Sergio Leone Web Board
Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: PowerRR on June 25, 2007, 09:45:54 PM
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBayVvFA6S8
I consider Orson Welles to be one of the five greatest and most important men to ever grace Hollywood, so I feel a thread to discuss him is a good idea.
He is not only one of my ten favorite actors, but one of my five favorite directors - I havn't seen all too many films from him, but those in which I have seen have left me extremely impressed.
While I consider Citizen Kane to be his greatest achievement, just like everyone else does, I also really like Touch of Evil, The Trial, and The Lady From Shanghai - not to mention his amazing performance in The Third Man, despite his short screen time.
I really need to see F For Fake soon.
On another note, has anybody listened to the original War of the World broadcast by Orson Welles? It's on Youtube. The first half is brilliantly made while the second is not quite as good. I suggest a listen.
-
Good post rr! Orson Welles was a great talent indeed. His body of work speaks for itself. I'm a huge fan of "The Lady From Shanghai" and it absolutely kills me that they're remaking this! No need to! I think it contains one of his best performances. Very underrated film in my opinion. Rita Hayworth was ravishing as usual. Welles and Hayworth were great together.
-
I've only seen him in two things, so I can't comment in-depth:
"Citizen Kane", where he scored a huge home-run as the star, director, and co-writer:
(http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/blogs/fillips/images/Citizen%20Kane.bmp)
And "A Man for All Seasons", with a memorable cameo as a very rotund Cardinal Wolsey:
(http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews28/a%20man%20for%20all%20seasons/old%20man%20for%20all%20seasons%201341.jpg)
"Touch of Evil" has been on my must-see list for awhile. . . :-\
Also, see if you can track down the famous "Frozen Peas" radio commercial - it's hysterical stuff. Why they kept it, I don't know, but it's worth a laugh or two or ten.
-
I like Kane, the first 30 minutes of Ambersons, parts of Othello, and all of Chimes at Midnight. The rest of Welles' work as a director is very easily ignored.
Although his first picture is justifiably admired, it is possible to over-praise it. I posted what follows on another thread, but re-post it here as it might generate some interesting discussion.
Taking the Cane to Kane
Much has been written about this film, but nothing has improved on the review written by Jorge Luis Borges the year Citizen Kane was released.
A kind of metaphysical detective story, its subject (both psychological and allegorical) is the investigation of a man’s inner self, through the works he has wrought, the words he has spoken, the many lives he has ruined. The same technique was used by Joseph Conrad in Chance (1914) and in that beautiful film The Power and the Glory: a rhapsody of miscellaneous scenes without chronological order. Overwhelmingly, endlessly, Orson Welles shows fragments of the life of the man, Charles Foster Kane, and invites us to combine them and to reconstruct him. Forms of multiplicity and incongruity abound in the film: the first scenes record the treasures amassed by Kane; in one of the last, a poor woman, luxuriant and suffering, plays with an enormous jigsaw puzzle on the floor of a palace that is also a museum. At the end we realize that the fragments are not governed by any secret unity: the detested Charles Foster Kane is a simulacrum, a chaos of appearances. (A possible corollary, foreseen by David Hume, Ernst Mach, and our own Macedonio Ferenandez: no man knows who he is, no man is anyone.) In a story by Chesterton—“The Head of Caesar,” I think—the hero observes that nothing is so frightening as a labyrinth with no center. This film is precisely that labyrinth.
As good as this is, it can stand a bit of tweaking.
Borges needlessly muddies the water with his citations of Hume et al. If “no man is anyone” then there seems to have been no particular reason to make Kane the subject of the film. Any sort of person would have done as well: tinker, tailor, lampshade maker. But surely the point of using Kane was to demonstrate a rich irony: this person most present in his society is, in private life, a complete nullity. Further, we, the audience, best appreciate this irony when able to contrast Kane with others, those who, like ourselves, may not exist as flamboyantly, but who in fact lead incomparably richer lives.
Taking the above caveat into account, Borges’s interpretation of the puzzle montage is substantially correct. Not all men, but Kane in particular is “a chaos of appearances.” Not the film Citizen Kane, but the man Charles Foster Kane is “a labyrinth with no center.” (Borges’s own logic eludes him. If nothing is as frightening as a labyrinth without a center, and this film is such a labyrinth, cinema-goers would run screaming out of every showing.) Citizen Kane, then, does have a center: the revelation concerning Kane’s true (lack of) character.
Thus the film’s technique of fragmentation is the ideal exposition of its theme: Charles Foster Kane, though of many parts, is less than their sum. Such an approach works well for a despised character, but would not do as well for other biographies, a life of Lincoln, for example, or the story of Christ.
This limitation shows up the film’s one great weakness: its central character, we come to learn, is not worth our time. This is worth knowing, of course, but having once learned it, what need have we to return to the character? In fact, students of the film never do. Citizen Kane is today appreciated almost entirely for its formal qualities.
No, we expect more from our masterpieces: grand characters. When we survey the characters of the Western narrative tradition who continue to command our attention, we encounter nothing but great souls: Achilles, Medea, Orlando, Lear. It is not a question of heroes or villains—Macbeth exhibits greatness every bit as much as Henry V does. Charles Foster Kane, on the other hand, is neither hero nor villain. He’s not even a complete human being, and a non-entity is not, ultimately, a fit subject for contemplation—there is nothing to contemplate.
It is a hard judgment on a work of art that, rather than failing to accomplish its purpose, has succeeded too well. But there it is.
Consider the ironic title, which invites ridicule upon its subject. This is a very different title compared to, say, Oedipus Rex, which, free of irony, informs us that Oedipus remains kingly even as he falls.
And so, Citizen Kane cannot be the greatest film of all time, not even the greatest American film of all time. It was, however, the best American film in the year of its production and should have won the Best Picture Oscar for 1941.
-
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/JaneBown/2000/04/20/Welles.gif)
(http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=59650&rendTypeId=4)
(http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00005QX9Z.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
-
Father Mapple
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_cgrQOZgD7Ik/Rkjy02K1U6I/AAAAAAAAAdk/yvo_kKEV58o/s1600/fathermapple.jpg)
-
I find Welles so interesting as a director with all of his unfished films. And how he really lost everything in credentials in his later days in Hollywood, not even being able to get a film made coming to the point of asking other directors for funding, even Spielberg who bought Rosebud from CK refused so Welles said the sled Steven had was a fake but later recanted. One of his films he didn't finish editing together is due to be released this year with Peter (something) who was in the film, and I can't wait. Welles also was doing a adaptation of the unfilmable novel,Don Quixtonte(sp?) which I would die to see, along with Terry Gilliams few minutes of footage he shot of it too.
Welles was a fantastic director in the short and I want to see his lost films very badly.
-
I just watched The Trial a second time - probably my second favorite from Welles. Anybody else seen it?
-
Yes. The computer scene is very silly.
-
I have rewatched CK recently and I was not as impressed as the other times, but still is a great movie and one of the best to come from Hollywood. Touch of Evil awaits my buying the dvd to be seen for the first time in english. And so Othello. F for Fake, another on my to be rewatched list which includes also Campanadas de Medianoche, probably his best performance ever as an actor.
-
Yes. The computer scene is very silly.
The computer scene? As in when his uncle first visits at work?
-
I can't remember. I just recall that Anthony Perkins gets all excited about using the huge company computer to help him with his case, and then at the end of the scene he decides it won't work. A complete digression that goes nowhere.
-
I can't remember. I just recall that Anthony Perkins gets all excited about using the huge company computer to help him with his case, and then at the end of the scene he decides it won't work. A complete digression that goes nowhere.
Oh, that's not quite what happens - it's his uncle that gets excited about using the computer to help Perkins with the case, but Perkins seems to ignore him and soon runs away when he hears more whipping going on in the stock room.
-
Okay. Obviously there was no computer scene in Kafka, what's the point in inventing such a thing only to drop it? That's what's so silly.
-
Well, I see what you mean. I read half the book (which I happened to enjoy), though I never seemed to finish it. I don't recall that scene being there when K's uncle visits - and I suppose it is a rather a useless scene in the movie.
-
Don't know how long this will be available, but anyone interested in Welles should probably see it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8395370399941473528
-
I just finished watching his completed filmography, and now I will rank them.
1. The Trial
2. Touch of Evil
3. Citizen Kane
4. Mr. Arkadin
5. The Lady From Shanghai
6. The Stranger
7. Othello
8. Macbeth
9. F For Fake
10. The Magnificent Ambersons
11. Chimes at Midnight
12. The Immortal Story
-
It's All True?
-
He didn't fully direct that though, did he? I'll watch it anyway.
-
He worked with Manowar, too. He's the narrator in their Dark Avenger. A pretty good song.
-
He didn't fully direct that though, did he? I'll watch it anyway.
Yes, he did. He wasn't able to finish all the stories, but what he did, he did well.
-
It's All True is now at the top of my Netflix queue. Don Quixote is downloading (even if it's barely Orson's film), and I will most likely watch "Around the World With Orson Welles", the short British TV series directed by him. That has a 'Play Now' option on Netflix.
Also, I watched his short film Vienna today. I liked that quite a bit - humorous movie.
-
Have you seen The Fountain of Youth? If not, you need to.
-
I was looking for it online today but couldn't come across it. I really want to see this. Know any place where I can watch it?
-
Actually, no. I was able to see it at a film festival back in the 80s. It's really hard to track down...
-
Citizen Kane is playing today on TCM at 10:00 PT
-
Also Magnificent Ambersons later, I think.
Still no luck on finding Fountain of Youth.
-
The Transformers: The Movie (1986) is his greatest role.
-
Wow: http://tinyurl.com/2l5u2f
The same publisher brought out Hitchcock at Work almost a decade ago and that is an exceptional book. This one promises to be as good or better.
-
Thanks dave. I need to buy this now...
-
Terry Teachout has some interesting recent thoughts on Welles, Bernstein, and Ralph Ellison in the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120311487595072493.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Here's the passage on Welles:
I've had the boy wonder of Hollywood on my mind lately, having recently reviewed productions of "Moby-Dick -- Rehearsed," his 1955 stage version of Herman Melville's novel, and "Orson's Shadow," the 2000 play in which Austin Pendleton shows us Welles a few years after "Moby-Dick -- Rehearsed" -- demoralized by repeated failure and unable to get his career back on track.
Welles's story is one of the saddest tales in the long history of a hard profession. He became famous far too soon and was acclaimed as a genius long before his personality had matured. At 23 he made the cover of Time magazine. Two years later RKO gave him a near-blank check, which he used to make "Citizen Kane." By then he was convinced that he could do no wrong, and when the money dried up and he had to struggle for the first time in his life, he lost his creative way. Convinced that it was his destiny to make great movies, he turned his back on the theater, where he had previously done more modest but equally impressive work. In "Moby-Dick -- Rehearsed" Welles showed one last time that he still knew how to make magic happen on a stage, but otherwise he kept banging his head vainly against the wall of an indifferent film industry. The result was a half-dozen deeply flawed movies that wanted desperately to be masterpieces, though none of them, not even "Chimes at Midnight," Welles's fascinating study of Shakespeare's Falstaff, came close to making the grade.
I don't disagree with TT's assessment, but I do offer this rejoinder: rather than create great theater, might not making mediocre films--any films at all-- be a better strategy for ensuring one's immortality?
-
I say that Touch of Evil, Campanadas de medianoche, F For Fake and Othello are are masterpieces. Flawed ones? Probably. But of the kind you would look for vainly nowaday.
-
My favorite Welles performance...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3qg4i22x9M
-
"My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four. Unless there are three other people." - Orson Welles
-
I just finished watching his completed filmography, and now I will rank them.
1. The Trial
2. Touch of Evil
3. Citizen Kane
4. Mr. Arkadin
5. The Lady From Shanghai
6. The Stranger
7. Othello
8. Macbeth
9. F For Fake
10. The Magnificent Ambersons
11. Chimes at Midnight
12. The Immortal Story
This is by no means Welles's "completed filmography." As the writers of Orson Welles at Work put it, ". . . he left us twelve completed feature-length films, twenty television programmes, as many short films made in various circumstances and twelve unfinished works for the small and big screens." (10)
BTW, when they speak of "twelve completed feature-length films" they aren't necessarily including "The Immortal Story," which is a TV-length work (and thus one of the 20 that includes "The Fountain of Youth"). No, the 12th feature-length Welles film they're talking about is Journey Into Fear (1942). Although largely (but not entirely) directed by Norman Foster, the authors of OWAW make a persuasive case for considering JIF an Orson Welles film (see pgs. 99-100).
As to what else Welles did for TV, there are several episodes of something called Around the World with Orson Welles (1955). The aforementioned "Fountain of Youth" (1956) was followed by "Portrait of Gina" (1958), "Orson Welles on the Art of Bullfighting" (1961), nine episodes of something called "Nella Terra di Don Chisciotte" (1961-1964), "Filming Othello" (1977), and the pilot episode of "The Orson Welles Show" (1978-9).
Also, the Munich Filmmuseum has recently been assembling and finishing a number of projects that Welles was unable to complete, and has been releasing them under such titles as "Orson Welles' Magic Show" (2000), "Orson Welles' Moby Dick (2000), "Filming The Trial" (2001), etc.
Then there are the trailers Welles made for his films, notably those for CK, Ambersons, F for Fake, small works of art in themselves.
Then there is his juvenilia ("Hearts of Age," etc.).
Then there's all the stuff that they're still looking for (e.g. "Moby Dick - Rehearsed").
So, it's very difficult to cover the complete filmography. . . .
-
Although I hadn't seen it at the time I posted the list, I did watch Journey Into Fear a couple months ago. It's very clear that Welles directed most of the film, as the whole style feels very Wellesian in comparison to his other works.
I've also seen the documentary It's All True, which includes most of the surviving footage that he captured in South America in 1943. I still have a personally made bootleg of Don Quijote de Orson Welles (the Franco edit) sitting on my shelf as well, which I very much believe I will watch within the week.
I've been trying my best to see everything of his entire filmography, but as you said, it's incredibly hard to track this stuff down.
And do you care to tell more about Orson Welles at Work? What's the book like overall?
I've also seen Hearts of Age, Vienna, and the F For Fake trailer. I'm having a hell of a time tracking down The Fountain of Youth, and I'm still anticipating the future release of The Other Side of the Wind, which Bogdonavich says is "99.9% done". Though an update was released this month saying that there are still troubles in getting it released.
Netflix has Around the World With Orson Welles available, though I haven't had the urge to watch it yet.
-
And do you care to tell more about Orson Welles at Work? What's the book like overall?
It's a biggish, coffee-table style book with a lot of pictures. Most of the pix are movie stills and promo shots, but there are also photos of documents, sketches, the odd screenplay page, what have you. There are also useful charts, for example, a matrix that shows how things progressed when Welles was doing Ambersons/Journey Into Fear/It's All True, all at the same time. There's another handy chart that assigns photographic credit for the different shots in Ambersons. Finally, there's a good deal of printed matter that takes you through the guy's career chronologically. Very useful.
-
Sounds like the UK DVD of F For Fake is the one to get: http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=203
-
Wow -- that sounds great. I just wish it wasn't $50, which is a bit more than I'd like to pay.
-
Wow -- that sounds great. I just wish it wasn't $50, which is a bit more than I'd like to pay.
Are you talking about the book or the DVD?
-
The book. I'll probably just pick up the Criterion for F For Fake if I ever see a good price on it.
It also includes the documentary One Man Band which I've been wanting to see.
-
Oh, that's not quite what happens - it's his uncle that gets excited about using the computer to help Perkins with the case, but Perkins seems to ignore him and soon runs away when he hears more whipping going on in the stock room.
That is the scene I was thinking about. But, apparently, there is (or was) also this: http://www.wellesnet.com/Trial_MS_1.htm
-
Very interesting, thanks for the link DJ.
Bah, I wish this would get a Criterion release or something. The current American transfers are terrible ...I may pick up the R2 French DVD (I believe it's French), which is a much better transfer.
-
Here's an interesting note on the sources of F for Fake: http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=205#more-205
-
The Other Side of the Wind: http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=213
-
Not without interest: http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=225
-
WEB PREMIERE of "The Orson Welles Show":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmWWo1LCBi4
-
"Portrait of Gina"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iynIlPsXqnQ
-
Thanks, RR. That's all we need to see to know why Welles could never be successful on TV.
-
Roy, here's an interesting release:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0019M7KRY/ref=nosim?tag=dvdbeaver-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=B0019M7KRY&creative=373489&camp=211189
-
Wow, awesome! I can't believe it's coming out on R1! I still haven't watched my burnt R2 copy, but that's still awesome. Maybe I'll wait for that DVD instead for better quality / more features.
-
Hey, I was under the impression that the movie was never finished ???
-
It was never finished by Welles. Which is why, I take it, that Jesus Franco gets a co-director's credit.
-
It was never finished by Welles. Which is why, I take it, that Jesus Franco gets a co-director's credit.
Ok. :)
-
More hot DVD news for Welles fans: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68214
-
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare6/Don-Quixote.htm (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare6/Don-Quixote.htm)
:o Yikes! :o
Sorry about your wait for this release RR, looks like you're better off with your R2 copy.
On ToE: thats one hell of a set for a good price. I'm sure ill grab it if i ever come across it
-
Eck, that looks awful ...but a good reminder that I need to watch my R2 copy. Very soon.
-
USHE Press Release: Touch of Evil - 50th Anniversary Edition
THE CLASSIC FILM NOIR THRILLER FROM LEGENDARY FILMMAKER
ORSON WELLES AS NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN ON DVD
TOUCH OF EVIL – 50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION
For the First Time Ever, All Three Versions of the Controversial Film
Contained in a Two-Disc DVD Set with the Complete Filmmaker Memo,
New Behind-the-Scenes Bonus Features and More Available October 7, 2008 from Universal Studios Home Entertainment
Universal City, Calif. – August 14, 2008 -- Orson Welles’ film noir masterpiece celebrates a home entertainment milestone with the release of the Touch of Evil - 50th Anniversary Edition DVD on October 7, 2008 from Universal Studios Home Entertainment. For the first time on DVD,
audiences can experience this cinematic achievement as never before: All three versions of the film including the preview version, the theatrical version and the restored version based on Welles’ vision, contained on one two-disc set for $26.98 SRP.
Also a specially printed reproduction of the complete 58-page memo Welles wrote in 1957 to the studio outlining his recommended edits after viewing the rough cut of the film, is available for the very first time with the DVD set.
Headlined by an all-star cast that includes Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Ray Collins, Dennis Weaver, Akim Tamiroff and Welles along with memorable appearances by Mercedes McCambridge, Zsa Zza Gabor, and Marlene Dietrich, Touch of Evil is the dark cinematic portrait of an intricate
criminal plot that combines in lurid and fascinating detail, a kidnapping, betrayal, police corruption, drug use and murder. An essential addition to every movie lover’s library, the DVD’s bonus features with cast, crew and film historians, delve deep into the complicated backstage story of what
has become a film, that was misunderstood in its day but is now considered one of Orson Welles’ greatest and lasting achievements.
THREE VERSIONS OF THE CLASSIC FILM ON ONE DVD
The two-disc DVD includes three versions of the classic film:
- Restored Version: Re-edited in 1998, this definitive cut of the film is restored to Orson Welles' vision based on his detailed 58-page memo to the studio.
- Theatrical Version: This original version of the film was seen by U.S. audiences when it was released in theaters in 1958.
- Preview Version: Created prior to the theatrical version, this cut of the film incorporates some of Orson Welles' requests and was discovered by Universal in 1976.
The original rough cut filmed by Welles in 1957 was re-edited and in part re-shot by Universal, to trim down the running time and modify some of the story elements. In late 1957, the director, after viewing that resulting film cut, issued a 58-page memo to the studio’s head of production Edward Muhl outlining his recommended changes. However, many of these suggestions were not included in the version eventually released theatrically in early 1958 with additional scenes added by director Harry Keller, who had been hired to direct the re-shot material. It was not until 1976 that Universal discovered a preview version in its vaults that post-dated Welles’
memo and included some but not all of the director’s changes and still included Keller’s scenes. In 1998, the film was re-edited by the esteemed Walter Murch based on Welles’ memo and working from available materials. The Murch version adhered as closely as possible to Welles’ instructions including the removal of the credits and music from the film’s opening sequences, one of Welles’ biggest complaints. It is this version that is referred to above as the restored version.
BONUS FEATURES:
In addition to the original promotional trailer from the film’s theatrical campaign, Touch of Evil – 50th Anniversary Edition includes these all-new, behind the scenes bonus features:
• Bringing Evil to Life: This never-before-released “making-of” feature includes interviews with stars Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh, crew members and film historians.
• Evil Lost & Found: A never-before-released documentary explaining the various versions of the film and the restoration featuring interviews with cast, crew members and film historians.
• All-New Audio Commentaries:
o Restored Version Audio Commentary: Featuring Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh and restoration producer Rick Schmidlin.
o Restored Version Audio Commentary: Featuring restoration producer Rick
Schmidlin
o Theatrical Audio Commentary: Featuring writer and filmmaker F.X. Feeny
o Preview Version Audio Commentary: Featuring Welles historians Jonathan
Rosenbaum and James Naremore.
SYNOPSIS
Experience director Orson Welles’ masterpiece Touch of Evil like never before in an all-new 50th Anniversary Edition DVD! Starring Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh and Orson Welles himself, this exceptional film noir portrait of corruption and morally compromised obsessions tells the story of a crooked police chief who frames a Mexican youth as part of an intricate criminal plot. Now for the first time ever, see all three versions of the film – the preview
version, the theatrical version and the restored version based on Orson Welles’ vision. The Touch of Evil 50th Anniversary Edition commemorates a true cinematic achievement and is an essential addition to the very movie lover’s library!
CAST AND FILMMAKERS
Directed By: Orson Welles
Written By: Orson Welles (Screenplay), Whit Masterson (Novel)
Produced By: Rich Schmidlin, Albert Zugsmith
Director of Photography: Russell Metty
Edited By: Walter Murch, Aaron Stell, Virgil Vogel
Costume Designer: Bill Thomas
Original Music By: Henry Mancini
Cast: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Orson Welles, Marlene Dietrich, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Akin Tamiroff, Dennis Weaver, Mercedes McCambridge, Keenan Wynn
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
DVD
Street Date: October 7, 2008
Pre-Order Close: September 2, 2008
Copyright: 2008 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.
Price: $26.98 SRP
Selection Number: 61103474
Running Time: Restored Version (1 Hour 51 Mins); Theatrical Version (1 Hour 36 Mins); Preview Version (1 Hour 49 Mins)
Layers: Dual
Aspect Ratio: Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85.1)
Rating: PG-13, Unrated
Technical Info: Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono; English SDH, French and Spanish Subtitles
-
Wow: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article6933290.ece
-
I like Kane, the first 30 minutes of Ambersons, parts of Othello, and all of Chimes at Midnight. The rest of Welles' work as a director is very easily ignored.
'Touch of Evi'l is a fantastic movie. Visually, it's stunning. The characters are terriffic as well, especially Welles and Marlene Dietrich (probably the best thing in it, brilliant!). Heston stands his ground, looking somewhat hilarious as a Mexican (great 'tash!).
'Lady From Shanghai' is a slightly confusing, but highly enjoyable noir. Sure, Welles' leprecon accent is annoying, but the film get's better by each viewing... And then of course there is that iconic final scene.
'The Trial' is border line brilliant. Admittedly, it's not a novel that I think really works as a film. Still, it's a noble effort at recapturing the Camus novel. The film impressed me more than I actually enjoyed it I think. Worth a watch or two though.
'F For Fake' is quite interesting, often described as Welles' second most influencial film, after 'Citizen Kane'. It amuses, informs, and tricks. An enjoyable way to fill a hour and a bit.
Sure, these films are varying in quality, but all very good films in their own way. Interesting and worthy viewing.
PS: 'The Stranger' is a another good one too. :D
-
Orson Welles to narrate a new Christmas film. Just goes to show that death need not impede a career.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/03/26/orson-welles-narrating-a-brand-new-family-christmas-movie/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+firstshowing+%28FirstShowing.net%29
-
Fan boys can now begin to cream: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001PIHH5M/
-
I just saw The Immortal Story (part of Jeanne Moreau day on TCM's Summer Under the Stars). It's a shitty movie, but when I heard it was a TV movie I said, whatever, ya know, I generally don't expect much from tv movies. Still, this didn't feel very Wellesian - none of the cute camera angles that normally jump out at you with a Welles film.
As for the cast, Orson was very good, Moreau was alright, as was the sailor; the guy who played Welles's Polish servant, his voice was so annoying. Also, I have never heard louder crickets in any movie ever, that was equally annoying.
Image quality was bad, which is what you'd expect from a tv movie that hasn't had a region 1 DVD release.
I suppose that hardcore Welles fans will wanna see this just for the sake of seeing it cuz it's a Welles film, but there really is just about nothing at all interesting here, except a good performance by Welles.
-
F for Fake Criterion BRD coming out Oct. 21, 2014 http://www.amazon.com/F-Fake-Blu-ray-Orson-Welles/dp/B00LUSUU92/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1408382072&sr=1-2&keywords=f+for+fake
-
I just saw The Immortal Story (part of Jeanne Moreau day on TCM's Summer Under the Stars). It's a shitty movie, but when I heard it was a TV movie I said, whatever, ya know, I generally don't expect much from tv movies. Still, this didn't feel very Wellesian - none of the cute camera angles that normally jump out at you with a Welles film.
As for the cast, Orson was very good, Moreau was alright, as was the sailor; the guy who played Welles's Polish servant, his voice was so annoying. Also, I have never heard louder crickets in any movie ever, that was equally annoying.
Image quality was bad, which is what you'd expect from a tv movie that hasn't had a region 1 DVD release.
I suppose that hardcore Welles fans will wanna see this just for the sake of seeing it cuz it's a Welles film, but there really is just about nothing at all interesting here, except a good performance by Welles.
Agreed. Saw it once a few years back just for the sake of Welles completionist reasons, and it was definitely his most forgettable work.
-
And I just saw the weepy Tomorrow Is Forever (1946) as part of Claudette Colbert day on Turner. I'd never seen it before. Welles, despite a rather dodgy accent, gives a pretty interesting performance. The film also includes Richard Long's first feature role. The precocious Natalie Wood-ski also appears. George Brent is in it too, but he is unable to ruin things.
-
And I just saw the weepy Tomorrow Is Forever (1946) as part of Claudette Colbert day on Turner. I'd never seen it before. Welles, despite a rather dodgy accent, gives a pretty interesting performance. The film also includes Richard Long's first feature role. The precocious Natalie Wood-ski also appears. George Brent is in it too, but he is unable to ruin things.
I thought that was another forgettle one. Welles was assistant director, right? Or co-director? Or did he fully direct it but was uncredited? I forget.
Is Don Quixote de Orson Welles worth checking out? And when the F is pete bogdonavich gonna release his cut of Other Side of the Wind?
-
This looks interesting: http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=10676
For convenience, I broke out the schedule:
January 1-8 – Citizen Kane (4K restoration)
January 9-10 – The Magnificent Ambersons
January 9-10 – The Stranger
January 11 – The Muppet Movie
January 11-12 – The Stranger with Journey Into Fear (double feature)
January 13 – Man in the Shadow (new restoration) and Black Magic (double feature)
January 14 – Touch of Evil (preview version) introduced by Joseph McBride
January 15-17 – Macbeth ("Scottish" version) - Jan. 16 evening showing introduced by Joseph McBride
January 15 and 17 – Wellesiana - an assortment including The Hearts of Age introduced by Joseph McBride
January 17 – The Magnificent Ambersons with analysis of original cut after the screening by Joseph McBride
January 18-19 – Jane Eyre and Tomorrow is Forever (double feature)
January 20 – Compulsion and The Long Hot Summer (double feature)
January 21-22 – Immortal Story and F For Fake (double feature)
January 23-24 – The Lady From Shanghai and The Third Man (double feature)
January 25-26 – Othello
January 25 – It's All True
January 25 – Macbeth (original release version) and Return to Glennascaul (double feature)
January 26 – Chimes at Midnight (DCP restoration courtesy Filmoteca Española)
January 27 – Prince of Foxes and The Black Rose (double feature)
January 28 – It's All True
January 28-29 – Mr. Arkadin and Orson Welles in Spain (double feature)
January 29 – Touch of Evil (release version)
January 30-31 – The Trial (new restoration)
February 1 – Chimes at Midnight (DCP restoration courtesy Filmoteca Española)
February 1-2 – Touch of Evil (reconstruction)
February 2 – Too Much Johnson
February 3 – A Man For All Seasons
February 3 – Someone to Love
-
Maybe this should be added:
Weeks later, the Paley Center for Media in New York will screen the seldom-seen, Welles-directed The Fountain of Youth, Hallmark Hall of Fame's The Man Who Came to Dinner, Omnibus' King Lear, an I Love Lucy appearance, several TV interviews and more. Those showings are slated for February 7-8 and February 14-15, 2015.
-
Interesting.
I've never been to (or heard of) this Paley Center. Have you been there, DJ? Is it any good?
I still haven't seen quite a few Welles films, including The Magnificent Ambersons. I have it in my Netflix queue and was gonna watch it sometime, but maybe if you wanna go to Film Forum and see it there, I'd hold off on renting the DVD.
-
Interesting.
I've never been to (or heard of) this Paley Center. Have you been there, DJ? Is it any good?
I still haven't seen quite a few Welles films, including The Magnificent Ambersons. I have it in my Netflix queue and was gonna watch it sometime, but maybe if you wanna go to Film Forum and see it there, I'd hold off on renting the DVD.
Haven't been to the Paley and I have no idea what it's like.
Ambersons is frustrating, because it isn't unadulterated Welles (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). The ending is very weak. Actually, it wasn't all that great an idea as a project to begin with. Basically Welles adapted and filmed a script he'd already done for radio, which, as Carringer points out, allowed him to avoid using a collaborator. With a collaborator you get scripts like the one for Citizen Kane; without one you get scripts like, well, the one for Ambersons.
So, I'm not gonna pay FF prices to see Ambersons (and I've still got the Criterion LD anyway). The ones I'm most interested in seeing are The Trial and Chimes At Midnight.
-
But the Andersons were heavily cut, and we actually watch only a torso. As so often in the Welles World.
And still the Andersons are considered by many as a masterpiece. Hmm, but I prefer other films.
-
But the Andersons were heavily cut
That doesn't cover it. Alternate scenes were shot and intercut. That's why I say it "isn't unadulterated."
-
yes, I have heard that the studio changed the ending to Ambersons?
funny you mention The Trial, I actually just received the DVD for The Trial from on Saturday, that's gonna be the next DVD I watch :)
Okay, so I guess I will keep Ambersons DVD in my queue and watch it whenever it comes up
-
yes, I have heard that the studio changed the ending to Ambersons?
Not only that. The first 30 minutes are all Welles. After that the footage consists of scenes shot by Welles mixed with scenes shot by others. They did not use the same DP so, with a bit of training, it's easy to spot the difference. Somewhere Carringer supplies a shot-by-shot guide to which parts of the film are original and which parts are the work of others. Yes, they changed the ending too, but that's not the whole of it.
-
I hope a Blu-Ray comes from that Trial restoration soon. Definitely my favorite Welles movie. I'd also love one for Chimes at Midnight, I've only seen it once but the print was so bad (especially audio) that I couldn't really figure out what was happening.
-
I guess this is the most frequently asked question - and I've never read any books about Welles, which probably (attempt to) answer this question - but for someone who was so talented and so successful with the one movie for which he was not interefered with and which is often considered the greatest movie ever, why did Welles never again have the unfettered green light to make a movie as he wanted?
Btw, personally, I have never understood all the accolades CITIZEN KANE has gotten. I've never placed it near my list of all-time faves ... I'll eventually watch it with the commentaries, maybe the commentators can alert me to the genius of it that I've been missing.
-
Not only that. The first 30 minutes are all Welles. After that the footage consists of scenes shot by Welles mixed with scenes shot by others. They did not use the same DP so, with a bit of training, it's easy to spot the difference. Somewhere Carringer supplies a shot-by-shot guide to which parts of the film are original and which parts are the work of others.
Interesting, I can't remember that I ever read something about material not shot by Welles himself. Only that it was cut against his will. I have to check my books.
In Touch of Evil it is indeed pretty easy to spot the few added scenes shot by Harry Keller.
-
I guess this is the most frequently asked question - and I've never read any books about Welles, which probably (attempt to) answer this question - but for someone who was so talented and so successful with the one movie for which he was not interefered with and which is often considered the greatest movie ever, why did Welles never again have the unfettered green light to make a movie as he wanted?
He did. It was called The Magnificent Ambersons. The only thing was, Welles left town immediately after wrapping, and wasn't around when the studio decided to re-cut the picture. The studio had a test screening of the picture and got a very bad reaction. The head of RKO insisted the film had to be changed. Welles was in Brazil and was informed by letter. While working on It's All True, he tried to do damage control from afar and it didn't work. If he'd been in town he would have fought for the cut he wanted. But that was Welles' biggest problem--his febrile mind constantly needed new projects with which to occupy itself; thus, he often had a hard time doing the boring follow-through necessary to insure success (and he didn't delegate well).
Btw, personally, I have never understood all the accolades CITIZEN KANE has gotten. I've never placed it near my list of all-time faves ... I'll eventually watch it with the commentaries, maybe the commentators can alert me to the genius of it that I've been missing.
It's a very well-made film, using every trick Hollywood had invented up to that point, and contributing some revolutionary techniques to sound design. It is the greatest minor film ever made: I call it minor, because its storytelling ambitions aren't very high. It wants to expose the hollowness of a "great man" type, which it does very well. But then we're left with an empty suit as a hero, and that's not very satisfying. Oedipus, Odysseus, Roland, Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Faust etc. are great men who are truly great--even when they are villains--and so are worthy of our attention. Charles Foster Kane is a nullity. The film takes 2-hours to reveal that, and it's one of the greatest curtain-raising exercises in cinema. But in the end there's little to ponder about his character. When film students analyze Citizen Kane they invariably spend very little time on the character, but rather contemplate the formal techniques of the work. That's not the case with Oedipus or Hamlet--discussion of the characters is central to the dramas they inhabit. I respect CK for its achievement, but it is not one of my favorite films (it's still Welles' best, though).
-
He did. It was called The Magnificent Ambersons. The only thing was, Welles left town immediately after wrapping, and wasn't around when the studio decided to re-cut the picture. The studio had a test screening of the picture and got a very bad reaction. The head of RKO insisted the film had to be changed. Welles was in Brazil and was informed by letter. While working on It's All True, he tried to do damage control from afar and it didn't work. If he'd been in town he would have fought for the cut he wanted. But that was Welles' biggest problem--his febrile mind constantly needed new projects with which to occupy itself; thus, he often had a hard time doing the boring follow-through necessary to insure success (and he didn't delegate well).
The Magnificent Ambersons is only one movie ... at no point in the subsequent 40 years of Welles's life did any studio boss think it would be worthwhile to say, "Orson, here is a pile of cash, go make a movie as you want it made, writing/directing/producing/acting And Final cut"?
I'm holding off on reading any Welles biographies until I see more of his movies – maybe they'll answer that.
Welles, more than any single figure in Hollywood, seems to be a tragic figure. A "what could have been," "it's a shame what happened" "so much talent but so little opportunity," etc etc etc. Anytime I hear his name mentioned by a cineaste it's like with a tinge of sadness.
BTW, Welles is #16 on AFI's list of the 25 greatest Male Movie Stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Stars I assume that "stars" mean "actors" because everyone else on that list is an actor; if the list was allowed to include directors, you have to believe people like Hitchcock and Ford woulda made it. So that list has to be only talking about actors. But there ain't no way that Welles was voted the 16th greatest actor of all time? so wtf? the voters kinda wanna get Welles in so they bullshit him on there? I'm not quibbling with a particular rating of Welles; I am saying that there is no way they'd have voted him on the top 25 if they were only measuring acting; you don't really hear of Welles being discussed as a great actor. Seems to me that the voters just wanted to get Welles on the list somehow, so they voted him on as a star - i.e., an actor - even though he was really voted on for his directing achievements at least as much as his acting.
am i way off here?
-
Welles, more than any single figure in Hollywood, seems to be a tragic figure. A "what could have been," "it's a shame what happened" "so much talent but so little opportunity," etc etc etc. Anytime I hear his name mentioned by a cineaste it's like with a tinge of sadness.
No, he's an ironic figure. You don't understand the proper use of "tragic." Alexander Dubček can be considered a tragic figure. Welles only rises to ironic, in part because he was his own worst enemy.
Welles made films the way he wanted to, by bankrolling them with his acting fees. He could do that because he was a great enough actor to command great fees. But it also meant he didn't have to work inside the system. Systems have their advantages: for example, firm deadlines. Also, every system has a vetting process that prevents "sub-standard" material from getting out (in the case of commercial films, the vetting process prevents non-commercial ideas from seeing play). Ultimately, Welles decided that he would make films his way, on his schedule, other considerations be damned. Such an approach was incompatible with studio manufacturing. On occasion, though, he did make films for studios: Macbeth for Republic, The Lady From Shanghai for Columbia, Touch of Evil for Universal. None of these films float my boat exactly. You could argue that studio interference prevented these films from being what Welles intended, but even under ideal conditions these films could have only been marginally improved. On the other hand, independently produced films like Othello and Chimes At Midnight smack of greatness, and not merely because of their connection to Shakespeare. Would it truly have been better if Welles had been co-opted by the system and encouraged to make films the industry-approved way? I know my answer.
Welles did what he wanted, often with good results, so there is no reason to feel sad for him (or for us--we have some great things to watch). When some whiney fan-boy comes your way, crying about poor St. Orson, knock him to the ground and kick his head in.
-
but he did make relatively few movies after Citizen Kane
-
Cause he had not much commercial success, and he was an outsider in Hollywood. His films were too different from the typical Hollywood stuff.
-
but he did make relatively few movies after Citizen Kane
More than Leone made.
-
Sure, but Welles worked in a time when Hollywood directors made a lot of movies more than the did in the 60s (not to mention nowadays) Michael Bay would have made 150 movies if he had worked in ole Hollywood. ;)
And then, Leone was also special in that respect. I think that he was something like afraid of himself as an artist.
But the idea of letting someone else direct his films like they were directed by himself is close to the theory about Welles who wanted the studios or someone else to interfere. If it is a great film they could claim the films for themselves, if the film was blamed they could make someone else or the circumstances responsible for the possible failure.
And Leone had the power to make more films, but he didn't. Welles never had Leone's resources.
-
Both Leone and Welles seemed to have a wide range of interests outside cinema, the difference is that in the case of Welles there was no focus (IMO).
-
Sure, but Welles worked in a time when Hollywood directors made a lot of movies more than the did in the 60s (not to mention nowadays) Michael Bay would have made 150 movies if he had worked in ole Hollywood. ;)
And that's because . . . Michael Bay is a hack, right?
Studio resources come with strings attached. Welles ultimately didn't like those strings: he wanted to make films the Orson Welles way. It's not that he couldn't get work within the system--he could. As the Lady From Shanghai demonstrates, he could make a studio picture when it suited him (he wanted money in that case for his stage production of "Around The World in 80 Days"). He certainly worked within the system as an actor (often to fund many of his independent projects). The system was there for him, but he chose to do things his own way. Why should we gainsay his choice now? He was intelligent, and better situated to make the decision than anyone living now. And would it really have been better if Welles had made more films that were less like Orson Welles films and more like typical studio product?
-
Both Leone and Welles seemed to have a wide range of interests outside cinema, the difference is that in the case of Welles there was no focus (IMO).
I think that's right. Welles was a little too talented: he could do it all. And he wanted to do it all. But that meant putting more balls in the air than he could successfully juggle. Still, it was his call.
-
The Bay remark wasn't meant that serious (I think he is a good director, but don't care for most of his films), but he is probably more a director, a workman, and less a filmmaker. And these kind of craftsmen like Curtiz or Walsh or Hathaway made a lot of films back then. On the other hand Ford made also more than 100 films.
Welles made the kind of films Hollywood does not like or understand, unless they get at least some Oscars, then they like them but do still not understand them.
And The Lady from Shanghai is not a good example for work inside the system. Just like The Stranger or Touch of Evil it was also heavily cut. It was made inside Hollywood, but it is far from being a typical Hollywood film. The brooding Touch of Evil even less.
But there is not much too complain. Welles made still more masterpieces than other in a 100 film career. There real sad thing is that there are still 3 very promising films (but we do not know how complete they are) which are still unreleased due to legal shit.
-
And The Lady from Shanghai is not a good example for work inside the system. Just like The Stranger or Touch of Evil it was also heavily cut. It was made inside Hollywood, but it is far from being a typical Hollywood film. The brooding Touch of Evil even less.
What the studio did with his films after he finished making them was not Welles' fault. He did his work and got paid. The studio did what they wanted with the property they owned (made them more "commercial"). Welles took his money and ran. If Welles had hung around he would have had to become less Welles, and more a good studio man.
Welles did not do his best work (Citizen Kane apart) when he worked for the studios. The case of Macbeth is helpful because we have the studio version but now also Welles' original cut. Welles' cut is longer (which isn't automatically better) but it also has the soundtrack where Orson uses a Scottish brogue for all his dialog. It's laughably bad. The project was probably ill-advised to begin with, mostly because Macbeth is unfilmable (Polanski's film isn't much better than Welles'), but the choice to do the funny-voice version really sealed the coffin. His Shakespeare plays done independently of the studios are so much more interesting. Thank God Welles was able to get free of the studios to pursue his own unique vision.
Some D&D-type idiots apparently believe that if Welles had just made more studio films everything would have been better. But what's the likelihood that 10 Welles studio films would have been better than, say, one of his independently produced one? We could very well have gotten 10 films on a par with The Stranger in place of something like Othello. Not a trade I'd be willing to make.
-
Well, we don't know how other films would have been he could have made in Hollywood.
Actually for me Touch of Evil is his greatest achievement, and here the longer versions are better. And the Lady from Shanghai is a stunning movie too. And even The Stranger and Journey into Fear are better than most what Hollywood made in these years. So I see not a great difference between films inside or outside the system. And he had similar trouble outside Hollywood too. Maybe even worse as these films are unreleased or unfinished. The problem was always the same: money.
Hollywood brought the best out of some directors and destroyed some others.
And there are other great directors who only made a handful of films. Dreyer (after his silents), Malick, Questi, Carax.
-
And even The Stranger are better than most what Hollywood made in these years.
The Stranger is worse than anything Hollywood ever made
-
I have a lot of fun with it, and the end is stunning.
I prefer The Stranger e.g to every film directed by Raoul Walsh. Hmm maybe White Heat and Pursued are similar fun to watch.
-
guy says "hmm ... " to his own statement ;D
-
It's a very well-made film, using every trick Hollywood had invented up to that point, and contributing some revolutionary techniques to sound design. It is the greatest minor film ever made: I call it minor, because its storytelling ambitions aren't very high. It wants to expose the hollowness of a "great man" type, which it does very well. But then we're left with an empty suit as a hero, and that's not very satisfying. Oedipus, Odysseus, Roland, Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Faust etc. are great men who are truly great--even when they are villains--and so are worthy of our attention. Charles Foster Kane is a nullity. The film takes 2-hours to reveal that, and it's one of the greatest curtain-raising exercises in cinema. But in the end there's little to ponder about his character. When film students analyze Citizen Kane they invariably spend very little time on the character, but rather contemplate the formal techniques of the work. That's not the case with Oedipus or Hamlet--discussion of the characters is central to the dramas they inhabit. I respect CK for its achievement, but it is not one of my favorite films (it's still Welles' best, though).
Since the whole point of Kane is to deconstruct the "Great Man" at its center, the reveal is hardly inconsequential or unsatisfying. Far from a "nullity," Kane shaped history for exceedingly personal reasons - perversely, that he's a great man because of his shortcomings. His failure is thinking that individuals in his private life can be manipulated as the masses often can, and that's a compelling enough tragedy for a protagonist.
-
Since the whole point of Kane is to deconstruct the "Great Man" at its center, the reveal is hardly inconsequential or unsatisfying. Far from a "nullity," Kane shaped history for exceedingly personal reasons - perversely, that he's a great man because of his shortcomings. His failure is thinking that individuals in his private life can be manipulated as the masses often can, and that's a compelling enough tragedy for a protagonist.
+1
I always found Citizen Kane to be too cold for my tastes and it never meant too much too me. But I have no problem (meaning: I can understand and accept how/why) with it being so often called the greatest film ever. Whatever we think of it, it's also without any doubt one of the two most influential films ever (with 2001).
-
Since the whole point of Kane is to deconstruct the "Great Man" at its center, the reveal is hardly inconsequential or unsatisfying. Far from a "nullity," Kane shaped history for exceedingly personal reasons - perversely, that he's a great man because of his shortcomings. His failure is thinking that individuals in his private life can be manipulated as the masses often can, and that's a compelling enough tragedy for a protagonist.
As I have said, the film is successful on its own terms. But those terms are rather modest. It may be that Kane is "great" because of or in spite of his failures as an individual: that's outside the scope of the film and calls for interpretation. But the theme of the film is that true greatness is not what one accomplishes in public, but how one lives in private. Kane is a failure in the arena where things count most. And that's not tragic, that's ironic.
One need only contrast Kane with other subjects of "great men" to see what I'm getting at. Oedipus is a failure as a King because he got his crown by improper means and so caused a plague to descend on his people. He is unaware of his own culpability at first and so launches an investigation. When he discovers he is the source of all the misfortune in his kingdom, he takes steps to correct matters: he puts out his eyes (trading eyesight for insight) and banishes himself (a punishment, to an Athenian, worse than death: c.f. Plato). These acts validate Oedipus's greatness: By passing and executing sentence on himself, he demonstrates how kingly he can be--he does not attempt to alibi himself; rather, he gives himself the harshest possible punishment imaginable. The punishment is so terrible that the bystanders--on stage and in the audience--shrink back in fear. No normal human being is capable of delivering such a damning self-judgment. Ergo, Oedipus is a transcendent figure, a great soul, the epitome of the Greek quality of sophrosyne.
When we contrast Oedipus and Kane, we see what the latter is lacking. Even the titles are giveaways: Oedipus Rex is about a king who only becomes kingly by falling (an idea that Shakespeare would return to in Richard II), but you really can take the title at face value. Citizen Kane is, however, an ironic title, one that twits Charles Foster Kane's pretenses (his public one, where he is "more" than a citizen, and his private one, where he is less than one). Kane can suffer, but he is incapable of insight. But then Kane is not a great soul. And great souls, I contend, are what we most want for our film subjects.
Again, contrast Kane with two other film personalities: Lawrence of Arabia and Sir Thomas More (not the historical men, mind, but the characters as portrayed in their respective films). To my mind LoA and A Man For All Seasons are better films than Citizen Kane simply because they are focused on more interesting subjects. Charles Foster Kane is not very interesting as a character--he can be limned in just a few sentences. But Lawrence and More--I could imagine discussions about these two that could last hours, days, weeks. These two don't merely appear to be outsized individuals because of their public stances--they actually are outsized. And talking about their characters is much more interesting than discussing focal lengths and camera positions in Kane, which is what everyone ends up doing after quickly exhausting the subject of CFK.
-
Whatever we think of it, it's also without any doubt one of the two most influential films ever (with 2001).
OK, but maybe you want to expand the group to include Birth of a Nation?
-
OK, but maybe you want to expand the group to include Birth of a Nation?
I think I would if I had seen that movie. Unfortunately, the closest thing I have seen is the KKK scene in Django Unchained :)
-
the clothest thing I have seen is the KKK scene in Django Unchained :)
Klan clothes then?
-
You're in my next signature pic.
-
No you don't. I demand signature-pic monogamy.
-
guy says "hmm ... " to his own statement ;D
Maybe cause I question myself all the time?
A little bit of dialectical thinking wouldn't hurt your postings either without getting into the danger of losing the king of signatures status ... ;) ... hmm, yes ;)
-
Here is a an article from The Milwaukee Journal from August 14, 1951, the day William Randolph Hearst died http://goo.gl/FKd3jY
-
Magician: The Astonishing Life and Work of Orson Welles (2014) 10/10 dir. Chuck Workman. How great it was seeing clips of all of Welles work, unfinished projects also, on a big screen, included interviews.
-
Re-watched Citizen Kane (the German Blu seems to be of lesser quality, the film looks old, but shouldn't)
It was never a personal favourite, but it was as always an enjoyable watch.
It is obviously a film which is visually more daring and stunning than most modern films, what films before 1960 rarely are. And CK is bubbling over with ideas, probably more than other directors with huge filmography had in their whole career. Biggest minus is that there are too much dialogues which interpret what we see, which interpret the character and the film. 9/10
-
I like Bernstein's story about the girl with the white parasol
-
One Welles' movie I never saw but could almost bet is good is Mr. Arkadin aka Confidential Report.
-
It is good, ca 8/10 (in drinkish 9,8/10)
-
I like Bernstein's story about the girl with the white parasol
Everybody does. Redford stole it and put in one of his crappy movies (was it called Indecent Proposal?).
-
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/orson-welles-final-film-2015-release-1201341048/
Beat you to it DJ
not that it matters. other side of the wind was 'going to be released' at least 140 times already.
-
Re-watched Touch of Evil in the restored version. An inebriant masterpiece which makes me shiver. One of the 10 or 20 best films ever. 12/10
And I really hope that The other Side of the Wind will be released in 2015. The year of Welles' 100th birthday.
-
I didn't like Touch of Evil at all. Opening scene and closing scene. That's about all.
-
I didn't like Touch of Evil at all. Opening scene and closing scene. That's about all.
That makes sense. There is of course lots of incredible material in between. Only 2 of the scenes shot by Harry Keller (from which one was eliminated from the integral version) look ordinary, and were easily to spot as not to be shot by Welles. (Actually these 2 shots hurt the eye in their conventionality if watched in the film's context. The other stuff which Keller supposedly shot is ok.)
The rest of Touch of Evil is a visual feast.
-
I can't say that I remember every scene, every shot. What I am saying is that I specifically remember liking the first scene; the last scene is good, not as much as the first scene; and I mostly don't like the in-between. It's definitely possible there are a few good scenes or shots or moments in between. But for the most part, I really didn't like this movie. And those scenes with Leigh being harassed in the motel .... watching that, I was as miserable as Leigh's character was going through it. And btw, I don't like Charltom Heston. I haven't watched any of his epics (unless you call Major Dundee an epic ;) ), but from the few other movies I've seen him, including Touch of Evil, I really don't have much use for him.
-
I can't say that I remember every scene, every shot. What I am saying is that I specifically remember liking the first scene; the last scene is good, not as much as the first scene; and I mostly don't like the in-between. It's definitely possibly there are a few good scenes or shots or moments in between. But for the most part, I really didn't like this movie. And those scenes with Leigh being harassed in the motel .... watching that, I was as miserable as Leigh's character was going through it. And btw, I don't like Charltom Heston. I haven't watched any of his epics (unless you call Major Dundee an epic ;) ), but from the few other movies I've seen him, including Touch of Evil, I really don't have much use for him.
He's good in the epics. Not so much in films on a smaller scale.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on ToE. Great opening shot, great audio/visual feast at the end, lots of dull bits in the middle. Everything in the motel is beyond tiresome.
-
There are for example technically very difficult and complicated scenes in ToE. 2 long tracking shots (or sequence shots) inside a house with about a dozen actors and the camera moving between rooms and including close ups. This scenes are as stunning as the first scene.
And then I love all this incredible looking wide angle shots, the very noirish b/w cinematography, the excellent acting, the unusual and beautiful score, the complexity and ambiguity of the story and characters, etc
This film is so positively different from nearly every other film of the 50s or before. I can still feel how far it was ahead of its time.
But then, if you guys don't like The Lady from Shanghai, there is no reason to like ToE either.
-
There are for example technically very difficult and complicated scenes in ToE. 2 long tracking shots (or sequence shots) inside a house with about a dozen actors and the camera moving between rooms and including close ups. This scenes are as stunning as the first scene.
And then I love all this incredible looking wide angle shots, the very noirish b/w cinematography, the excellent acting, the unusual and beautiful score, the complexity and ambiguity of the story and characters, etc
This film is so positively different from nearly every other film of the 50s or before. I can still feel how far it was ahead of its time.
But then, if you guys don't like The Lady from Shanghai, there is no reason to like ToE either.
you are right about that long sequence shot inside the house, I'd forgotten about that. That's good stuff. And yes, visually, Welles is always interesting to watch. But that's pretty much all that interests me in the movie, some nice camerawork. Not enough to make this a good movie for me
-
Then what's wrong with the film?
-
Then what's wrong with the film?
you want me to list everything?
How about nothing interested me except some nice camerawork? Can I leave it at that?
or if you want I can add, I didn't particularly enjoy watching any of the characters ... or the story ... I really don;t like Charlton heston .... the scenes of Janet Leigh being terrorized in the motel were pure torture to watch ... somehow I felt tearing my ears out; it was an odd sensation - the last time I felt it was when watching the scenes of Mercedes MacAmbridge screaming at Joan Crawford in Johnny Guitar (whoops, I just mentioned another movie you love and I hate)
-
You are watching too much screenplay films.
-
Touch of Evil is a 10/10, I like the whole film.
-
Got Touch of Evil as a birthday present today. A rewatch is in order soon. O0
-
I feel bad for you that you get such sucky birthday presents :P
anyway, happy birthday ;)
-
Got Touch of Evil as a birthday present today. A rewatch is in order soon. O0
A great present !!!! dj & dd are full of shit about this film O0 O0 O0 O0
-
Yes fantastic film! What a great birthday gift.
Now, the discussion we should be having is whether this film should be savored in 1.85:1 or 1.37:1
-
For me without much doubt the 1,85:1 version. It increases the claustrophobic atmosphere.
My Blu set includes all 3 versions, and the theatrical and the integral version both in 1,85 and in 1,37:1. The preview version is only in 1,85:1
But there ain't much reason to watch anything than the integral version. Except that, following the Welles memo, the score of the first scene was changed. But Mancinis original music for this scene is so powerful and magnificent that for me something is missing there. Luckily the also added German theatrical score still has the old music for the newest version.
-
For me without much doubt the 1,85:1 version. It increases the claustrophobic atmosphere.
My Blu set includes all 3 versions, and the theatrical and the integral version both in 1,85 and in 1,37:1. The preview version is only in 1,85:1
But there ain't much reason to watch anything than the integral version. Except that, following the Welles memo, the score of the first scene was changed. But Mancinis original music for this scene is so powerful and magnificent that for me something is missing there. Luckily the also added German theatrical score still has the old music for the newest version.
I agree with 1.85: 1. I also think that the 1998 edit (what Stanton calls the "integral version") is the way to go: it follows the 58-page memo that Welles wrote regarding the changes he wanted, AND it makes the plot much more comprehensible. It also keeps Joseph Calleia in the picture longer. I like seeing the opening without the titles and music, but the titles and music are good and so it makes sense to go back and watch the opening again in one of the other versions (afterwards, as a kind of encore). As I understand it, Welles conception of the film was for it to have diegetic music ONLY (what's on the radio, what musicians on screen actually play, etc.). I think that has to be honored. Of course, Mancini's music is great, but should be heard separately from the film proper.
Russell Metty's photography is wonderful--after his work with Sirk, how could it be otherwise? Too bad the photography is all that is commendable about the film. Story, characters, acting: what of those? Apparently, Welles couldn't be bothered. He also couldn't be bothered to hang around and fight for the cut of the film he wanted (again). It took others, many years later, to clean up his mess.
-
I agree with 1.85: 1. I also think that the 1998 edit (what Stanton calls the "integral version") is the way to go: it follows the 58-page memo that Welles wrote regarding the changes he wanted, AND it makes the plot much more comprehensible. It also keeps Joseph Calleia in the picture longer.
But that was also so in the preview version, which is around since the 70s.
The integral version cuts, compared to the preview version, one of the scenes by Keller, but the others had to stay for several reasons. The other one by Keller which is pretty is important for the continuity (not story, but storytelling), and contains dialogue from the screenplay, but is still terrible. Some scenes were brought in a different order, a few short scenes from the theatrical version were added ans as mentioned the score for the first scene was changed. And the credits were removed and added after the end. It is an improvement over the preview version, but not an earth-shattering one.
Russell Metty's photography is wonderful--after his work with Sirk, how could it be otherwise? Too bad the photography is all that is commendable about the film. Story, characters, acting: what of those?
All fantastic for those who love the film. The acting and characters obviously. The unusual story wouldn't have worked with a conventional director, but then this is, like all real great films, not a screenplay film, but a director's film.
-
not a screenplay film, but a director's film.
You are babbling.
-
Hardly
-
For me without much doubt the 1,85:1 version. It increases the claustrophobic atmosphere.
Take a look at the below screencaps:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/touch_of_evil_blu-ray_/large1998/large_1998_reconstruction_137_touch_of_evil_blu-ray_3a.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/touch_of_evil_blu-ray_/large1998/large_1998_reconstruction_185_touch_of_evil_blu-ray_3.jpg
Surely the former is preferable? That shadow on the ceiling is great. One of Welles' many achievements on Citizen Kane was getting those ceilings in there.
-
Take a look at the below screencaps:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/touch_of_evil_blu-ray_/large1998/large_1998_reconstruction_137_touch_of_evil_blu-ray_3a.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/touch_of_evil_blu-ray_/large1998/large_1998_reconstruction_185_touch_of_evil_blu-ray_3.jpg
Surely the former is preferable? That shadow on the ceiling is great. One of Welles' many achievements on Citizen Kane was getting those ceilings in there.
there are no screencaps at those links you provide
Here are Beaver's screencaps http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/touchofevil.htm
anyway, in 1958, weren't all movies being shown in widescreen? Pretty much all American movies after 1953 or so were in widescreen. For movies made in 1953-54, there is some question as to what their intended aspect ratio was (perhaps some were intended to be shown in both, depending on the theater's capabilities). But not in 1958. Why would there be any doubt about this movie's aspect ratio? Why should we believe this movie was intended to be shown in 1.37:1 at a time when all movies were being shown in widescreen?
-
by the way, Touch of Evil (being a noir) has its own thread http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8380.0
-
there are no screencaps at those links you provide
Here are Beaver's screencaps http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/touchofevil.htm
Hmm. works for me. Anyway, I'm referring to the 3rd set in your link.
anyway, in 1958, weren't all movies being shown in widescreen? Pretty much all American movies after 1953 or so were in widescreen. For movies made in 1953-54, there is some question as to what their intended aspect ratio was (perhaps some were intended to be shown in both, depending on the theater's capabilities). But not in 1958. Why would there be any doubt about this movie's aspect ratio? Why should we believe this movie was intended to be shown in 1.37:1 at a time when all movies were being shown in widescreen?
Welles didn't shoot in widescreen. He went with 1.37:1 or 1.66:1. Check out the following comment by Welles from here (http://www.wellesnet.com/touch_memo2.htm)
Finally, while the style of TOUCH OF EVIL may be somewhat overly baroque, there are positively no camera tricks. Nowadays the eye is tamed, I think, by the new wide screens. These 'systems' with their rigid technical limitations are in such monopoly that any vigorous use of the old black -and-white, normal aperture camera runs the risk of seeming tricky by comparison. The old camera permits use of a range of visual conventions as removed from 'realism' as grand opera. This is a language not a bag of tricks. If it is now a dead language, as a candid partisan of the old eloquence, I must face the likelihood that I shall not again be able to put it to the service of any theme of my own choosing.
-
Welles didn't shoot in widescreen. He went with 1.37:1 or 1.66:1. Check out the following comment by Welles from here (http://www.wellesnet.com/touch_memo2.htm)
Well he shot for 1,85:1, cause that how it was shown in the theatres, but he also composed it for 1,37:1, cause he wasn't too happy with any widescreen format. But when he shoots it also for 1,85:1 the 1,37:1 image, even if he cared for it, can't be the same as when 1,37:1 is the only option.
So in ToE there can be nothing important on top and bottom, and 1.85:1 is the more natural image. That the film still looks great in 1,37:1 is then also true. For many years all my TV recordings of ToE were in 1.33:1, and it worked pretty well.
-
I would reverse your analysis. I would say Welles shot with 1.37:1 as the ideal. However he knew that it would be shown as 1.85:1 so made sure it would still work at that ratio even though it would be far less than ideal. You only need to compare screen shots like the dvdbeaver one above to see how the image is badly compromised by the cropping but not fatally so.
-
if he knew it would be shown in 1.85:1, why would he shoot it with 1.37:1 as any sort of ideal? Eve if in his opinion 1.37:1 is the best aspect ratio, the point is to shoot a movie as it would look best for the viewer, not to look best in the director's viewing room as fans in 1958 would never see
-
the point is to shoot a movie as it would look best for the viewer, not to look best in the director's viewing room
Says who? You're always making compromises on the way your movie will look. You're so dependent of many things that are totally out of your control (projectors, operators, audience... and nowadays screens, sound, colors...) that you cannot assert this kind of stuff. The point is to do the best you can, both for an ideal version of the movie almost nobody will see and in a way that will still kind if work on an iPod touch.
-
Says who? You're always making compromises on the way your movie will look. You're so dependent of many things that are totally out of your control (projectors, operators, audience... and nowadays screens, sound, colors...) that you cannot assert this kind of stuff. The point is to do the best you can, both for an ideal version of the movie almost nobody will see and in a way that will still kind if work on an iPod touch.
especially in 1958, before anyone knew about DVD's with proper aspect ratios ... I mean, maybe Welles intended that it should be shown in 1.37:1 on TV, but I can't imagine he composed a feature primarily for TV and not theaters. If it's gonna be viewed by almost everyone in 1.85:1, and Welles still stubbornly composed it "ideally" for 1.35;1 knowing nobody would see it in that aspect ratio (for at least half a century) then he deserves all the so-called hard luck he got in Hollywood, and he really is as big a dumbass as a DJ insists
-
Well he shot for 1,85:1....
I actually meant it more generally. You can't find anything directed by Welles in anything other than 1.37:1 or 1.66:1. It seems he simply did not believe that "widescreen" was a good idea.
-
especially in 1958, before anyone knew about DVD's with proper aspect ratios ... I mean, maybe Welles intended that it should be shown in 1.37:1 on TV, but I can't imagine he composed a feature primarily for TV and not theaters. If it's gonna be viewed by almost everyone in 1.85:1, and Welles still stubbornly composed it "ideally" for 1.35;1 knowing nobody would see it in that aspect ratio (for at least half a century) then he deserves all the so-called hard luck he got in Hollywood, and he really is as big a dumbass as a DJ insists
He composed it somehow for both. Otherwise it wouldn't had been necessary to release on the Blu both versions. But then the 1,85:1 must overrule the other aspect ratio.
-
he really is as big a dumbass as a DJ insists
I don't think I ever went so far as to say that.
-
I actually meant it more generally. You can't find anything directed by Welles in anything other than 1.37:1 or 1.66:1. It seems he simply did not believe that "widescreen" was a good idea.
Yes, he did not like widescreen images very much. But ToE he must have shot for 1,85:1. I doubt that in the Masters of cinema series a film will be released in an obviously wrong aspect ratio only to fill the screen.
And ToE was his only Hollywood- his only US film in the widescreen era.
The DVD of Chimes at Midnight is also in 1,85:1, and a Welles book I have opts also for this format.
-
I don't think I ever went so far as to say that.
Translated from Drinkish dumbass means he was just a nice guy ...
-
The DVD of Chimes at Midnight is also in 1,85:1, and a Welles book I have opts also for this format.
Hmmm, yeah, I'm looking at my Mr. Bongo DVD, which is widescreen, but I'm wondering if the image isn't zoomed?
-
Translated from Drinkish dumbass means he was just a nice guy ...
;D ;D
-
Hmmm, yeah, I'm looking at my Mr. Bongo DVD, which is widescreen, but I'm wondering if the image isn't zoomed?
Compared to what?
If it isn't hard matted and nothing looks strange in 1,85:1, how can one tell if 1,66:1 or 1,85:1 is correct?
-
Exactly.
-
Is IMDB citing a 1.66:1 OAR not considered reliable enough?
-
Actually I don't trust imdb very much.
-
Translated from Drinkish dumbass means he was just a nice guy ...
so my 9.5/10 means bad movie, my dumbass means nice guy; I don't know why I am paying a shrink; stanton has me all figured out ;)
-
Translated from Drinkish dumbass means he was just a nice guy ...
;D ;D ;D
-
so I've mentioned in the past that I never put Citizen Kane on top of my list of all-time greats. I've watched it many times, always trying to see why it's so great, and never could. I always hear about how innovative it was; maybe cuz I wasn't living in 1941 (Thank God for that) I don't realize how innovative it was.
So, I decided to rent the BRD from Netflix and watch the movie again, this time with Roger Ebert's commentary. Ebert loves this movie, says it's the greatest ever, I figured he would point out all that I was missing. To be sure, I'd definitely noticed some of the tricks they'd used – it's impossible not to – but I obviously wasn't aware of a lot of them.
I should point out that I'd only listened to one previous Ebert commentary – it was for Casablanca – and it is great. And now I listened to Ebert's commentary for CK, and it is great as well. After these two commentaries, I can say that Ebert is one of my favorite commentators ever, and I'll try to find more of his commentaries to listen to in the future.
He is really well-informed about so many of the tricks used in CK – he frequently credits Pauline Kael's work here; no DJ, Ebert is not a plagiarist. It is a wonderfully enjoyable experience watching the movie with Ebert's commentary. I'm not rushing to add this movie to #1 on my list, but I definitely have more of an appreciation for it now. Also, there was always something very memorable about it - even when I didn't have a great appreciation for it, somehow there were so many scenes and moments and lines that stuck in my head. And the two hours seem to fly by; there is never a boring moment in which I say, "just move on."
btw, I've mentioned in the past how much I love (everyone does) Bernstein's story about the girl in white taht he saw getting off the ferry. Ebert says that is his favorite moment in the movie! (Although Ebert interprets it differently than I do: as Ebert sees it, that story is saying, there is happiness out there for everyone if you seize it when it comes to you; maybe Bernstsin's life would have been different if he would have actually went over and asked that girl out. Me, I just thought that his line is about memory - as he says, you'd be surprised at what people remember. I didn't think it meant that he had missed any great opportunity at happiness; I just thought it was a comment about memory. Like, in his memory it was some great moment; if he'd actually talked to her she probably woulda laughed at him and this whole memory woulda been long forgotten!)
oh, one more thing: one criticism I have is how bad some of these matte paintings are. Like the one of the newsboy selling the papers in the early morning. and the ones of the people in the stands around Kane at the political rally. S badly and obviously fake. Some of the paintings are better, but the ones I mentioned and perhaps a few others are really bad.
When all is said and done, this movie ain't at the top of my list but somehow I watch it almost every time it is on TCM!
-
Now I wonder, what will happen if Ebert explains you how to understand Touch of Evil (an even better film than Citizen Kane)?
-
Now I wonder, what will happen if Ebert explains you how to understand Touch of Evil (an even better film than Citizen Kane)?
Unlike Touch of Evil, I never hated Citizen Kane.
-
Film Forum will be having a major Welles retrospective from Jan. 1 thru Feb. 3, 2015. The retrospective will include three versions of Touch of Evil and two versions of Macbeth.
The series will be programmed by Bruce Goldstein, Film Forum's director of repertory programming; and Joseph McBride is a series consultant
All info here http://filmforum.org/series/orson-welles-series-page
-
Film Forum will be having a major Welles retrospective from Jan. 1 thru Feb. 3, 2015. The retrospective will include three versions of Touch of Evil and two versions of Macbeth.
The series will be programmed by Bruce Goldstein, Film Forum's director of repertory programming; and Joseph McBride is a series consultant
All info here http://filmforum.org/series/orson-welles-series-page
Is that the fullest version of Too Much Johnson to date at 90 minutes? I didn't even know that much existed. I've seen every Welles-directed film other than that, the remains of Don Quixote, and Other Side of the Wind.
-
Magician: The Astonishing Life and Work of Orson Welles (2014) 10/10 dir. Chuck Workman. How great it was seeing clips of all of Welles work, unfinished projects also, on a big screen, included interviews.
I'll wait for the BRD of this documentary to be released. Before watching this documentary, I still have a few more Welles movies I gotta see. I haven't seen any of his Shakespeare movies yet.
here is a review of this documentary by Glenn Kenny at rogerebert.com
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/magician-the-astonishing-life-and-work-of-orson-welles-2014
Rating: 3 out of 4 stars
“You should always have something [to fall back on]. Me, I’ve got magic!” John Candy, doing a slightly pointed sendup of Orson Welles, made that joke in a great SCTV sketch in 1982. The real-life Welles regularly sawed Marlene Dietrich in half to entertain the troops during World War II, and played magicians—or illusionists—in films. His final completed feature, “F For Fake,” opens with him doing a little hand magic, before concocting a remarkable illusion in the form of an essay film for 90 minutes.
“The magician is an actor,” Welles himself is heard reflecting at the opening of this entertaining documentary directed by Chuck Workman, the master montage-maker whose work is a consistent highlight of the Academy Awards ceremonies every year. “Magician” is hardly a definitive account of the inordinately complex actor and creator that was Welles—at a mere 94 minutes, it could more accurately be deemed the tip of an iceberg—but it offers a not-bad education for folks who aren’t as familiar with the man and his work as they ought to be, and a few not insubstantial satisfactions for folks like myself, who agree with Jean-Luc Godard’s assessment of the man and his work: “All of us will always owe him everything.”
For one thing, Workman’s film tells a different story from that of showbiz conventional wisdom. That is that the always precocious Welles (“there’s nothing more hateful,” he chucklingly admits, than the kind of prodigy he was at the age of ten) was a wunderkind who peaked with his first commercial film (that’s 1941’s “Citizen Kane,” still a ripping yarn, poignant reflection, and galvanic primer of cinema language) and descended into a career purgatory of his own profligate making shortly thereafter. No, throughout its depiction of what it divides up as four phases of Welles’ life, Workman’s movie never stops depicting Welles as an artist: a restless, searching, often frustrated and sometimes frustrating artist, one who never stopped working but who worked in a fashion completely incomprehensible to the conventional wisdom of the cinema industry.
One interviewee points out that film is the only art form in which it’s considered eccentric, if not wasteful, to have left behind as large a body of unfinished work as Welles did. Of course the fact that there is so much unfinished work isn’t quite so bothersome as that it’s so hard to see, and the film seems almost weary in its final quarter as it has to make caveats concerning the unavailability of so much of Welles' work. Take “Falstaff,” a.k.a. “Chimes At Midnight.” This wonderful 1966 Shakespeare hybrid is confidently proclaimed by actor, director and Welles biographer Simon Callow as “finally, Welles’ masterpiece” (a piece of purposefully provocative quasi-heresy, given the likes of “Kane,” the compromised “The Magnificent Ambersons,” and the magnificent, and largely uncompromised, “The Trial”), but after the few minutes devoted to it the viewer is informed that it’s tied up in legal battles. There’s a sense here that Workman’s film, coming as it does a little prior to the centenary of Welles’ birth, and a possible construction and release of Welles’ last fully shot but largely unedited project “The Other Side of The Wind,” has something of an activist agenda: look at the works of this amazing film and theater director, scattered in disarray over the four corners of the globe, Workman seems to be saying. Can’t we do better?
Film lovers of every generation have to hope we can, and do. In the meantime, while this film elides a lot and makes a questionable choice or two in its portrayals of Welles’ outsize personality (I like Wolfgang Puck’s cooking as much as the next person who’s been to Spago, but I’m not sure his comments on Welles’ epicure side were entirely necessary here), it goes to most of the right people when it comes to shattering the myth of Welles the Hollywood flameout: critic/historians Jonathan Rosenbaum and Joseph McBride chime in with apt observations, and Welles’ longtime companion Oja Kodar is energetic and vibrant and even rather charmingly eccentric. Whatever its shortcomings, “Magician” accomplishes quite a bit as a corrective, and it also gives one an hour and a half in the company of Orson Welles. That in and of itself is worth at least a three-star rating.
-
From http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=11748
Criterion to release Orson Welles’ ‘Othello’ in 2015
December 19, 2014
____
By RAY KELLY
Criterion Collection will release the restored version of Orson Welles' Othello on Blu-ray and DVD in fall 2015.
Full details on extras will be announced in the coming months, though initial plans call for inclusion of the 1955 U.S. edit prepared by Welles, according to Julian Schlossberg, who handled distribution of the Michael Dawson-produced restoration for the Estate of Orson Welles back in 1992.
Othello won the Palme d´Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1952.
Schlossberg told Wellesnet he was pleased that Othello would be a Criterion home video release. "The Criterion Collection is the most prestigious of all the DVD companies."
The late filmmaker's youngest daughter, Beatrice Welles, who oversees the estate, said she hoped the Criterion release would "bring Othello to audiences too young to appreciate our first restoration and for audiences who saw either the first release in the '50s and the first restoration in the '90s."
Criterion's catalog includes a DVD set of The Complete Mr. Arkadin and DVD and Blu-ray releases of F For Fake.
Othello has never been released on Blu-ray in the U.S. before. There was a DVD release from Image Entertainment in 1999 and an Academy Home Entertainment videocassette in 1993.
Carlotta Films US distributed a 2K digital restoration of Othello theatrically last spring.
Carlotta released Othello on Blu-ray in Europe last month. Among the extras on that home video release was Hilton Edwards' Return to Glennascaul with Welles in a cameo role.
Beginning production in 1949, Othello was shot over three years in numerous locations, sometimes in the same scene. Othello received great praise in Europe upon its release, but respect in America was less forthcoming. The film languished through the 1970s and 80s, largely due to a lack of distribution.
When Othello was refurbished in 1992 it was hailed as a cinematic landmark, despite questions in some quarters as to liberties taken by the restoration team, notably the decision to re-record the music score in stereo.
-
F for Fake (1973) - unrateable/10
Didn't like it much.
-
I liked F for Fake.
Btw, I remember reading on wikipedia, I believe, that much of the footage with Elmyr de Hory wasn't shot by Welles. I think someone else shot a lot of that footage and then Welles used it for his movie. I'd have to look it up sometime.
-
It shows. O0
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake#Plot
3rd paragraph
Irving's original part in F for Fake was as de Hory's biographer, but his part grew unexpectedly at some point during production. There has not always been agreement among commentators over just how that production unfolded, but the now-accepted story[fn] is that the director François Reichenbach shot a documentary about de Hory and Irving before giving his footage to Welles, who then shot additional footage with Reichenbach as his cinematographer.
footnote is to this link http://www.thewag.net/film/f_for_fake.html
-
One man's trash...
-
so DJ, none of the Orson Welles movies at Film Forum interest you? The series is ending Feb. 3
http://filmforum.org/series/orson-welles-series-page
-
for hardcore Welles fans, this should be very interesting: http://filmforum.org/film/too-much-johnson-special-event-film-feb-5
Welles’ TOO MUCH JOHNSON - ENCORE!
A UNIQUE FILM & LIVE THEATER EVENT! 7:30 PM, Thursday, February 5
SPECIAL ADMISSION: $25 non-members, $13 members
Encore performance! (1938) Welles’ first professional film — starring Joseph Cotten in a role combining Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd — was intended to be used in conjunction with his new staging of William GIlette’s 1894 farce. But the idea was scrapped. Long thought lost, the raw footage was miraculously discovered in Italy in August 2013.
Tonight, the film — newly edited by William Hohauser from Welles’ rough cut — will be screened for the very first time -- ever -- as Welles originally intended: as prologues to the play’s three acts, performed in a live reading by the Film Forum Players and directed by Allen Lewis Rickman, who has also newly adapted the play from both the Welles and Gillette versions. Produced by Bruce Goldstein. Presented in association with George Eastman House. Approx. 100 min.
The Mercury Theatre Players (on film): Virginia Nicolson (Welles' then-wife), Edgar Barrier, Ruth Ford, Eustace Wyatt, Guy Kingsley, Mary Wickes, Erskine Sanford, Howard Smith, and Arlene Francis.
The Film Forum Players (live): Allen Lewis Rickman, Carl Wallnau, Yelena Shmulenson, Jacqueline Sydney, Bob Ader, Karen Sklaire, Ben Rauch, Jonathan Smith, Steve Sterner
Film preserved by George Eastman House, Cinemazero, Cineteca del Friuli, with partial funding from the National Film Preservation Foundation. Special thanks to Paolo Cherchi Usai, Caroline Yeager, Daniela Currò, and Anthony L’Abbate.
-
Man in the Shadow, a 1957 Western that Welles acts in (second-billed to Jeff Chandler) is available for free on YouTube, you just have to watch a commercial at a few intervals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUwBcPnnWKM
-
It was just too much trouble to go down to Film Forum for this series. Most of the titles are available on home video. Those that aren't will be. The only thing Film Forum can ever really offer is exclusive access. They didn't really have that for this series.
-
And it is FREEZING now. Not worth going out for anything :'(
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/the-other-side-of-the-wind-poster-at-american-film-market/
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/the-other-side-of-the-wind-poster-at-american-film-market/
Very interesting. If Welles only managed to edit 40 minutes, then who is doing the rest and how are they approaching it?
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/early-cut-of-othello-now-online/
-
Currently preparing an article on Citizen Kane for Sound on Sight. Anyone here know how to track down the Bogdanovich/Welles piece "The Kane Mutiny," rebutting Pauline Kael's "Raising Kane" essay?
-
I don't know how to get the full article (beyond the obvious of Googling it, which I am sure you have already tried), but a chunk of the article is quoted by Jonathan Rosenbaum in the back of Bogdanovich's book THIS IS ORSON WELLES, for which Rosenbaum was editor.
Perhaps you should try to contact Rosenbaum.
I seem to recall that that book has a discussion of this debate in the back, so maybe it can also offer you further sources for research.
Good luck! I look forward to reading what I am sure will be a great article :)
P.S. Are you going to offer an opinion in the Welles vs. Manckiewicz debate, or just present both sides?
-
Thanks, Drink. O0 Rosenbaum's a possibility, but I didn't see a contact link on his site. Peter Bogdanovich has an email through his Indiewire blog, but who knows if he'd respond?
I'll probably be exploring the reaction to Kael's piece and its impact on Welles' reputation. The former seems easier to frame than the latter, at this point.
-
Grogs, your query piqued my interest, and I did a little on-line checking to see what I could discover. Apparently, the article only ever appeared once, in a 1972 issue of Esquire (not sure which one), and it's never been reprinted (Rosenbaum speculates that this is because Welles wrote the whole thing and Bogdanovich--although the piece originally appeared under his byline--doesn't want to take ((erroneous)) credit for it). Anyway, getting a copy of the original Esquire issue would seem to be your next move. Alternatively, you could contact Esquire directly about getting an article reprint. Here's info from the website:
Permissions and article reprints
Esquire is fully protected by copyright and nothing that appears in it may be reprinted wholly or in part without permission. For inquiries on reprints, you can contact us in writing at:
Keith Williams
Esquire Reprints
PARS International Corp.
253 West 35th Street
7th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-221-9595 ext. 319
-
Thanks for the leg work, Jenkins. Before I take that step, I'll check to see if the Pitt library has back issues of Esquire. O0
I emailed Joseph McBride and he's checking to see where his article "Rough-sledding with Pauline Kael" might be found. I think it published in Film Heritage or somewhere obscure.
-
while I never trust a word written on Wikipedia, it can often be a great place for sources.
In the "Raising Kane" section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#.22Raising_Kane.22
in the 14th paragraph, first sentence says: "Raising Kane" angered many critics, most notably Bogdanovich, a close friend of Welles who rebutted Kael's claims in "The Kane Mutiny", an October 1972 article for Esquire.[m][n][37]
There are three footnotes there. One footnote says that the Esquire issue was Esquire: 99–105, 180–190.
Another footnote says:
"The Kane Mutiny" also appears in Focus on Orson Welles (1976), edited by Ronald Gottesman, and is excerpted in Bogdanovich's new introduction to the 1998 edition of This is Orson Welles.
used copies of the book in paperback are available on Amazon for less than three bucks http://goo.gl/OL0gAc
another footnote there says, with regard to the issue Jenkns brought up of who actually wrote the "The Kane Mutiny" article: "The by-line carried only my name," Bogdanovich later wrote, "but Orson had taken a strong hand in revising and rewriting. Why shouldn't he? He was fighting for his life."
be sure to go through the sources provided on wikipedia – especially in the section of the debate over the authorship of Citizen Kane.
-
Speaking of Joseph McBride, here's a podcast he's done about The Other Side of the Wind:
http://flixwise.com/2015/05/05/happy-birthday-orson-welles/ (http://flixwise.com/2015/05/05/happy-birthday-orson-welles/)
-
Apparently, an HD transfer of Othello is streaming and you can watch it by signing up with Mubi. You don't actually have to pay anything because they've got a 7-day trial going on. You have to give them your card number, etc., but then you just cancel before the trial period ends. Anyway, you can look at the trailer here https://mubi.com/films/othello/ and decide if it's worth it to you. Of course, some day this will be on disc (probably from Criterion).
-
Thanks for the heads-up, Jenkins.
-
Groggy, can you give us the "abstract" of your article? Is it a general, overall history of CK, or specifically the debate over the authorship of the screenplay? Or something else? Just curious as to what the focus is going to be, and approx. how long it's going to be – what word count did they give you?
Besides satisfying my curiosity, knowing the topic of the article will ensure that any source suggestions we offer will only be of those relevant to your topic. There are a million potential topics for an article about CK, and (while I am the furthest thing from an expert on CK and don't have much to offer), I think that if we know what the article will be about, it will help us to not waste your time with suggestions of sources that aren't relevant to the article's focus ;)
-
The article discusses Pauline Kael's essay "Raising Kane" and the reaction to it by Welles and other cineastes. So yes, the screenplay controversy will be a major part of the article. What I'm mainly trying to decide is how much of the article should be analytical, as opposed to just recounting what was written or said at the time.
I am no expert on Citizen Kane either (most of my knowledge comes from watching The Battle over Citizen Kane many years ago) which is why I've been reading so much. So much has been written about Kane and its players it's easy to get lost. I appreciate you and DJ's assistance, anything can help.
I did finally find and read The Kane Mutiny, which I found in an Esquire collection at my local library. Mr. McBride hasn't gotten back to me since his initial response.
-
Grogs, you should read Carringer's book on Kane. He deals somewhat with the authorship controversy. If I remember right, he has a bit where, in correspondence or over the phone, he was able to get Welles to assign responsibility for parts of the screenplay. For example, Welles was happy to cop to the fact that the Rosebud device came from Mank--because he thought it was a weakness in the script. Welles, of course, was happy to take credit for anything in the film he thought was good, but was willing to cede authorship for things that weren't up to standard.
-
That one I've just read.
Welles, of course, was happy to take credit for anything in the film he thought was good, but was willing to cede authorship for things that weren't up to standard.
In his interviews with Bogdanovich he seemed willing to credit Mankiewicz with much of the dialogue and individual scenes that worked well.
-
Welles was happy to cop to the fact that the Rosebud device came from Mank--because he thought it was a weakness in the script. Welles, of course, was happy to take credit for anything in the film he thought was good, but was willing to cede authorship for things that weren't up to standard.
I disagree with you on this: In THIS IS ORSON WELLES, Welles credits Manckiewicz with writing the scene in Bernstein's office in which Bernstein tells the famous story of the girl with the white parasol; (Welles may have even said it is the best scene in the movie, but I am not certain about that. But I am certain that) Welles speaks very admiringly of that scene and says Mank wrote it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qRoyUcOi4E
I have the Mr. Bongo DVD and it looks really good. If the Blu is a substantial improvement, I'll upgrade.
-
I disagree with you on this: In THIS IS ORSON WELLES, Welles credits Manckiewicz with writing the scene in Bernstein's office in which Bernstein tells the famous story of the girl with the white parasol; (Welles may have even said it is the best scene in the movie, but I am not certain about that. But I am certain that) Welles speaks very admiringly of that scene and says Mank wrote it.
You are merely supplying an exception to a general rule. Of course, on occasion, Welles could be magnanimous, especially when he was in a good mood. And he was never in a better mood than when sitting down to a big meal at Chasen's--the site of many of his interviews.
-
Mr. McBride sent me his "Rough-sledding" piece. I sense this article's finally nearing completion! O0
-
Looking forward to reading it.
-
Finished it this morning, and I'm pleasantly surprised that they already published it.
http://www.soundonsight.org/kael-vs-kane-pauline-kael-orson-welles-authorship-citizen-kane/ (http://www.soundonsight.org/kael-vs-kane-pauline-kael-orson-welles-authorship-citizen-kane/)
-
Nice, Grogs. Very thorough.
Kael blew it on Kane, but that was largely because she was a reviewer, not a critic. We tend to use these terms interchangeably, but in fact, they refer to different activities. A reviewer watches a film and then gives their immediate impression; a critic actually researches a film, spends time analyzing it, may write any number of articles on it. Kael could never be a critic because, by her own admission, she rarely ever saw a movie more than once. But that's all she needed to be able to write reviews. Oddly, when she tried her hand at some actual criticism, as she did on her Kane project, she seems not to have noticed that she was temperamentally ill-equipped for the job. I guess that may explain why she stole from Suber--she didn't actually know how to do her own research!
But as a reviewer Kael was often better than anyone, especially if she were demolishing a total piece of crap (her review of "Awakenings", which I read when it was first published, resonates with me to this day, to give but one example). If I chiseled a legend on her gravestone it would read "A Reviewer, Not a Critic." And that's how I remember her.
Btw, here's an interesting bit of Kane trivia that no else seems to have cottoned on to. The very entertaining trailer Welles made for the film is something of a legend in its own right. If you've never seen this, you should. It does not show clips of the finished film, rather, it consists of an invisible Welles moving about the set, introducing members of the cast to the audience. Sometimes the camera will come upon an actor or a number of actors rehearsing or what not, and then the Voice of Orson will break in and they'll feign surprise, look at the camera, laugh, that sort of thing. It's considered a very innovative trailer for its time, but of course Welles stole the concept and much of the content from the introduction to Sacha Guitry's Le roman d'un tricheur / The story of a cheat(1936). All you need do to confirm what I say is watch the opening of Guitry's film. As far as I know, Welles never mentioned where he got the ideas for his trailer, but they were not original with him.
-
Well said, Jenkins. I'd phrase it slightly different: Kael was a good writer but a terrible critic. That's why I included Circles and Squares at the beginning of the article: that's my favorite piece of hers and the best demolishing of the auteur theory I've read. On the other hand, Kael's worship of filmmakers she liked (Scorsese, Altman, Peckinpah) indicates she was enamored of auteurism herself, in practice if not name.
-
Nice work, Grogs.
BTW, I have never read any of the stuff about the auteur theory, but I remember n_l saying that the theory holds that a director SHOULD be the primary author of a movie, not that he necessarily IS – he SHOULD put his stamp on the work, not that he always does. To me, if n_l's description is correct, then the auteur theory is much less controversial, because it's not saying that the director always IS the author of a work, just that they think a director SHOULD do that.
I've never read Cahier or Sarris or Kael or any of that stuff so I have no idea. I like watching movies for entertainment and not getting too deeply into the nerdy stuff.
-
Thanks, Drink.
Auteur theory isn't really a one-size-fits-all thing. Noodles' description makes sense but you'll find it applied more indiscriminately. Kane (indeed, any of Welles' films) provides one of the strongest cases for it, as are Leone's films. On the other hand, you can't really claim the director was the primary mover on Spartacus or Gone With the Wind, for two obvious examples.
-
Thanks, Drink.
Auteur theory isn't really a one-size-fits-all thing. Noodles' description makes sense but you'll find it applied more indiscriminately. Kane (indeed, any of Welles' films) provides one of the strongest cases for it, as are Leone's films. On the other hand, you can't really claim the director was the primary mover on Spartacus or Gone With the Wind, for two obvious examples.
Gone With the Wind is a bad example cuz there wasn't one director. No doubt Selznick was the primary force behind that movie. Also, with Casablanca, Roger Ebert mentioned on the commentary that even Andrew Sarris says Hal Wallis – rather than director Michael Curtiz – was the primary force behind that movie; as Ebert says it (not sure if he is directly quoting Sarris here), Casablanca is "the exception to the auteur theory."
Anyway, while I haven't read anything about it, what little opinion I do have about the auteur theory I have discussed previously. In a nutshell: I know that with some directors you can clearly see they have a consistent style, and others don't. But I don't think the latter directors should be criticized. I hate how e.g. Billy Wilder – who has made as many great movies as any director ever – sometimes doesn't get credit from the nerds because he didn't have a specific style, and doesn't have many "Look everyone, I am a director" shots.
-
A nice coda to our more serious discussion:
http://www.newsweek.com/16-hilarious-examples-orson-welles-late-career-slumming-329227 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-hilarious-examples-orson-welles-late-career-slumming-329227)
-
I just had a glance at wikipedia's page for the Auteur Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory
It is an absolute mess. If any of you guys care enough, you should fix up the page. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of the auteur theory; this page is a mess. It appears to be a bunch of disjointed paragraphs, like one person wrote one sentence, then another person wrote another sentence; this is not a coherent encyclopedia entry.
Considering that the auteur theory (like it or not) is important to film history and film criticism, it would be nice if there were a decent wikipedia page for it. Any of you fellers know about this stuff, maybe know a few sources, may wanna fix it up :)
-
A nice coda to our more serious discussion:
http://www.newsweek.com/16-hilarious-examples-orson-welles-late-career-slumming-329227 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-hilarious-examples-orson-welles-late-career-slumming-329227)
Hilarious? Doesn't seem that way to me.
-
It's beyond my ken that someone wouldn't at least find the Frozen Peas tape funny. That board game ad was pretty awesome too.
-
TCM is showing Welles movies every Friday this month.
Recorded Mr. Arkadin, got through half of it, I don't think I am gonna watch the rest. It's really annoying. Looks to be the same shtick over and over. A bunch of quick visits to weird people, endless shots from weird angles, at a certain point it's not interesting but stupid. In interviews with Peter Bogdanovich, Welles loves to make it seem like he used certain shots out of pure innocence, not like he was trying anything cute but that this was just the way he felt it should be shot, but that is bullshit. Nobody naturally thinks of shots like this unless he is attempting to be different. I have no problem with shots from weird angles, but it seems like that's all this movie is about. Endless visits to weird people, quick scenes with weird shots. The shtick is wearing thin. Why do I feel like I have to finish this movie just because its Welles and I have to see every Welles movie? Screw that. Unless someone tells me the second half is much better than the first, I am gonna delete this damn recording and that's that. No reason to throw good time after bad.
-
TCM is showing Welles movies every Friday this month.
Recorded Mr. Arkadin, got through half of it, I don't think I am gonna watch the rest. It's really annoying. Looks to be the same shtick over and over. A bunch of quick visits to weird people, endless shots from weird angles, at a certain point it's not interesting but stupid. In interviews with Peter Bogdanovich, Welles loves to make it seem like he used certain shots out of pure innocence, not like he was trying anything cute but that this was just the way he felt it should be shot, but that is bullshit. Nobody naturally thinks of shots like this unless he is attempting to be different. I have no problem with shots from weird angles, but it seems like that's all this movie is about. Endless visits to weird people, quick scenes with weird shots. The shtick is wearing thin. Why do I feel like I have to finish this movie just because its Welles and I have to see every Welles movie? Screw that. Unless someone tells me the second half is much better than the first, I am gonna delete this damn recording and that's that. No reason to throw good time after bad.
Quote
Re: Titoli's Mini-Reviews
« Reply #260 on: September 05, 2012, 01:18:43 PM »
Mr. Arkadin (1955) As it happens with other Welles movies (Lady from Shanghai, for example) this is better watched without sound and no inkling about what the characters say. I don't know if the two version I saw (this one and the other dubbed in italian I saw on tv in the '80's, which could be the same one as the french dvd) approach Welles idea of what the movie should have been like, but I doubt could have been much better of the final product(s). And I can't stand those fake hair and beard and moustaches Welles sport. Still the movie has some famous scenes (Welles apologues) and angles and photography (especially the Naples dock scene) which can't but earn it a 8\10.
Agree pretty much with this, its great to watch, saw the Criterion DVD 8/10
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg174588#msg174588 (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg174588#msg174588)
I like the surrealistic shtick, and the weirdness, to each his own
-
I watched a little while longer (approximately from when they go to Mexico until Arkadin's Christmas party in Germany), I liked it a little more. Maybe I'll just finish it (eventually).
-
Found this nice little Xtranormal video on the auteur theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDXhSy8dmU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDXhSy8dmU)
-
Found this nice little Xtranormal video on the auteur theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDXhSy8dmU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDXhSy8dmU)
;D ;D ;D Thanks, Groggy! Kael wins.
-
finally finished Mr. Arkadin.
It's actually a shame; I think this story could have been made into a good movie if done as a more conventional type of drama. But the endless weird angle shots and scenes just became tiring.
-
Found this nice little Xtranormal video on the auteur theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDXhSy8dmU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDXhSy8dmU)
Thanks
-
BD of The Magnificent Ambersons is coming out in Japan:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Magnificent-Ambersons-Blu-ray/144249/#Forum
-
I just saw the spanish dubbed version of the Don Quixote in the french dvd. Quite uneven: inevitably. I wonder though where the hell is the movie's best sequence where DQ cut a cinema screen to pieces: I saw it on tv a lots of times but here can't be found. Anyway, a must.
-
The Mankiewicz-Kane argument rears its ugly head again:
http://www.wellesnet.com/mankiewicz-book-repeats-debunked-claim-that-orson-welles-did-not-co-write-citizen-kane/ (http://www.wellesnet.com/mankiewicz-book-repeats-debunked-claim-that-orson-welles-did-not-co-write-citizen-kane/)
-
Yeah, baby! https://www.criterion.com/films/28621-othello
-
I just saw THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS for the first time (TCM)
This is a crappy movie.
I know that it's recorded somewhere which shots were done by the studio against Welles's wishes; but I am not sure if we can ever know exactly how Welles would have cut the movie. But if someone can point me to a specific article or whatever that clearly says which shots were added and what the studio did, I'd appreciate it.
Honestly, I think this thing was pretty crappy and I am not sure how it ever could've been made into a good movie. But of course, I have no way of knowing what could have or would have or should have been. I do know that the movie as is is pretty crappy to me - not a flawed masterpiece, but a crappy movie. 5.5/10
The whole thing is stupid. So Tim Holt (who is good in other movies but in this movie talks with this annoying whiny tone, so he irritates the viewers as much as the characters in the movie) is a spoiled, annoying kid. And again and again, people ask when he will get his comeuppance. And finally ---- yes, he gets his comeuppance that was mentioned 20 times! So people talk and talk about when something will happen, and it finally does. So what?? What made me happiest was not that the character got his comeuppance, but that now I would not have to hear the other characters talk endlessly about wishing for the day when he'll get his comeuppance. I am trying to say "comeuppance" as many times as possible here, because that's the only appropriate synopsis of this film ;)
I am happy that Orson Welles got his comeuppance. Sick and tired of hearing about how this poor, misunderstood little boy could have given us a dozen more CITIZEN KANES if only the studio would have given him their money to do a movie but left him alone afterward. I am not expert - heck, I don't know jack - about the details of each movie, how/why the studio screwed it up and what Welles's supposed vision was. I know the basic outline of the supposed Welles tragedy, and frankly I am not sympathetic to it. Something tells me that this guy wasn't blameless. Maybe part of the reason I am speaking so harshly is that i am upset that Welles did not get his shit together and give us more CITIZEN KANES.
I have not seen any of Welles's literary adaptations. But the other films of his I have seen (THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN, THE STRANGER, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE IMMORTAL STORY) are crap, rating somewhere between 4/10 and 6/10. His final completed film, the documentary F FOR FAKE, was decent. Yes, F FOR FAKE is the second-best Welles film I have ever seen! I do have to get around to watching his Shakespeare films, eventually.
I should point out that the films he directed parts of uncredited, like JOURNEY INTO FEAR, are alright.
Of course, I always enjoy watching him as an actor, or just watching him on interviews. I am certainly not saying he wasn't an extremely talented artist. But he seems to have been one who just could not get his shit together, and then evoked sympathy as some sort of tragic misunderstood artist.
Yeah, Orson Welles got his comeuppance >:D
(I know y'all are waiting for the day I'll get mine ;) )
-
We are patiently waiting yes ^-^ O0
-
The whole thing is stupid. So Tim Holt (who is good in other movies but in this movie talks with this annoying whiny tone, so he irritates the viewers as much as the characters in the movie) is a spoiled, annoying kid. And again and again, people ask when he will get his comeuppance. And finally ---- yes, he gets his comeuppance that was mentioned 20 times! So people talk and talk about when something will happen, and it finally does. So what?? What made me happiest was not that the character got his comeuppance, but that now I would not have to hear the other characters talk endlessly about wishing for the day when he'll get his comeuppance. I am trying to say "comeuppance" as many times as possible here, because that's the only appropriate synopsis of this film ;)
I'm not a big fan of the film, but at least I've watched it carefully enough to understand what Welles/Tarkington was going for. Welles in voice-over is explicit: the people who were waiting for the spoiled rich kid to get his comeuppance weren't around when the day finally arrived. The irony is two-fold: there is no one to enjoy the shadenfreude; also, the Tim Holt character has changed so much at that point that he is no longer the spoiled kid of old. He is being punished for being someone he has ceased to be.
So worrying about someone's comeuppance is a useless activity, like debating films with D&D.
-
Sick and tired of hearing about how this poor, misunderstood little boy could have given us a dozen more CITIZEN KANES if only the studio would have given him their money to do a movie but left him alone afterward....
Is this also why you don't like Sam Peckinpah?
-
Is this also why you don't like Sam Peckinpah?
Unlike Peckinpah, at least Welles made one masterpiece :P
-
Actually both were mavericks, both had a lot of trouble with the producers, both were probably for different reasons searching that trouble, both were very, very talented, both made never a weak film, both made more than one masterpiece, both are very dead, but still breathe, only Welles had a big beard.
-
Both could kick stanton's ass . . .
-
Both could kick stanton's ass . . .
Both could, but I'm sure they would have licked it instead.
-
Is it a candy ass, then?
-
Is it a candy ass, then?
Don't know, haven't tried it yet myself.
-
Just stand naked in the rain. Should be easy enough to tell.
-
only Welles had a big beard.
;D ;D ;D
Right, who is the guy who dislikes the maverick maestro that is Bloody Sam?
On my shit list he goes, and I may well have to send the rabid dogs in protest.
-
;D ;D ;D
Right, who is the guy who dislikes the maverick maestro that is Bloody Sam?
On my shit list he goes, and I may well have to send the rabid dogs in protest.
You're late, pal. I'm already on the shit list here >:D
-
You're late, pal. I'm already on the shit list here >:D
Better late than never - besides which, I do have rabid dogs, one called Peck and the other called Sam. Stay indoors d&d >:D
-
Better late than never - besides which, I do have rabid dogs, one called Peck and the other called Sam. Stay indoors d&d >:D
Peck is fine. You shoulda named the other Gregory ;)
-
Actually both were mavericks, both had a lot of trouble with the producers, both were probably for different reasons searching that trouble, both were very, very talented, both made never a weak film, both made more than one masterpiece, both are very dead, but still breathe, only Welles had a big beard.
Go tell them! But the end is wrong. It should read: Welles was fat and Sam was slim. Regarding that beard:
(http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170306/cc353hdd.jpg) (http://www.directupload.net)
-
Peck is fine. You shoulda named the other Gregory ;)
I would have, only here in the UK Gregory Peck means neck!
-
I would have, only here in the UK Gregory Peck means neck!
Ya mean snog? :-\
-
Regarding that beard:
;D
I would have, only here in the UK Gregory Peck means neck!
Gotta love that rhyming slang :)
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/other-side-of-the-wind-footage-netflix-to-release-orson-welles-film/
-
You beat me to it.
According to Walter Murch, Welles' memo about what needed to be changed in the studio edit of Touch of Evil, written after a single viewing, was incredibly insightful and precise. So there is a good chance his notes here can actually help whoever will work on this.
-
Holy shit. Wonder when it'll premiere
-
Blah blah blah
I'll probably watch it also on the first say just out of curiosity, but I am not expecting another CITIZEN KANE.
Welles was quite a character, but this whole mystique surrounding him ... not nearly worthy of what he produced as a filmmaker. The guy made one great film, yet somehow I am supposed to believe that this new film that he couldn't finish for 16 years would have or could have or should have been the next cinematic landmark? Puhleez. Shoulda woulda coulda. I am so sick of the Welles mystique. Even though I am intrigued by him (how can you not be?) and I enjoy watching any interview with him I can get my hands on on YouTube (how can you not?)
Anyway, I guess that the time for speculation is (almost) over ... ;)
-
Holy shit. Wonder when it'll premiere
Yeh - this is a pretty big deal.
The guy made one great film...
I haven't seen everything Welles directed and a couple that I have seen I don't remember too well ("The Magnificent Ambersons" being one of them). However, these three are masterpieces in my book: Citizen Kane; Touch of Evil; The Lady from Shanghai.
Welles' memo about what needed to be changed in the studio edit of Touch of Evil, written after a single viewing, was incredibly insightful and precise.
The Eureka Blu-ray (with its 5 versions of the film) includes an interesting feature on this and just how precise it was.
-
I haven't seen everything Welles directed and a couple that I have seen I don't remember too well ("The Magnificent Ambersons" being one of them). However, these three are masterpieces in my book: Citizen Kane; Touch of Evil; The Lady from Shanghai.
The Eureka Blu-ray (with its 5 versions of the film) includes an interesting feature on this and just how precise it was.
Five? I only remember three at the moment.
Ohh, and btw, welcome to the SLWB Shanghai club. You are a worthy member.
-
I haven't seen everything Welles directed and a couple that I have seen I don't remember too well ("The Magnificent Ambersons" being one of them). However, these three are masterpieces in my book: Citizen Kane; Touch of Evil; The Lady from Shanghai.
In my book, watching TOUCH OF EVIL and LADY FROM SHANGHAI - despite a few good scenes - were mostly excruciating experiences ;)
-
In my book, watching TOUCH OF EVIL and LADY FROM SHANGHAI - despite a few good scenes - were mostly excruciating experiences ;)
You own the wrong books.
Touch of Evil is one of my favourite movies, and The Lady is not that far away.
-
Touch of Evil is one of my favourite movies
Which cut? The Murch one or the old one?
-
Five? I only remember three at the moment.
3 cuts, 2 aspect ratios:
1998 Reconstruction Version, 1.37:1, 111 min
1998 Reconstruction Version, 1.85:1, 111 min
1958 Theatrical Version, 1.37:1, 95 min
1958 Theatrical Version, 1.85:1, 95 min
1958 Preview Version, 1.85:1, 109 min
Ohh, and btw, welcome to the SLWB Shanghai club. You are a worthy member.
Ha ha - thanks O0 I fear it's a pretty small club ;D
-
I fear it's a pretty small club ;D
And getting smaller all the time. Where did you say you lived? >:D
-
You'll never make it through all the snow :P
-
How ice of you to remind me. Maybe another day.
-
How bad was it in Westchester?
-
A foot and a half. Fierce winds, though. A sidewalk would get cleared only to have it covered over again in half an hour.
-
A foot and a half. Fierce winds, though. A sidewalk would get cleared only to have it covered over again in half an hour.
In Brooklyn, we only had about 5 inches. But fierce winds, too. New York City and Philadelphia got much less snow than expected. But other places were pummeled. In New York State, the worst-hit was upstate Broome County, which includes Binghamton. They got 30-35 inches. There was a total travel ban in that county on Tuesday.
-
We got burried, seriously. Halfway up the windshield of the two cars. Took all day to dig them out.
-
We got burried, seriously. Halfway up the windshield of the two cars. Took all day to dig them out.
What county are you in?
-
Ulster at the foot of the Catskills
-
Yeah, baby! https://www.criterion.com/films/28621-othello
Now delayed: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=21181
-
Big coup for Criterion:
http://www.wellesnet.com/filming-othello-added-to-criterions-othello-release/
-
I've only seen four of his films, or let me say, films he either directed or acted in. The Lady from Shanhgai, The Third Man, The Stranger, and Citizen Kane. I wanna say, " I don't get all the hype with Orson Welles." I'm not because I'm pretty sure there are some technical things about him i don't understand. Let me just say that if you are not technically savvy with filmmaking, Orson Welles films come across as average films. I have yet to see a film he has been involved in that had a plot that really made sense. The Lady from Shanghai might be the lone exception.
Alfred Hitchcock on the other hand, can take a film, and a screenplay, and keep you in suspense with a film that makes sense. Welles films come across as very narcissistic. I'm i watching a movie, or I do i have the privilege to watch his movie? There is a tone or air about Welles pictures that don't have any substance. Its all superficial. The films may BE technically savvy, but that doesn't make them great movies. I can take ONE Hitchcock film, Vertigo for instance, and there is NOTHING I've seen or heard about that Welles has made that can touch Vertigo.
I have been advised to watch some commentary of Welles films to become abreast of the more technical aspects of his movies, so I am gonna do that and give some updated comments about Welles after i have done that...
-
Check out Journey Into Fear and Touch Of Evil
-
The Third Man, which is not a film he directed, does not make sense? And does not have a compelling story and compelling characters?
-
The Third Man, which is not a film he directed, does not make sense? And does not have a compelling story and compelling characters?
I didn't like it...
-
I remember reading a rumor somewhere that Orson Welles had played a hand in directing, but this was debunked. I personally think it is not just Carol Reed's best film (out of the ones I've seen) but also one of the best, if not the best, British film ever made
-
Welles made at least some contributions to the 3rd Man, re-wrote some of his lines, at least he wrote that famous cuckoo clock speech.
It is a fantastic film.
-
The weird angles on THE THIRD MAN seem kinda Welles-like, but I have no idea if he contributed to the directing.
I think it is a good, not great, movie.
-
Welles made at least some contributions to the 3rd Man, re-wrote some of his lines...
I think he did that in a lot of the films he acted in
http://www.wellesnet.com/other-side-of-the-wind-footage-netflix-to-release-orson-welles-film/
I just finished reading Josh Karp's excellent book "Orson Welles's Last Movie: The Making of The Other Side of the Wind" (2016) and am now very pumped for this release.
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/orson-welles-other-side-of-the-wind-near-completion-1202610052/
-
The weird angles on THE THIRD MAN seem kinda Welles-like, but I have no idea if he contributed to the directing.
What we know is that he contributed dialogues and shaped his character, not that he actually directed some of his scenes.
-
I've just seen him in 'Three Cases of Murder.' It's a portmanteau type of film. He appears in the last story. Very good. By that time he had really developed his halting type of speech to perfection.
-
What we know is that he contributed dialogues and shaped his character, not that he actually directed some of his scenes.
As I said above, the theory that he directed some scenes has been largely debunked and is quite disrespectful to Reed. That Welles contributed dialogue and shaped his character is no different from what he seems to have done in any film that he actually cared about and wasn't just doing for the money.
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/rian-johnson-other-side-wind/
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/rian-johnson-other-side-wind/
This is an interesting quote there:
"On a style level, it's cut in a way that feels slightly beyond where we are now. It's got a very fast, collage-like feel."
I've read that the cutting is quite remarkable so am looking forward to checking it out.
-
Ambersons: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=23449
-
Ambersons: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=23449
Awesome. big year for Orson
-
https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff2018/daily/orson-welles-the-other-side-of-the-wind-nyff56-special-events/
You New Yorkers gotta go to this... there's a chance I might to NYFF with coworkers for the Coens latest, but doubtful.
-
Methinks I'll be reactivating my Netflix account in November
-
Looks really great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWHBUTHmf0
-
can't wait.
-
"Select Theaters" on Nov. 2 (or on Netflix). I'm guessing there will be NYC and LA showings. Anywhere else?
-
http://www.wellesnet.com/other-side-wind-premiere-review/
-
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2018/09/04/venice-2018-welles-and-the-other-side-of-the-wind/
The Other Side of the Windbag--HA!
-
Thanks for that, ;-)
-
Outside of theatrical exhibitions, the best the film has ever looked: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_70/the_magnificent_ambersons_blu-ray.htm
-
Really excited to rewatch Criterion's version of this. I've only seen it once, many many years ago, on VHS. I may buy a nice Criterion-Welles Bundle with Othello, F For Fake, Chimes at Midnight, and Immortal Story....good use of B&N Sale in November.
-
The Other Side Of The Wind
First Impressions
W*T*F*?, Cool, John Huston, some Film Noir actors Edmund O'Brien, Paul Stewart, Mercedes McCambridge, Cameron Mitchell, nekkid women, Ojar Kodar, home movies, W*T*F*?, improvisation, experimental, flowing into semi-documentary, reminissings by family members, Gary Graver cinematographer, assessment of Welles work, an insight into how he worked and his creative style, his eternal problems with creative control and financing, it's all in the editing, his loss of the footage from The Other Side Of The Wind from repercussions from the Iranian Revolution, Welles having to resort to acting in various projects for money, Welles mooching off Peter Bogdanovich for two years, his last interviews, his biggest curse was the success of Citizen Kane at 25 years old. Like one big free for all fun wild party celebrating Welles.
Interesting enough that I'd watch it again.
-
I thought it was a very interesting art film, and an amazing watch as a big-to-huge Welles fan, but it's also very challenging and oftentimes not comprehensible. There might be more cuts in this than any other movie. By the end, I was exhausted. Part of me wants to watch again for a better understanding, but another part of me would rather just rewatch the tamer but somewhat similar F For Fake.
-
There might be more cuts in this than any other movie. By the end, I was exhausted.
Yeh - even just focusing on the famous scene when John Huston makes his entrance that we know Welles had already (had) edited (i.e. was not done by Murawski later who incidentally did a great job overall trying to retain Welles' supposed desired approach), the editing really did stand out for a non-action scene of that nature. Had I been watching back when it was edited I would undoubtedly have been really impressed even if it did not perhaps always have the fluidity of some of the best editing being done around that time by the likes of Dede Allen or her followers or those working under the directorial auspices of Sam Peckinpah. The problem however is that from today's perspective it reminded me of how such brilliant editing back then has devolved into the ultra-fast jump cuts we often find in shoddy action scenes nowadays as if just by fast cutting something should be exciting. As such I think the impact was unfortunately unfairly dampened on me, but nonetheless the fact that it occurred in a "non-action" scene still really made an impression and was very different.
In Murawski's words: "I wanted to really try to understand his style and what he was going for in that period of his career. He wasn’t editing for the sake of editing. He was trying to create movement that he could no longer create with the camera because he didn’t have access to Gregg Tolland and those incredible professional crews of technicians and crane shots. He had to figure out a new way to create that feeling of movement."
As for the film itself, it was indeed weird and I personally found all the softcore porn elements (sorry, I mean "art house") to be unnecessary. It was of course hugely bipgraphical even down to the mentioning of the altercation with Hemingway. I should probably re-watch it before writiing anything else.
-
An amazing webpage: http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/
-
Thanks
-
I just finished The Other Side of the Wind. It took several excruciating sessions to get through this piece of shit.
I guess those people who consider Welles to be a genius whose every word contains hidden gems of mysticism we mere mortals cannot understand, and who are fascinated with his life and the autobiographical aspects of the movie, either truly love it or focre themselves to. I couldn't stand it.
The only good thing I can say about this is a hilarious Edmond O'Brien.
-
I just finished The Other Side of the Wind. It took several excruciating sessions to get through this piece of shit.
I guess those people who consider Welles to be a genius whose every word contains hidden gems of mysticism we mere mortals cannot understand, and who are fascinated with his life and the autobiographical aspects of the movie, either truly love it or focre themselves to. I couldn't stand it.
The only good thing I can say about this is a hilarious Edmond O'Brien.
I don’t think anybody actually loves it. Everybody finds it excruciating. Yet, there are plenty of good to great things in it by one of the most talented filmmakers ever (that title, in 2019, isn’t an opinion anymore, it’s a fact).
Like it’s often the case, I find it also easier to spot why a guy is a genius and how he achieved genius results by watching his failed attempts. Because the craft is more visible. The lack of polish makes the essence of his work more discernable. That being said I yet have to find the courage to watch the final hour.
-
I don’t think anybody actually loves it. Everybody finds it excruciating. Yet, there are plenty of good to great things in it by one of the most talented filmmakers ever (that title, in 2019, isn’t an opinion anymore, it’s a fact).
Like it’s often the case, I find it also easier to spot why a guy is a genius and how he achieved genius results by watching his failed attempts. Because the craft is more visible. The lack of polish makes the essence of his work more discernable. That being said I yet have to find the courage to watch the final hour.
I don't give a damn how "talented" a filmmaker is, or how much of a "genius" he is. I like to watch good movies and I hate to watch bad movies. And most of what Welles made was shit or average. I don't care how much he coulda woulda shoulda done. I care about how much pleasure, as a movie fan, he gives me. And Welles didn't give me much pleasure beyond Citizen Kane.
(Note: This post is referring to his directed movies. As an actor, he did have some very good performances in other filmmakers' movies.)
I haven't seen his Shakespeare films. But I have seen The Magnificent Ambersons, and I think it is crap. Not a masterpiece screwed up by the studio, but a movie that is crap and never had any potential to be anything other than crap. The Lady from Shanghai is excruciating. Yeah yeah, I know all about the famous ending in the house of mirrors. Whoopdy do. The rest of the movie is crap.
The Stranger is decent, as is F for Fake. The Immortal Story is not good. Touch of Evil is crap besides the first scene and last scene. Mr. Arkadin is excruciating. Am I supposed to enjoy an awful movie just because Welles was such a genius that he knew how to turn a camera diagonally when the mere mortal filmmakers were holding it straight? ::)
Maybe Welles had more talent and genius than every other filmmaker who ever lived. Heck, maybe so do I. But I haven't made shit, so I'm no benefit to cinema. Name me Welles and 99 other filmmakers who ever lived, and odds are I'll tell you the other 99 gave me more pleasure than Welles did. Which means they have more value to me as a filmmaker than Welles did.
Movies are about both art and entertainment. We can have endless debates about whether the two are mutually exclusive or identical or the relative importance of each and how much they are intertwined, etc. But without entertainment, a film/filmmaker has no value. And for me, Welles produced minimal entertainment.
---
The way people talk about Welles reminds me of Mickey Mantle. Mantle was a very famous baseball player from the 1950's and 1960's. He suffered numerous devastating injuries, so he missed lots of games, and the games in which he did play, he was often hurt. BY the end of his career, it was sad to watch him, he could barely move due to his injuries. So a big part of the Mickey Mantle Story is what could have been.
But injuries or not, Mantle indeed was one of the greatest baseball players ever! (I won't go into the statistics cuz you Europeans don't know or care about that stuff, but) the fact is that he indeed was one of the all-time greats. Without the injuries, he could have been even better! Maybe without the injuries he could have been one of the 5 greatest players ever - but even with the injuries he was one of the 10 or 20 greatest ever. So it's ok to talk about what "could have been." Because his output indeed was great.
But Welles's output was crap. When a guy had great output, you can talk about how much greater he could have been. But when a guy's output was shit, I'm sick and tired of hearing about him. Talent and genius and potential don't mean jack. Output is what matters. And any filmmaker who made more than one great movie already has a better output than Welles.
--
I enjoyed Netflix's documentary about the making of The Other Side of the Wind (it's called They'll Love Me When I'm Dead) far more than I enjoyed The Other Side of the Wind.
-
I don’t think anybody actually loves it. Everybody finds it excruciating. Yet, there are plenty of good to great things in it by one of the most talented filmmakers ever (that title, in 2019, isn’t an opinion anymore, it’s a fact).
Nobody loves it? Everybody finds it excruciating?
4 out of 4 stars https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-other-side-of-the-wind-2018
One of the Best Films of 2018 https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comment/bradlands/other-side-wind-orson-welles-impossible-film
4 out of 5 stars https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/other-side-of-the-wind-movie-review-746393/
A-Minus http://homepages.sover.net/~ozus/othersideofthewind.html
4 out of 5 stars https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/31/the-other-side-of-the-wind-review-lost-orson-welles-epic-satire
-
I don't give a damn how "talented" a filmmaker is, or how much of a "genius" he is. I like to watch good movies and I hate to watch bad movies.
I get that. Now, like it or not, a huge chunk of the films you think are good and that were made after Welles would have never existed, or they wouldn't have been half that good. So you may not give a shit about him, it doesn't change anything: he's been too influential.
And most of what Welles made was shit or average. I don't care how much he coulda woulda shoulda done. I care about how much pleasure, as a movie fan, he gives me. And Welles didn't give me much pleasure beyond Citizen Kane.
I think that's where you're wrong. I don't like much of his movies either. They're deeply flawed, and we could discuss that for hours (but not too loud because you don't want to wake up Stanton). I think DJ will agree on this: Welles lacked a true screenwriter next to him. He had great screenwriting skills but he would have needed someone to cover the basics while he worked on the ambitious stuff. Still, "average" is probably the worst word you could have came up with. They are everything but average. There is a huge, huge difference between "partly great, partly turd" and "average". The fact that Welles films are the very opposite of average is the key thing to understand.
Movies are about both art and entertainment. We can have endless debates about whether the two are mutually exclusive or identical or the relative importance of each and how much they are intertwined, etc. But without entertainment, a film/filmmaker has no value. And for me, Welles produced minimal entertainment.
Now I'm not asking you to enjoy watching them. I'm saying he's in the league that is above subjective taste. The fact that you end up watching almost all of his films while not liking them is already a testament to that.
The way people talk about Welles reminds me of Mickey Mantle. Mantle was a very famous baseball player from the 1950's and 1960's. He suffered numerous devastating injuries, so he missed lots of games, and the games in which he did play, he was often hurt. BY the end of his career, it was sad to watch him, he could barely move due to his injuries. So a big part of the Mickey Mantle Story is what could have been.
But injuries or not, Mantle indeed was one of the greatest baseball players ever! (I won't go into the statistics cuz you Europeans don't know or care about that stuff, but) the fact is that he indeed was one of the all-time greats. Without the injuries, he could have been even better! Maybe without the injuries he could have been one of the 5 greatest players ever - but even with the injuries he was one of the 10 or 20 greatest ever. So it's ok to talk about what "could have been." Because his output indeed was great.
But Welles's output was crap. When a guy had great output, you can talk about how much greater he could have been. But when a guy's output was shit, I'm sick and tired of hearing about him. Talent and genius and potential don't mean jack. Output is what matters. And any filmmaker who made more than one great movie already has a better output than Welles.
Like I said, Welles isn't about "could have been". He's about "is". He's about having changed cinema forever (and for the better) even with his lesser films... and still changing it right now because he's still directly influencing many current filmmakers and indirectly influencing most, if not all of them.
Sorry if it sounds grandiloquent, but simple truths that everybody knows about often do when put to words.
I enjoyed Netflix's documentary about the making of The Other Side of the Wind (it's called They'll Love Me When I'm Dead) far more than I enjoyed The Other Side of the Wind.
Same here. So much that I was able to finish the documentary, while I still have to finish The Other Side of the Wind. Although what will stay with me forever (and, I hope, in my craft) are moments from the Welles' film, not from the documentary.
-
Nobody loves it? Everybody finds it excruciating?
4 out of 4 stars https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-other-side-of-the-wind-2018
One of the Best Films of 2018 https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comment/bradlands/other-side-wind-orson-welles-impossible-film
4 out of 5 stars https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/other-side-of-the-wind-movie-review-746393/
A-Minus http://homepages.sover.net/~ozus/othersideofthewind.html
4 out of 5 stars https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/31/the-other-side-of-the-wind-review-lost-orson-welles-epic-satire
Yeah, yeah, a few reviewers, in the heat of the moment. Let a couple of years go by and we'll see how many times they've rewatched it. A few months have passed and I already see way more articles and discussion about Blade Runner 2049, that was a 2017 box office flop, than about The Other Side of the Wind. Actually, outside of this board, I don't think I've seen anybody discuss that movie since the first few days of 2019.
I'm pretty sure it would have been a HUGE flop (probably Welles' biggest one) but a highly influential movie had it been released at the time. Now it comes a few years after Hollywood finally gave up with the "fast cutting, shaky cam" trend, and a full decade after the found footage trend. It means it was released after we went way too far with its 2 biggest cinematographic bets. So however ahead of its time it was, the film's form struggles to be relevant.
-
They're deeply flawed, and we could discuss that for hours (but not too loud because you don't want to wake up Stanton).
... yawn ... uhh ... wtf ... not flawed, but amazing, deeply fascinating etc ... yawn ... snore ...
-
;D
-
I think DJ will agree on this: Welles lacked a true screenwriter next to him. He had great screenwriting skills but he would have needed someone to cover the basics while he worked on the ambitious stuff.
This is demonstrably true. Just compare the films he did when he had someone on the writing and when he didn't. QED.
-
I completely agree about Welles needing co-writers.
Welles is undoubtedly one of the most influential directors ever, but 30s John Ford doesn't receive nearly enough credit for his influence on Kane. Welles takes those Ford's low angles, deep focus, etc and presents them in a more showy manner. It does make for a more modern experience but does Welles really deserve all that credit?
It does bring up an interesting debate in that how much value does a filmmaker really have when they constantly went over budget, had trouble finishing movies and produced a lot of uneven work that really only has academic value - and I personally don't find value in academic works that don't provide entertainment.
I do love Touch of Evil and think The Lady From Shanghai is entertaining in spite of how big of a mess it is - McTiernan's Last Action Hero is the schlocky 90s example of a hot mess of a movie that still provides entertainment when it has no right to.
-
RE: Welles being influential: After Citizen Kane, did he do that much that was very influential, and that wasn't already in Citizen Kane?
-
RE: Welles being influential: After Citizen Kane, did he do that much that was very influential, and that wasn't already in Citizen Kane?
I'd say the tracking shot in Touch of Evil and the funhouse set piece in Shanghai were very influential.
Also, maybe F for Fake? Maybe Jenkins or Stanton can chime in on that one.
I don't think it's much of a slight if Welles wasn't all that influential after Kane, the same thing can be said for Tarantino and Pulp Fiction. You can really only make one movie with such a monster impact. Kubrick is probably the lone exception but he would be my pick for the single greatest filmmaker ever if I had to try to be objective.
-
I don't think it's much of a slight if Welles wasn't all that influential after Kane, the same thing can be said for Tarantino and Pulp Fiction. You can really only make one movie with such a monster impact.
And that's why I'm saying that, as great as CK is, Welles's accomplishment as a filmmaker is one damn movie. He did not do much worthwhile after that. I can't consider him a great filmmaker based on one film. If Leonardo da Vinci had made only the Mona Lisa, I wouldn't say he was a great painter. Again, because I don't care about potential and ability and talent. I care about output.
-
"Touch of Evil" and "The Lady from Shanghai" are masterpieces.
As for "The Other Side of the Wind"...
Now it comes a few years after Hollywood finally gave up with the "fast cutting, shaky cam" trend...
Exactly. To shamelessly quote myself...
Yeh - even just focusing on the famous scene when John Huston makes his entrance that we know Welles had already (had) edited (i.e. was not done by Murawski later who incidentally did a great job overall trying to retain Welles' supposed desired approach), the editing really did stand out for a non-action scene of that nature. Had I been watching back when it was edited I would undoubtedly have been really impressed even if it did not perhaps always have the fluidity of some of the best editing being done around that time by the likes of Dede Allen or her followers or those working under the directorial auspices of Sam Peckinpah. The problem however is that from today's perspective it reminded me of how such brilliant editing back then has devolved into the ultra-fast jump cuts we often find in shoddy action scenes nowadays as if just by fast cutting something should be exciting. As such I think the impact was unfortunately unfairly dampened on me, but nonetheless the fact that it occurred in a "non-action" scene still really made an impression and was very different.
-
"Touch of Evil" and "The Lady from Shanghai" are masterpieces.
I just accidentally clicked on the "Register" tab on top of the forum, and it says that as part of the registration agreement, http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?action=register
"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false" or "inaccurate"
ToE and TLfS are shit >:D
-
Actually all films by Welles are more or less great, even his weaker films show some signs of brilliance, are a pleasure to watch, that's why he is still considered one of the greatest directors. And that will not change that fast, maybe never.
Welles was able to create overwhelming films, and this is something other good directors have never achieved. I think even in his failings Welles is more interesting than good directors like Lumet or Levinson or Forman in their best films.
-
And Citizen Kane itself is overrated. Its a good film but not anywhere on my top anything list.
It cannot be overrated if half the films made after it (including most of the ones you love) replicated it. It's conceptually impossible.
Actually all films by Welles are more or less great, even his weaker films show some signs of brilliance, are a pleasure to watch, that's why he is still considered one of the greatest directors. And that will not change that fast, maybe never.
Welles was able to create overwhelming films, and this is something other good directors have never achieved. I think even in his failings Welles is more interesting than good directors like Lumet or Levinson or Forman in their best films.
That's what I'm saying.
-
I think Chimes at Midnight is a great film, and not for the reasons usually stated. Welles was, naturally, in awe of the Bard and at several points in his career tried to do projects that would allow him to express his reverence but at the same time leave his personal stamp on the material. He was not always successful at doing both. Macbeth, even with Welles' changes, is fairly faithful to Shakespeare original, but suffers from not being sufficiently cinematic (extended tracking shots notwithstanding). Othello is great cinema but defective Shakespeare. Welles only got the balance right on Chimes at Midnight, which is both good cinema and faithful Shakespeare. In technical terms, it is also one of his least flamboyant films, and I often weary of Welles being showy.
-
Replicated what? The film is overrated. Not as bad as that " Stalker " film by that other overrated director, Tarkovsky, but its still overrated. Don't even get me started on Touch of Evil. The Third Man was a perfect pairing of him and ANOTHER overrated director, Carol Reed. It was the overrated director Hall of Fame movie. I know I jumped everywhere with this post but I had to get those comments off my mind...
It took me quite a few viewings to feel CK was a great film.
Watch it with Roger Ebert’s commentary.
-
It took me quite a few viewings to feel CK was a great film.
It's a great film in terms of technique. The subject is not particularly worthwhile: at the end of the day Kane the man is not very interesting. And the message of the film is rather trite (Our most public of men is, in private life, an utter nullity. Oh, the irony!).
-
It's a great film in terms of technique.
Yes - that's the sole reason I love it. Whenever I read a review that lauds much of anything else, most especially without mentioning technique, I tend to just roll my eyes and sigh at the state of film criticism...
-
By now I'm used to reading all sort of crap here, 'bashing all kinds of masterpieces of the art of filmmaking,
left & right all through film history.
Now Welles is the next victim? Sounds like Trumps climate change denials ;D.
Anyway, I doubt anybody seriousely dealing with "cinema" would take that serious...
Welles knew he owed a lot to Ford, i.e. Gregg Toland. Is there any other
film where the director shared his credit 50:50 with his cinematographer??
That IS givin' credit a lot...
Just watched TOUCH OF EVIL in a cinema again, what a great night. One of the groundbreaking 1950's
films, especially in ol' Hollywood.
(https://up.picr.de/35312876wm.jpg)
-
at the end of his commentary on the Casablanca blu-ray, Roger Ebert says that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all-time, but Casablanca is the one he enjoys most.
I've said a lot on these boards about how I don't like to separate the art and the entertainment, but the point is that some people feel that Citizen Kane has more "genius" - but it may not be apparent to someone who is new to classic films or just watching CK for the first time.
Personally, I don't know why technique should be considered more "genius" than should other things, like a great script and great acting.
-
Personally, I don't know why technique should be considered more "genius" than should other things, like a great script and great acting.
I put script and acting inside "technique". Filmmaking is a ton of different crafts before it's an art.
By the way "script" means much more than just "plot". Citizen Kane's screenplay itself is already insanely groundbreaking. The structure doesn't come from the camerawork.
And of course, 24yo Welles' performance as an aging Kane is a performance for the ages.
-
I put script and acting inside "technique". Filmmaking is a ton of different crafts before it's an art.
By the way "script" means much more than just "plot". Citizen Kane's screenplay itself is already insanely groundbreaking. The structure doesn't come from the camerawork.
And of course, 24yo Welles' performance as an aging Kane is a performance for the ages.
What I meant was, why do ARTSY people seem to value technique over acting? Sticking with the comparisons between CK and Casablanca: CK was more groundbreaking with technique, and perhaps The plot was more original, and definitely the flashback structure was brilliant. But the script, the lines, I think were better in Casablanca, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the acting performances in Casablanca were a million times better than in CK.
I agree that Welles delievered a fabulous Performance. In my opinion that is an aspect about this movie that is still underrated. But Casablanca had so many memorable performances! And the lines were so damn great!
I think many artistic people would agree with Ebert’s line, that they would rate Citizen Kane the better movie even though they enjoy Casablanca more. My question is why. Why is groundbreaking-ness more important than all the other aspects of filmmaking, primarily entertainment.
-
What I meant was, why do ARTSY people seem to value technique over acting? Sticking with the comparisons between CK and Casablanca: CK was more groundbreaking with technique, and perhaps The plot was more original, and definitely the flashback structure was brilliant. But the script, the lines, I think were better in Casablanca, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the acting performances in Casablanca were a million times better than in CK.
I agree that Welles delievered a fabulous Performance. In my opinion that is an aspect about this movie that is still underrated. But Casablanca had so many memorable performances! And the lines were so damn great!
I think many artistic people would agree with Ebert’s line, that they would rate Citizen Kane the better movie even though they enjoy Casablanca more. My question is why. Why is groundbreaking-ness more important than all the other aspects of filmmaking, primarily entertainment.
I cannot speak for everybody. I definitely canno speak for Ebert, who didn't say that he preferred CK over Casablanca, by the way, so he didn't say that groundbreaking-ness was more important than entertainment. He just knows what "objectively" means ;) But for me, on top of my mind, 3 reasons:
Historical : because what history remembers in the end is groundbreaking-ness. And in such a subjective domain (art), history is almost always the better judge.
Utilitarian: because one groundbreaking film creates literally thousands of entertaining ones!
Personal : because while I do love love good entertainment, there is so much more to movies, to me, than just entertainment...
-
I cannot speak for everybody. I definitely canno speak for Ebert, who didn't say that he preferred CK over Casablanca, by the way, so he didn't say that groundbreaking-ness was more important than entertainment. He just knows what "objectively" means ;) But for me, on top of my mind, 3 reasons:
Historical : because what history remembers in the end is groundbreaking-ness. And in such a subjective domain (art), history is almost always the better judge.
Utilitarian: because one groundbreaking film creates literally thousands of entertaining ones!
Personal : because while I do love love good entertainment, there is so much more to movies, to me, than just entertainment...
I guess an answer could be this: If you enjoy watching a DVD of a rock concert or a porn film more than a DVD of Casablanca, it doesn’t mean that that concert or porno is a better movie - because it is not fact not a movie at all! It is a more enjoyable experience but not a better movie, because it isn’t a movie.
So I guess that is an extreme version of the difference between art and entertainment starts diverging there, and if you take it to a different extreme, you can say that even though Casablanca clearly is a MOVIE, The fact that you enjoy it better than another movie (e.g., Citizen Kane) doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a better movie than Citizen Kane.
But I would disagree with that. In this example, I would say that while CK may be a more IMPORTANT movie than Casablanca, if you don’t enjoy it as much you can’t call it a better movie.
-
Wow look at all I missed being gone for a day. 8)
-
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) I gave Welles another chance and screened this. The film looked gorgeous and the camera techniques employed by Welles were fantastic. The plot itself started good, got better and then everything closed down in a rush. The central theme of George and his behavior was not enough to carry a film. I read about the studio doing a heavy re editing of the film which some say ruined it. Others say the missing footage adds little more to the film. As is I rate the film around 7.5 out of 10.
Welles' ending would have changed the film considerably, moving the focus away from George and on to Fanny and Eugene in later life. I agree that the "comeuppance" story isn't enough to sustain the film in its entirety. The ending as Welles envisioned it would have provided more meat. It wouldn't have made it a masterpiece, but it would have improved matters. As it stands, all of the good stuff in Ambersons is in the first 30 minutes.
To me a great film has to have a great story and/or great characters. Kane falls short because Kane the man is not great--that's the very thesis of the film. OK, the film accomplished what it set out to do, but is that enough? My answer is No. Paucity of vision cannot be an end in itself. I will always prefer films where character is not only revealed but developed. I like Lawrence of Arabia and A Man For All Seasons more than CK. Casablanca is not only entertaining, it is about a man who overcomes his limitations and ennobles himself. GBU and OUATIA also follow this pattern.
-
Anyway i’m not sure it’s that smart to oppose Casablanca and CK when both are usually hailed as masterpieces. Of course, CK ha more prestige among the community but Casablanca has nothing to complain about.
-
Anyway i’m not sure it’s that smart to oppose Casablanca and CK when both are usually hailed as masterpieces. Of course, CK ha more prestige among the community but Casablanca has nothing to complain about.
I was just using it as an example, cuz Ebert said he thought CK was the greatest movie but Casablanca the most enjoyable. You don't have to agree with that statement, but it's a useful example for our discussion of art and entertainment.
-
I was just using it as an example, cuz Ebert said he thought CK was the greatest movie but Casablanca the most enjoyable. You don't have to agree with that statement, but it's a useful example for our discussion of art and entertainment.
I understand and it isn't disproving anything you said, but still.
The point about CK being foremost an "important" movie is a good point though. In my 0 to 10 scale there are points devoted to importance (I don't think you can reach 10 without being an important movie), because of the reasons I gave earlier, but I wouldn't jump on your throat if you say CK is a 8. It's a 10 though >:D
-
I put script and acting inside "technique".
So what don't you put under the rubric of "technique" then?
-
I understand and it isn't disproving anything you said, but still.
The point about CK being foremost an "important" movie is a good point though. In my 0 to 10 scale there are points devoted to importance (I don't think you can reach 10 without being an important movie), because of the reasons I gave earlier, but I wouldn't jump on your throat if you say CK is a 8. It's a 10 though >:D
I can agree with the difference between "important" and "entertainment," but I don't like distinguishing (too much) between art and entertainment.
But I have no problem giving a movie a 10/10 without being "important." If by important, you mean, "containing things that were groundbreaking/ influential for later movies," very, very few movies - including ones many people consider classics, and which are highly entertaining - would qualify.
Movies are about entertainment. Being groundbreaking is good because it helps us find news ways of entertaining! Groundbreaking-ness should be the means, not the end.
-
So what don't you put under the rubric of "technique" then?
Let me rephrase: technique is craft, to me. There is craft in every execution. The line is sometimes hard to draw. A few examples of things that aren’t in it:
- ambition
- intention
- message
- some of the things we put under acting (Bronson shows little to no acting ability in OUATITW, but his charisma and his face sell the job... partly thank to the crew’s technique. Many French actors of the 60’s and 70’s has no technique at all, but their personality was more than enough)
- happy accidents (although you often need some technique to know how to create an environment prone to accidents)
- great scenery (although it’s somebody’s job to find it and somebody’s job to make it look good, one you said you are gonna shoot in front of Mount Everest you don’t need a lot of technique to get it mostly right)
- ...
-
I can agree with the difference between "important" and "entertainment," but I don't like distinguishing (too much) between art and entertainment.
But I have no problem giving a movie a 10/10 without being "important." If by important, you mean, "containing things that were groundbreaking influential for later movies," very, very few movies - including ones many people consider classics, and which are highly entertaining - would qualify.
Movies are about entertainment. Being groundbreaking is good because it helps us find news ways of entertaining! Groundbreaking-ness should be the means, not the end.
I don’t like drawing a line about art either. I usually don’t talk about it.
Most classics are highly influential. Casablanca as well as the 3 first Indiana Jones movies were quite important. Even a film like When a Harry Meets Sally (which definitely isn’t a 10 in my book) is taught in every screenwriting class.
Now I have to fully disagree about “movies are about entertainment”. It’s just plain false. “Movies” as a whole aren’t. Some are. It sounds as restrictive, to me, as saying “movies are about apples”. Once again, there are much more to movies than just apples, or entertainment. I know some movies that don’t give a shit about entertainment. Think about Shoah. I know movies that from time to time actively try to bore you. Think about Stalker. I’d go further: in many, many movies, “entertainment” is used as a marketing trick only, a concession to the economic rules that make movies exist and audiences move their ass while the movie is all about something totally different.
How come movies is the only art/medium about which some people try to explain what it’s all about? What is litterature about? What are sculptures about? What is music about? What is cinema about?
These are rethorical questions because there are as many answers as there are books, sculptures, pieces of music and movies.
-
I don’t like drawing a line about art either. I usually don’t talk about it.
Most classics are highly influential. Casablanca as well as the 3 first Indiana Jones movies were quite important. Even a film like When a Harry Meets Sally (which definitely isn’t a 10 in my book) is taught in every screenwriting class.
Now I have to fully disagree about “movies are about entertainment”. It’s just plain false. “Movies” as a whole aren’t. Some are. It sounds as restrictive, to me, as saying “movies are about apples”. Once again, there are much more to movies than just apples, or entertainment. I know some movies that don’t give a shit about entertainment. Think about Shoah. I know movies that from time to time actively try to bore you. Think about Stalker. I’d go further: in many, many movies, “entertainment” is used as a marketing trick only, a concession to the economic rules that make movies exist and audiences move their ass while the movie is all about something totally different.
How come movies is the only art/medium about which some people try to explain what it’s all about? What is litterature about? What are sculptures about? What is music about? What is cinema about?
These are rethorical questions because there are as many answers as there are books, sculptures, pieces of music and movies.
you're right about Shoah. Let's talk about feature films, not documentaries.
Of course, many feature films also have messages. But they can be entertaining as well. Stanley Kramer's films always had messages and often were also entertaining.
I do agree that there are probably films made with no intention to entertain. And I say Fuck them. Artsy fartsy shit done just for the sake of being artsy or "different." Fuck them.
Movies should be about entertainment. And great art is in itself entertaining! When a director comes up with new techniques that you've never seen before, when you watch them you feel WOW! That is entertaining! Entertainment and art are not mutually exclusive! But art that is unentertaining has little value.
-
Of course they aren’t mutually exclusive.
But I really have no idea why you keep saying movies should be about entertainment. No, they should not. Why should they? From now on i’ll say movies should be about apples. Fuck movies that aren’t about apples. For a libertarian you sure like writing pointless rules.
-
I like:
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
Journey Into Fear (1943)
The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
Touch of Evil (1958)
I'll re-watch:
Citizen Kane (1941)
The Stranger (1946)
The Other Side of the Wind (2018)
-
Let me rephrase: technique is craft, to me. There is craft in every execution. The line is sometimes hard to draw. A few examples of things that aren’t in it:
- ambition
- intention
- message
- some of the things we put under acting (Bronson shows little to no acting ability in OUATITW, but his charisma and his face sell the job... partly thank to the crew’s technique. Many French actors of the 60’s and 70’s has no technique at all, but their personality was more than enough)
- happy accidents (although you often need some technique to know how to create an environment prone to accidents)
- great scenery (although it’s somebody’s job to find it and somebody’s job to make it look good, one you said you are gonna shoot in front of Mount Everest you don’t need a lot of technique to get it mostly right)
- ...
So for me "technique" is about all the things that make cinema a distinct art form. Therefore, it is not about acting (go watch a play), nor screenplays/writing (go read a book) and only partially about set-design. It is about cinematography in which I include camera placement and movement, and editing. When I'm thinking about movies, the first three things I want to know are who the director, editor and cinematographer are. In short, any of the visual techniques that rely upon film as the medium are what constitutes technique for me.
-
Of course they aren’t mutually exclusive.
But I really have no idea why you keep saying movies should be about entertainment. No, they should not. Why should they? From now on i’ll say movies should be about apples. Fuck movies that aren’t about apples. For a libertarian you sure like writing pointless rules.
A movie can be about many things. And when a filmmaker sets out to make a film, entertainment may be the last thing on his mind. He may be wanting to send a message, or deal with some issues in his life, or whatever. Just like when someone writes a play or a song.
But when judging the merits of a movie (or a play or a song), if I didn’t enjoy watching it then it can’t be a good movie. That’s my definition of entertainment: Did I enjoy watching it.
And if you think that viewer/listener enjoyment is unimportant for any artwork - whether play/movie/song/painting - then wtf is imporant? To me as a viewer, what is important is if I enjoyed it. That is why I watch movies. Not to write nerdy college theses.
-
Of course they aren’t mutually exclusive.
But I really have no idea why you keep saying movies should be about entertainment. No, they should not. Why should they? From now on i’ll say movies should be about apples. Fuck movies that aren’t about apples. For a libertarian you sure like writing pointless rules.
Let’s start a list of the best movies about apples.
At the end of MY NAME IS NOBODY, Nobody steals an apple. So that’s #1 - MNIN is now officially the greatest movie of all time.
The greatest movie about oranges (which, of course, is meaningless cuz only apples matter) is, of course, THE GODFATHER.
-
A movie can be about many things. And when a filmmaker sets out to make a film, entertainment may be the last thing on his mind. He may be wanting to send a message, or deal with some issues in his life, or whatever. Just like when someone writes a play or a song.
But when judging the merits of a movie (or a play or a song), if I didn’t enjoy watching it then it can’t be a good movie. That’s my definition of entertainment: Did I enjoy watching it.
And if you think that viewer/listener enjoyment is unimportant for any artwork - whether play/movie/song/painting - then wtf is imporant? To me as a viewer, what is important is if I enjoyed it. That is why I watch movies. Not to write nerdy college theses.
I never said "unimportant". I said (now 20 times) it's far from being the only thing you can find in movies. Which is pretty much impossible to deny.
Let’s start a list of the best movies about apples.
At the end of MY NAME IS NOBODY, Nobody steals an apple. So that’s #1 - MNIN is now officially the greatest movie of all time.
The greatest movie about oranges (which, of course, is meaningless cuz only apples matter) is, of course, THE GODFATHER.
;D
OUATITW has a great apple scene toward the end too.
-
Actually the only really important question for any work of art should indeed be: It is entertaining, and if so, how much it is entertaining?
But the logical next question is, and that question wasn't raised here so far, what entertains me?
And what entertains me is very different from that what entertains the average movie watcher. While most people might say, to use another extreme example, that Star Wars is entertainment and 2001 is a bit difficult to watch, for me it is the other way round: 2001 is great entertainment and Star Wars tends to be a bit boring, which means it is pretty low on my entertainometer.
Entertainment comes for me not only from story and characters, but also very much from what here is called "technique". When I watch a western the suspense is partly how will a shoot out end, but even more important how is this shoot-out directed.
Coming back to Orson and Casablanca, I think that CK is not even Welles' best film, but is equally entertaining as Casablanca, but Touch of Evil and is far more entertaining than both, and therefore is the better film.
Historical value shouldn't have the slightest impact on one's opinion about a film, what counts is how a film functions for me when I watch it, and that watching can only be now, with all I know now, with all that has changed in culture and thinking since a film was released for the first time. Some films stand the test of time, others not. Welles film do, all of them, but not all in the same range.
-
I knew you were going to say that. It’s pretty interesting. But I still disagree. Fully. It doesn’t have to be entertaining. It just DOESN’T. I still have to see what, in the definition of work of art, leads to “it should be entertaining”. I don’t understand where this ridiculously totalitarian assertion that has constantly been disproved, work of art after work of art, century after century, comes from. It was always plain wrong and always will be. You guys are making the assertion, please show any kind of evidence. But I have to admit, I’m reeeeallllly curious about what you could come up with. Not even sarcastical way. Where the hell did you get that weird, weird idea.
To make it simple: you guys like entertaining movies? Good for you! You hate movies that aren’t? Well, your loss, but whatever... Seriously though: your loss. Now movies SHOULD be entertaining? Excuse me but no, leave filmmakers alone. They’ll find their own audience.
Which doesn’t mean, once again, that à work of art cannot be entertaining.
-
I knew you were going to say that. But I still disagree. It doesn’t have to be entertaining. I still have to see what, in the definition of work of art, leads to “it should be entertaining”. I don’t understand where this ridiculously totalitarian assertion that has constantly been disproved, work of art after work of art, century after century. It was always plain wrong and always will be.
No, it was never wrong, and it cannot be disproved. Impossible as long as everything is subjective anyway.
What is art and what not, is as subjective as what is entertaining and what not. Art is, to say it with different words, mostly more complex things which only a minority finds entertaining, only a minority is able to recognize what it is about. And not only for an intellectual understanding, but more important for an emotional understanding.
Cause you need a different approach to like these things. And with these different approach or view or way of thinking things which the majority finds entertaining are the other way round often boring. Of course there are always enough exceptions in both ways.
In the end, and that is not new, everything can be art, and nothing must be art. Depends if I'm able to connect with a film (or a novel, or music, etc.)
-
No, it was never wrong, and it cannot be disproved. Impossible as long as everything is subjective anyway.
What is art and what not, is as subjective as what is entertaining and what not. Art is, to say it with different words, mostly more complex things which only a minority finds entertaining, only a minority is able to recognize what it is about. And not only for an intellectual understanding, but more important for an emotional understanding.
Cause you need a different approach to like these things. And with these different approach or view or way of thinking things which the majority finds entertaining are the other way round often boring. Of course there are always enough exceptions in both ways.
In the end, and that is not new, everything can be art, and nothing must be art. Depends if I'm able to connect with a film (or a novel, or music, etc.)
So in the end you agree: it doesn't absolutely HAVE to be entertaining, does it?
I have no idea how to give a good definition for "art". I've seen some interesting ones in philosophy but I wouldn't know which one to chose. Most of them lead to masterpieces so I'm ok with that. I'm not sure it's subjective, but it sure is a very complex issue. However, entertainment is much easier to define:
An activity designed to give pleasure, enjoyment, diversion, amusement, or relaxation to an audience, no matter whether the audience participates passively as in watching opera or a movie, or actively as in games.
It comes from Wikipedia. Can we all agree on that definition?
Well there are some movies that are totally art and that don't give me any of these. They're exceptions, I'll give you that. But a much more frequent occurrence: there are MANY movies that have scenes that don't bring me any of this and these particular scenes are still good art. Poor entertainment, good art. It just exists.
It isn't usually the case because of economical reasons: if it isn't entertaining at all, nobody's gonna finance it. Can we agree economic reasons have nothing to do with art?
Another reason why it's a rare occurrence: most people won't sit through 2 hours if they aren't entertained at least, say, 80% of the time. And filmmakers like it when people come see their movie. But box office has nothing to do with art. You can argue that a movie that NOBODY sees isn't good art, but say, one person sees it and is bored to death. But the next day it makes they think. And their life is changed because of it. Boom. But the movie is still boring as fuck. And unnerving. Wasn't it art?
Let's go back to the Stalker example: it's a very telling one. The train ride sequence actively tries NOT to be entertaining. It's actively trying to bore you. That's the purpose of the scene. Now you can argue that it's building something for later, when the "real art" starts and you get very much entertained after that. Maybe. But still: that particular scene is art and happens to be the opposite of entertainment. On purpose. Maybe it's even art BECAUSE it isn't entertainment. Now Drink or anybody can hate that particular scene, I don't care. All I know is that a definition of art that exclude that scene is wrong and totalitarian. That's an extreme example, but see? It. Just. Exists.
If it didn't, I swear to god, I'd never try to spend my life making movies. I'm very serious. I try to make movies that are fully entertaining though, for the reasons stated above.
And as an audience member, I'll tell you: my life is full enough, thank you very much, I don't need anything to "have a good time". I rarely need to be "entertained" (I am already entertained by many things). But I need to consume art as much as possible. A world without art wouldn't lack entertainment. The fact that good art usually brings me entertainment doesn't hurt, of course, but it's is totally accidental to the point it can be irrelevant.
-
I knew you were going to say that. It’s pretty interesting. But I still disagree. Fully. It doesn’t have to be entertaining. It just DOESN’T. I still have to see what, in the definition of work of art, leads to “it should be entertaining”. I don’t understand where this ridiculously totalitarian assertion that has constantly been disproved, work of art after work of art, century after century, comes from. It was always plain wrong and always will be. You guys are making the assertion, please show any kind of evidence. But I have to admit, I’m reeeeallllly curious about what you could come up with. Not even sarcastical way. Where the hell did you get that weird, weird idea.
To make it simple: you guys like entertaining movies? Good for you! You hate movies that aren’t? Well, your loss, but whatever... Seriously though: your loss. Now movies SHOULD be entertaining? Excuse me but no, leave filmmakers alone. They’ll find their own audience.
Which doesn’t mean, once again, that à work of art cannot be entertaining.
Agree, I may enjoy looking at the form of a sculpture, or be drawn into an Edward Hopper painting, but would not be necessarily entertained by it. I guess it's gonna all hinge on everyone's definitions of what constitutes "entertainment." You could broaden the definition to say anything you observe is to some degree briefly entertaining, a sunrise, thunderstorm, the moon, the Milky Way, etc. etc.
-
Agree, I may enjoy looking at the form of a sculpture, or be drawn into an Edward Hopper painting, but would not be necessarily entertained by it. I guess it's gonna all hinge on everyone's definitions of what constitutes "entertainment." You could broaden the definition to say anything you observe is to some degree briefly entertaining, a sunrise, thunderstorm, the moon, the Milky Way, etc. etc.
Yeah, in a way, even the most boring stuff I can imagine is at least a tad more entertaining to watch than nothing.
-
Chimes is coming in 6K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPE9pBNGsXA&t=4s