Orson Welles films, et.al.

Discussion of the actors, directors and film-makers who 'made it all happen'
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4200
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Orson Welles films, et.al.

Post by mrsl »

Okay, folks, I'm an idiot, a fool, as well as ignorant, and have no business calling myself a classic movie fan.

That said, after watching several Orson Welles movies last night, I stand firm on my conclusion that he was an egotistical, overbearing pain in the you know what. All the scholars, directors and critics in the world can call him a genius but I cannot see it. His movies are too choppy (they have no flow), and he uses too much shadow to portray menace, anger and doubt instead of giving the actors a chance to ply their trade. He didn't trust his actors to put a point across with words, facial expressions, or simply silence, and flow into the following scene, giving the audience a chance to comprehend the impact of each event. e.g. Mr. Arkadin (for one thing he didn't know how to pronounce words - where is the second 'r' after 'ka' - he had them saying Arkardin instead of Arkadin). With every scene change, you have to wait for someone to say something to know what country Van Stratten is in. The narrator doesn't really say 'he's in Mexico, or Italy,' he says something like 'he was led to Mexico and then to Spain', so you're not sure where the heck he is. I took about a half hour of F for Fake, and fell asleep, I had enough by then.

He did a fairly decent job on Touch of Evil, Magnificent Ambersons, and The Third Man, but with those three he followed pretty much, the normal methods of direction and editing. I enjoyed all of them and have re-watched them several times, but it seems when he had free rein, apparently things he financed himself, he gets too artsy and goes off the deep end.

Knowing that most film historians and film makers hold him in high esteem, to me the majority of his films make me feel like I'm running a race, with all the abrupt scene changes, staccato dialog, and overlapping dialog. In movies like His Girl Friday, they talked fast and overlapped, but they were always on the same subject, but in Welles productions, you don't understand a lot of the dialog because it is lost in the mish-mash. The opening shot in Touch of Evil WAS unique, but when a director only does a few amazing things over an entire career, I don't think that makes him all that much of a 'boy wonder'.

I know many of you disagree with me, and I'm fairly alone in these ideas of mine, but perhaps you would care to point out some places where what I say is, not necessarily incorrect, just having failed to ken the point.

Anne
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

Anne:

I saw your reply to Sandy in the other thread so I though I'd take a stab at the significance of "Rosebud."

To me, and possibly me alone, "Rosebud" is his childhood. Yeah, it's a sled but it represents, for him, a simpler time, a simpler life. He had neither when he was an adult. It was all complicated and difficult and ultimately unhappy.

Even if things weren't great when he was a kid, living with his mother, he was certainly happier. That is what is was all about, happiness.

That's just me, though.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
dfordoom
Posts: 133
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Orson Welles films, et.al.

Post by dfordoom »

mrsl wrote: He did a fairly decent job on Touch of Evil, Magnificent Ambersons, and The Third Man,
The Third Man was directed by Carol Reed.
User avatar
metsfan
Posts: 70
Joined: April 21st, 2007, 2:06 pm

Post by metsfan »

For those that dislike his films, I suggest you watch the easier dramas of his younger days. "Tomorrow Is Forever" and "Jane Eyre" are spectacular films you might enjoy. His characters are somewhat vulnerable and sympathetic.
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2645
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Post by Mr. Arkadin »

I did not watch Mr. Arkadin as I own the DVD set. Also, Third Man as mentioned above was not Welles work (although he did write the cuckoo speech). There are three different versions of that film and from what I heard from people at TCM forums, they showed the Euro version which while better than the American version--still stinks. Criterion has a third version edited to Welles notes and in my opinion it's the only one to see.

As for OW in general, I can understand why he might not be your cup of tea Anne. I applaud you for giving the films a chance which is more than most people would do. Sometimes certain artists just don't move us. That is no reflection on the artist or the viewer--that's just personal preference.

I personally don't care for Casablanca and I could give you a bunch of reasons why it doesn't work for me. Does that mean that it's a bad film or I'm an inarticulate viewer? Nope. Just my taste (or not my taste as case may be).
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4200
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

Mr. Arkadin:

I know what you mean about Casablanca and a matter of taste. A million people to your one love the movie and there you stand - indifferent. A million to my one have called OW a genius but I just don't see it. I thought he had more to do with The Third Man in the writing department, and was surprised to find that Graham Greene did the main body of work. I take nothing away from OW as an actor, he is quite good, although I used to think 'why does he scowl all the time?', but now I realize he is not necessarily scowling, that's how the lines in his face formed. As he got older, they became more pronounced. In any case, when someone else directs him, the movie is much to my enjoyment, I do not care for his directing methods.

By seeing so many of his movies both his direction, and not, I have come to appreciate him as an actor. I have tried the same with Brando, and you know my opinion of him! With all I've seen of him, that opinion has never changed. I'm always willing to give a movie or an actor a second chance and in some instances, my opinion has been changed. I worked hard at watching A Long Day's Journey into Night two times because so many people praised it, but nothing worked for me in that one.

That's the main reason I don't mind re-runs too much. Sometimes it gives you the opportunity to re-think what you see, or didn't see before. Occasionally they carry it a little too far as in the case of Written on the Wind. I've had enough of that one.

With all of this verbiage, I'm trying to say how amazing people's tastes range. You and your best friend, with whom you have total agreement on everything else, can disagree on movies. And thank goodness for that, otherwise this would be a very boring world.

Anne
User avatar
dfordoom
Posts: 133
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Post by dfordoom »

mrsl wrote:Mr. Arkadin:

I know what you mean about Casablanca and a matter of taste. A million people to your one love the movie
Make that two! I find it a terribly overrated rather dull film.
User avatar
Lzcutter
Administrator
Posts: 3149
Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
Contact:

Post by Lzcutter »

Anne,

I appreciate the early Welles films.

As much as I love film, I still cannot fathom how so many people can call Citizen Kane the best film ever made. It's a very good film, innovative in some respects and I give Welles credit in making a film that, despite his best arguments, is a film about William R. Hearst. It must not have been easy making the film with pressure from the front office and all. The supporting cast is great but best film ever made? Still scratching my head on that one for almost forty years.

I adore Ambersons and think it is a better film than Kane and the fact that he walked away from this film before it was delivered probably colors my appraisal of him.

I enjoy Lady From Shanghai and Touch of Evil.

But Welles spent most of the later years of his life traveling from talk show to talk show discussing how terrible he had been treated by Hollywood over the years and whitewashing himself in the process.

I think Bogdanovich and Henry Jaglom were big proponents in propping up the image of Orson as maverick filmmaker scorned by Hollywood.

When he is acting for others as in Jane Eyre and other roles he is wonderful.

Unfortunately for Orson, too often he was his own worst enemy.
Lynn in Lake Balboa

"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."

"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese

Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
User avatar
dfordoom
Posts: 133
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Post by dfordoom »

Lzcutter wrote:I appreciate the early Welles films.

As much as I love film, I still cannot fathom how so many people can call Citizen Kane the best film ever made.
I think it's his weakest film. I think he just got better and better. Touch of Evil and The Trial are his masterpieces, IMHO. I definitely belong to the Welles Was a Genius camp, but think he was lucky to be driven out of Hollywood. In Hollywood he would never have had the freedom to do his best work.
benwhowell
Posts: 558
Joined: April 16th, 2007, 3:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

"Confidential Report"

Post by benwhowell »

I do agree that "Citizen Kane" is an important movie, but my favorites are "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "Touch Of Evil."
I can understand Anne including "The Third Man" as a Welles directed movie. It feels like one. The guest programmer (David Thompson) said that "Mr. Arkadin" was "Welles' comic book version of "Citizen Kane."" For me, it was more like a comic book version of "The Third Man."
It was the European cut shown-even titled "Confidential Report." I was surprised that the movie was out of synch and poorly edited. Was this intentional?
It really did live up to it's reputation of being "over-the-top." Welles can be a little excessive with all the strange camera angles, but I enjoyed that immensely. And all the performances were amazing (and capricious.) Welles was always great at getting performances like these from his stars. I loved his "Neptune" look too!
My problem with "Mr. Arkadin" was an inability to understand what was really going on? I usually do not have problems with symbolism, irony, etc., but this story had me baffled. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Was Mr. Arkadin just trying to erase his whole past or what?
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

I think Kane is a very good movie, but I don't think it's the world's greatest. Like so many of OW's productions, it has a thrown-together, schlocky look about it, and you get the feeling the tight shots were done because there wasn't any scenery to surround the actors with.

Of course, OW would say that the production values he used were caused by short-sighted Hollywood not giving him enough money to do what he wanted.

I agree that OW as an actor was in many ways more noteworthy that OW as a producer/director. I think like many brilliant people he suffered from a short attention span, and so he simply didn't have the patience to do what it took to become a Star.

As for Ambersons -- I still don't undertand it. The movie makes no sense to me. I'm sure if OW had more control it would have been better. Maybe I never should have read the book - the movie is so full of holes. I've never been able to stick with it after the first one or two times I've seen it.

For a very good insight into OW's character, take a look at John Houseman's memoirs, the section dealing with his professonal partnership with Welles. I think Houseman's attitude toward Welles was one of exasperated parent. In one anecdote, he describes Welles having hissy fits very similar to the one Charles Kane has in Citizen Kane.
User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2493
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Dewey1960 »

I think we can all rest assured there is no such thing as the "world's greatest movie"--despite what the AFI might have you believe. What we are then left with is our favorite films, those we personally enjoy the most. That said, I find CITIZEN KANE (as well as numerous other Orson Welles films) to be among my most favorite. KANE (along TOUCH OF EVIL, MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, LADY FROM SHANGHAI, MR. ARKADIN and THE TRIAL) offer me much to feast on from both visual and thematic standpoints and I never tire of them. KANE and TOUCH OF EVIL in particular, although often dense to the point of distraction, are exciting works, brimming with interesting and well thought-out ideas. For those who relish great performances, his films are often nothing short of catalogues of superb acting. One need not go much farther than the scene between Welles and Ruth Warrick (as the first Mrs. Kane) as they magically age over time while seated across from one another at the breakfast table, exchanging nothing but carefully modulated glances. Through this cleverly executed montage, we come to know everything we need to know about this married couple. And the reminiscence of Bernstein (Everett Sloane) as he recounts an episode from his younger days to a reporter ("not a day hasn't gone by in fifty years that I haven't thought about that girl...") is a magnificently revealing moment in an otherwise carefully guarded man's life.
Welles, like the subject of CITIZEN KANE, was a vast, larger than life character. And clearly, not for all tastes. Perhaps that is what makes him so wonderful to those who truly love him.
klondike

Post by klondike »

I would strongly urge anyone who feels Orson Welles' contributions to be, overall, shallow, or convoluted, or self-aggrandizing, to make an effort to catch-up with his seldom seen masterpiece The Chimes at Midnight.
Chances are good that it just might change your evaluation of the Wisconsin Shakespearean, perhaps as both actor & director.

Klondike
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2645
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Post by Mr. Arkadin »

Great statements Dewey and Klondike! Welles is defintely an acquired taste and not for everyone, but he is clearly one of the top film makers that the US has ever produced.

As for his leaving Ambersons, that was not unusual to be working on another film during post production. There are several different viewpoints on what happened to that film and it basically comes down to which version you want to believe. I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

Welles proved he could make all kinds of films in all kinds of ways with all kinds of people. He was also a fan of the long take and was able to pull incredible performances from people much the way Cassavetes would years later.

He was also able to improvise quickly and make situations that would deadlock other directors work for him (Check out info on Touch of Evil or The Trial). He also was one of the first and few people to use overlapping dialogue and realized early on from his radio experience what sound could bring to a motion picture.

For those who haven't seen the "good" cut of Mr. Arkadin check out the Criterion release (should be at your library or you can get it sent in (ILL)). It's a totally different film and really shows how the wrong edit can really destroy a movie.
Post Reply