad, violent arc of Othello hasn't become irrelevant in the years since The Bard first put the play to paper.  Maybe people are too afraid of the racial undertones of the plot.  Maybe the plot is too narrow for studio executives bereft of imagination.  I don't know.  Tim Blake Nelson, a character actor of some repute, decided to charge ahead, adapting for contemporary times and setting it in an exclusive prep school.  The resulting film, while imperfect, is nonetheless effective.

Odin James (Phifer) is one hell of a basketball player.  His skills on the court got him a scholarship to an exclusive prep school, where he has just been named the MVP by the coach, Duke Goulding (Sheen).  O, as his is known, is the apple in his eye: "I love him like my own son," he announces, willfully ignoring the fact that his biological son Hugo (Hartnett) is in the audience.  The Duke is the kind of guy who only likes people who are stars; everyone else is ignored (unless they screw up, in which case they become the targets of his rage).  O is dating Desi Brable (Stiles), the headmaster's daughter, and they are deeply in love, much to the chagrin of her father (Heard).  In this volatile mix, Hugo sees an opportunity to remove O from the pedestal he has been placed upon.

In translating Shakespeare's tragedy to a contemporary high school, Nelson has elected to use colloquial language rather than the Bard's text.  Some Shakespeare scholars get sniffy when a filmmaker does this; as my dad put it: "It may be good, but it's...not Shakespeare."  That's not a fair criticism, though.  Anyone who puts on a Shakespeare production has to interpret the text for their audience (that's by design...Shakespeare's plays where never intended to be performed uncut).  How does using modern language and attitudes a less valid expression of his ideas and insights?  After all, there's no worse way to put on a Shakespeare play by presenting it with no flourish or spin.

What makes this film work are a trio of excellent performances.  Mekhi Phifer has a commanding screen presence that is essential for the character to work.  When Phifer shows up on screen, we know he's the school star.  But Phifer also has the skills to show that he is beset by insecurity.  His ability to dominate the court does not shield him from stressors of hormones, a need to fit in and pressure to succeed.  It is all too easy for Hugo to plant the seed of doubt about Desi's faithfulness in his head.

This was not Julia Stiles' first attempt at a contemporary Shakespeare film; she played the hellcat in "10 Things I Hate About You," which was a version of "The Taming of the Shrew" (incidentally, Andrew Keegan also starred in both films with her).  Stiles plays Desi with strength and heart.  There's never any doubt about her fidelity to O, but it doesn't matter.  O is too easily made jealous, and nothing she can say or do could ever change that.  He's got another flaw, too: an overdose of hormones.  Notice that he gives Desi a rubber band ring ("so we can pretend for a while," he explains).  He's as much in love with being in love as he is with Desi.  He's living the life of a teen romance he's seen in the movies.

Josh Hartnett has always been a better actor than the heartthrob he was pigeonholed as.  In his own subtle way, he could play different shades of personality and behavior that are beyond the scope of most heartthrobs.  His all-American good looks serve him well here, making him look more innocent than he actually is.  Then again, he's too creepy to make the heart go aflutter.  Hugo is a psychopath who accepts that other people than O will pay the price for his treachery.  To him, they're expendable.

Although the film is well-acted and the ending is as disturbing as you can imagine, it feels like it should have been more impactful.  The screenplay is workmanlike, but O falls into jealousy too easily.  Intellectually it's easy to understand his mindset, but the use of cutaways as opposed to dialogue scenes makes it harder to identify with his suspicions and tragic misunderstandings.  This isn't Phifer's fault, as he shows depth that isn't on the page, but the surface level screenplay.  More depth would have given the film a bigger punch.

"O" was dogged by controversy upon its release.  Originally, it was set to release in October 1999, but that date was deemed too soon after the Columbine massacre, and so Miramax passed the distribution rights to Lions Gate, which released it in 2001.  Many, including film critics Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli, blasted the decision and criticized Miramax for being gutless.

I am of two minds about this.  On the one hand, to blame any movie for real life school violence is absurd.  It's such an obvious case of pandering that it's simply offensive.  Even more so with a movie like "O," which explores, not exploits, school violence.  Nelson is examining what causes such actions (in this case, it's unchecked jealousy).  But the violence is presented not as a "rah rah" moment, but the culmination of a tragic series of events.  Hugo is the instigator and is never seen as anything but a scheming villain.  "O" sees violence as a tragedy.  Nothing more.

On the other, the Columbine massacre shook the nation to its core.  Even today, people can't watch a movie like "O" without thinking of that fateful day or others like it.  Even six months after the shooting, it's hard to imagine anyone willing to sit through a film like "O," no matter how honest and perceptive it is.  The wounds were still too raw.  By delaying it, audiences were able to see the film in the way Nelson intended, albeit with an added subtext that school violence is a reality.

"O" is not the definitive version of Shakespeare's play.  The writing is too thin to deeply involve the audience and Nelson's filmmaking is a bit hazy.  But it does contain insight and an array of strong performances, and that makes it worth a look.