The Orson Welles Discussion Thread

[mkaroly]

This year I blind bought a Welles documentary from Kino Lorber which propelled me into getting as many films as I could that he directed and watching them. I find him to be a fascinating figure, and his movies have such a unique look to them that make them stand out in the crowd. Rather than watch the movies and post thoughts in the "rate the last movie you saw" thread, I thought (for better or for worse) I would just make a separate thread that concentrated on his work and post in it.

CITIZEN KANE (1941). 10/10. This movie has been (and continues to be) analyzed to death, and there is no end to the interpretations/applications people find and make in the wake of watching this film. Love it or hate it, the fact that this film continues to be shown is a testament to how interesting and influential it continues to be. I find each time I watch it I get a little something different out of it, or I notice something I never noticed before. Criterion just released a massive 4K UHD/Blu-Ray combo product (and a Blu-Ray set as well) which has a wealth of material on it, some old some new: three audio commentaries (one by James Naremore & Jonathan Rosenbaum, one by Peter Bogdanovich, and one by Roger Ebert), the 1991 British documentary The Complete Citizen Kane (which was fun because we get to see several people who were involved with the film as well as Pauline Kael), lots of interviews and video essays, archival stuff, and the like. I really enjoyed Naremore & Rosenbaum's commentary because they generally interpret the film in different ways on some points which made for an informative and interesting discussion. One of the two brought out all the doubling that occurs in the film, which I honestly never noticed before: two sleds, Kane has two wives, Kane has two friends, and Kane even tells Thatcher that he is "two people." The video essays focus a lot on the technical aspects of the film; one of them is a recent video essay/interview with a film teacher who talks about how she tries to make KANE relevant for modern audiences in trying to provide a way to get into the film (she uses Kanye and Kim as a comparison...which I don't get at all...lol...). I am still going through the supplementals (and I have not listened to Bogdanovich's commentary or Ebert's commentary).

Watching the film again this time I was struck by the shadows and light; the depth of field in the shots have always appealed to me/wowed me and continue to do so. I also noticed the long takes, something that has gone the way of the Dodo in contemporary films. There is so much to look at and savor in each scene of the film that I found my eyes wandering throughout the film to the background and focusing on the sets and what others were doing beyond the foreground. The film communicates distance so well - it cannot be missed. I feel like the cast crew had an absolute blast putting this film together. Herrmann's music remains exquisite; my favorite part of it is the Salaambo Aria that he composed for Susan to sing. So many visuals stay with me after watching the film - they make an indelible print in the viewer's mind.

But all the great technical accomplishments of the film would mean nothing if there wasn't a heart and soul to the story; fortunately KANE has that as well. While the discussions about the significance (or lack thereof) of Rosebud are many and varied, for me it represents something lost: childhood innocence and freedom. There is something sad about Kane's life, and how it all ends up as nothing. I find Agnes Moorehead's performance to get more and more moving every time I watch the film even though her appearance in the film is brief. She was a great actress - she says little when she is on screen but her face and posture communicate so much. As I get older I get more emotional watching the film. When all is said and done, maybe this is Welles' best film. I am glad he made it.

[Sgrimes]

I was 19 years old when I first saw CITIZEN KANE in a film class (projected from 35mm!). I was not averse to black and white films at the time, though it would be fair to say that I had the misconception that movies from the 30's and 40's were not "sophisticated", at least compared to movies from the 70's and 80's. I was dumbstruck by KANE, literally astonished by its complexity and depth. It both turned me onto black and white films and the works of Welles. Is it the best movie ever made? I dunno. I know it is one of the best I have ever seen, for a variety of reasons that change as I grow older with it. Truth be told, even though it is the more flawed work, I tend to watch THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS more often than KANE.

KANE is an assured piece of work, with a singular vision not usually found in Hollywood films. Uncompromising and artistic, it works when viewing it merely on a technical level--cinematography, sound editing, acting, music. It gains depth from the narrative structure. One of the things I love about the film is the puzzle nature of it. We only hear from Kane himself once (in the newsreel footage)--everything else we see is from the viewpoint of other characters. Some stories have an unreliable narrator, KANE has multiple unreliable narrators--everyone who the reporter speaks to has reason to be biased. Is it a film about lost childhood/innocence? Is it a film designed to poke fun at the audience, a grand magic trick if you will? I think both are valid. I love this about the film. At the same time, I also can understand why others do not care for the film for these same reasons. This puzzle/trick structure creates a distance for some viewers. I get that. It invigorates me, however. If we take Rosebud to mean lost innocence, then it becomes the task of the audience to view (or re-view) what came before it trying to piece together what fits that narrative.

Anyway, big fan of CITIZEN KANE here.

[Monterey Jack]

Kane is a terrific example of a movie many probably think of as "broccoli cinema" that turns out to be wildly entertaining as well as a piece of truly great and influential moviemaking. I didn't see it until I hit my early thirties, and even though I knew what "Rosebud" was from the beginning (thanks to years' worth of various pop-culture parodies), I still came to end of it thinking, "Yes...this is as great as everyone says it is".

[AndyDursin]

What is always striking for me when viewing Citizen Kane is how contemporary it is, and certainly was. Its visual storytelling was so advanced for its era -- combined with Gregg Toland's cinematography, Welles' directorial and editing techniques were just striking and fascinating to behold. And, of course, make revisiting the film a consistently rewarding experience.

Just a heads-up if you bought the new 4K UHD/Blu-Ray Criterion release, the Blu-Ray disc is being repressed due to faulty contrast levels. The 4K disc is fine, but they want you to do something...a little different in terms of handling the recall!

[mkaroly]

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942) - 9/10. For decades I resisted watching this film in the hopes that a complete original cut of the film could be found. When Criterion released their Blu-Ray of the film in its 88 minute theatrical version I gave up hope and bought the set as I did want to see the film at least once before it was too late. Adapted from the Booth Tarkington novel, I was shocked at how much I actually enjoyed the film as it was (though it seems clear to me that the last moments of the film were not filmed by Welles himself). The story centers around the aristocratic Amberson family and its decline during the Industrial Age. I have not read the book (maybe one day I will), but by all accounts Welles' original cut was very faithful to the novel and expertly condensed the material that honored the novel's intentions.

There were many things that struck me about the film - visually it is at least as striking as the visuals in CITIZEN KANE where depth of field, shadows and light, and staging were concerned. I really enjoyed the Amberson mansion as a physical representation of the Ambersons' place in society, and how it deteriorates with George's decisions and with the advance of the Industrial Age into something obsolete and empty (I imagine Welles' original cut of the film spent more time with this visually). I also loved how Welles grouped his actors and actresses in scenes: for example, groups of two couples such as George and Lucy (played by an unbelievably young and gorgeous Anne Baxter) compared/contrasted with George and his mom Isabelle (Dolores Costello), George and Fanny (Agnes Moorehead in another amazing performance), or Eugene (Joseph Cotton) and Isabelle, or groups of three people in frame all at once. Welles' groupings seem to be of major importance in his films, moreso than it seems with other directors; his groupings communicate emotion, struggle, and power among other things. In this film they just stuck out like a sore thumb. On the Criterion set there is an excellent analysis of Bernard Herrmann's score along with the "movements" of the film by Christopher Husted that, in my opinion, is worth the price of the set alone.

More than anything else I love the melancholy nostalgic atmosphere of the film - Welles lovingly looked back to a past time that was overtaken by a moment in history, a time we can never return to. I love Herrmann's opening music to the remembrance scenes that set up the movie. The film is a downer almost to the end; the booklet has an essay which divulges the ending of the Tarkington novel and compares it with Welles' intended ending (which comes across as more downbeat). It is a shame that Welles didn't have the desire to see AMBERSONS through to completion for a myriad of reasons; I don't blame RKO for doing what they did, but I think cutting forty minutes from the film was a bit excessive. There are bits and pieces of narrative that seem to be missing something (i.e. something was cut out that would have made this or that scene more impactful or clearer). The Criterion disc is full of supplementals; I look forward to listening to the commentary from Naremore and Rosenbaum (there is alternate commentary from Robert Carringer as well). When all is said and done, I find AMBERSONS to be even more moving than KANE. It is more personal in a way. We all nostalgically romanticize the past to varying degrees, so this is a film that viewers can easily connect with to varying degrees. Again, it is sad and heavy but, in my opinion, it seems sincere in that we get some insight into the foundation of Welles' heart and/or artistic vision. I look forward to exploring this Criterion set further.

[AndyDursin]

Someone was going down to South America in the hopes of finding the lost version this year...I wonder what happened with that. TCM was producing a documentary on the guy's efforts (I posted it here but I'm stuck at a kids birthday party so I didn't look it up).

[mkaroly]

That would be my "holy grail" film to see. In documentaries I have heard that a copy was taken down/sent to him to work on...I always hoped someone would find that. I guess my hope isn't cometely dead, but I am 52 and time is running out. Lol...

[Sgrimes]

For a long time, I considered THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS to be my favorite movie. I'm not sure I would say that now, but it's definitely in the top 10. I find it a rewarding experience whenever I watch it. Well, rewarding and frustrating is probably more accurate. The film does have some problems, and not all are the result of the re-editing that was done without Welles' involvement. Robert Carringer details most of the alterations in his commentary on the Criterion Blu-Ray (originally recorded for the laserdisc). Also worth seeking out is his book The Magnificent Ambersons: A Reconstruction which is the complete continuity script, annotated to highlight alterations done post-production.

The script was very faithful to the source novel which is a rich and enjoyable read even today. The novel uses the Amberson family to illustrate the how America was changing to a more inustrial-based society, and while some of this endures in the final film, the script had more and much of that was part of the original two hour plus edit of the film. Pretty much, every instance in the film that depicted how and why the Amberson's financial position was dwindling was removed. This was unfortunate, because in at least one instance it disrupted a truly remarkable long scene in the Amerson kitchen done as one shot.

Welles designed and executed several long takes for his film, all well beyond the average shot length for films of the early 1940's, and all were impacted by the re-edit. The scene where George and his uncle are having cake in the kitchen is one example--it originally continued longer to detail how their grounds had been sold off, with cheap housing going up. And of course, the ball sequence was executed as one take. It wasn't the full reel of film that Welles liked to boast, but still long enough to be impressive.

Visually, I find AMBERSONS more impressive than KANE. The Amberson mansion was constructed as one contiguous three-story set, and this allowed for some truly impressive shots, many of which were felt to be too "arty" when previewed with audiences. The lavishly detailed set goes a long way to selling the believability of the setting, and Welles stages things to provide maximum impact. By the same token, the film's sound design is complex and rich. Acting-wise, everyone involved is excellent with Agnes Moorehead giving a complicated and moving performance that in the original cut was unlike anything else in movies at the time, at least in America. Tim Holt, as George is very good as well, but there's a caveat to that statement.

The film's main problem is this: it has perhaps the most unlikable lead character in film history. Tim Holt gives a good performance, but there is just no getting around that the character he plays is a cad. He does very little to get the sympathy of the audience, to the point that by the time he finally gets his comeuppance, most in the audience have stopped caring. His character derails two other lives for selfish reasons that are never adequately explained (aside from the fact that he is a jerk). The fact that the character is a very faithful portrayal of the character in the (Pulitzer Prize winning) novel does not really help things. What works on the printed page does not always translate to film. If Welles had played the role himself, perhaps he might have been able to bring it off. Perhaps, but it would have changed the character as depicted in the novel.

By all accounts, the original cut was artistic and technically accomplished, but also difficult, slow and depressing. Not an easy sell for an audience adjusting to life at war. My personal feeling is that had the original version been released it would have died a death at the box office but would now be considered the better film than KANE. Arty and difficult films tend to age well, and I think its stature would have grown over the years. I say this based on the continuity script and by what ended up in the film. And it would more than likely not be a consensus, for the film is flawed in a way that was baked in and could not be corrected in post-production.

It's tempting to think that had Welles not been in South American while this was going down it may have ended up better. Given the film's problems (arty, slow, depressing, annoying lead character) something had to be done. Some of the correspondence between Welles and his editor Robert Wise suggest even more startling edits than what ended up in the film. Merely by not being there, however, Welles was assured of forever being able to claim that he could have fixed the film better.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. if by chance you haven't seen the movie you should check it out. There are a lot of good things in it.

[mkaroly]

Thank you for all that information! Great post!

I agree that Tim Holt's George was a thoroughly unlikeable character. Even in his moment of realization and repentence, I never once felt sorry for him. And I felt it was weird that Lucy, a very intelligent and perceptive person, was attracted to him, especially in light of his sheer hatred for her father Eugene.

The last two sequences at the end are jarring to me. You go from one kind of framing and filming to shots that I felt Welles would have never shot in the way they were. It is like a green streak of paint on a white wall (for lack of a better way of putting it). I understand why the happy ending was tacked on (with the context of the war, etc), and according to the essay in the set the book ends with Eugene forgiving George (at Isabelle's request via a medium), but it is still a bit jarring for me based on the flow of the rest of the film. Also, I find it totally believeable that Eugene would do it because he is one of the most sympathetic and reflective characters in the film (Lucy too).

[AndyDursin]

TOUCH OF EVIL coming to 4K UHD later this winter -- looks like a must-have from Kino Lorber.

[mkaroly]

I have the Columbia Blu-Ray with all three cuts of the film - it has been ages since I watched it, and I can't remember if there are other supplementals on it or not.

[Paul MacLean]

There's not a whole lot I can add to the chorus of praise which is rightly bestowed upon Citizen Kane.

To this day, this scene remains one of the greatest ever filmed, being one of the best-written, best photographed and all-round best-directed moments in cinema history...



Kane was the favorite film of my "Film Analysis" professor in college -- at the time, he'd seen the at least 100 times, and he revealed "every time I watch it I see something new". Perhaps foolishly, I chose Kane as the subject for one of my papers in his class, but I must have done something right because I got an A+ on it (and I was not otherwise a great student in college, having around a B or B- average in my four years there).

I saw The Magnificent Ambersons in high school -- entirely because Bernard Herrmann had done the score (I had discovered Herrmann about a year earlier, and was devouring every album and film of his I could find). The film didn't make a huge impact -- but again I was only a teenager. One of these days I need to re-watch it. I was also baffled that the film contained no credit for Herrmann -- I later learned Herrmann took his name off it in protest of what the studio did to the film.

A few years ago I screened Welles' The Stranger, which is one of his more obscure efforts -- and I have to be honest, I could see why it was obscure. I was surprised at how stilted it was -- watchable certainly, but also stodgy and clunky, with none of the genius that burst forth from every frame of Kane. I honestly find Welles' Macbeth also very stilted. I think it's completely smoked by Polanski's film.

Welles "came back" with Touch of Evil, which to me remains one of his better efforts. To be honest, one film I think captured Welles' early promise was one he did not not direct, and that was The Third Man. Carol Reed may have been the director, but I wonder if Welles did not have a lot of input -- certainly his influence is all over the movie. There is a Citizen Kane quality (and level of invention) to the overall visual storytelling in The Third Man. Plus you had Welles favorite Jospeh Cotton in the lead (with Welles himself showing-up later in the movie).

It's hard to say if Welles would have remained in California and become a major Hollywood director had RKO "left him in peace". But I doubt that such a maverick would ever have been a good fit in Hollywood.

[mkaroly]

As an addendum to what I said earlier about THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, I highly recommend the Criterion Blu-Ray. There are two commentary tracks: one is by Robert L. Carringer (he is slow and methodical in giving information), and the other is by James Naremore and Jonathan Rosenbaum (very lively and interesting). Both commentaries are worth listening to, though I prefer the latter. Again, the video essay by Christopher Husted is worth the price of the set alone. All the supplemental material both adds to the mystique of the version we will likely never get to see and clarifies a lot of what we do see in the finished product. Well worth the time to go through everything.

Up next...THE STRANGER from 1946.

[mkaroly]

THE STRANGER (1946). 8/10. Guilty favorite movie here...Edward G. Robinson plays Mr. Wilson, a government agent who hunts down war criminals in hiding. His latest assignment is to find the notorious Franz Kindler, a Nazi-in-hiding. He releases Konrad Meinike (Konstantin Shayne) from prison in the hopes that he will lead him to Kindler, and Konrad does not disappoint. Wilson follows him to a small Connecticut town where Konrad quickly makes contact with Franz Kindler, living under the alias of Charles Rankin (Orson Welles). Rankin is a professor at the local school and is getting ready to wed Mary (Loretta Young), the town beauty and daughter of a wealthy and influential judge. Konrad has repented of his sins and hopes to bring Rankin to salvation, but realizing that Konrad might betray his true identity Rankin kills him. Soon after it gets more and more difficult for Rankin to keep from being exposed, especially with Wilson on his tail and Mary starting to crack.

As I said above, this movie is a guilty pleasure for me. I have always enjoyed watching this film despite its imperfections. While Welles did direct the film, it is clear that the studio made some cuts and changes to the picture. I watched the Kino Lorber archival version (the print is from International Pictures and is not in great shape despite the HD remastering) with commentary from Bret Wood - he did a fantastic job of pointing out a lot of artistry that I missed. For example, there are several long takes in the film lasting anywhere between two to four minutes in length; Welles shot these scenes without coverage which basically forced the studio in many cases to use what he shot without changes (the studio had final cut of the film). The scenes work so well that I didn't even notice there were no cuts in them for a lengthy period of time! Wood points out that there were several scenes cut from the screenplay (which Welles contributed to) or film: for example, the opening shot in the war crimes office where Mr. Wilson broke his pipe was thought to be a re-shoot after the original opening had been shot and deleted. He also points out that the studio editor clearly tampered with a scene late in the film because they wanted a close-up of Loretta Young but Welles, Young, and her agent refused. There are a few moments when I felt like the dialogue spoken by Wilson over-explained things and so ruined some of the more emotional bits in the film (the audience is not dumb...they can figure out what's going on).

Despite those imperfections (and others), there are some wonderful and effectively suspenseful moments in the film. There are definitely some amazing Wellesian moments in the film (I loved the sequence in the drugstore in which Rankin attempts to set up an alibi); Wood points out Welles' use of filming with the camera looking up or down depending on who is gaining or losing power or who has the upper hand/lower hand in the chase, something I never noticed before. The quirkiness of the small town drug store owner Mr. Potter (played by Billy House) calls to mind those eccentric Wellesian characters who stick out in the midst of the crowd. Of course, Robinson's performance is strong. But for me, what I like most about the movie is Welles' performance - specifically his eyes. While he remains physically calm on the outside, his eyes tell a completely different story. They shift around - sometimes expressing anger, fear, impatience, calmness, and any number of other things. He almost looks at time like an overgrown rat trapped in an area that he cannot escape - his eyes are always looking for a way out. To me it is a great performance, one that keeps me coming back over and over again. All in all I think this is a really cool film.

[AndyDursin]

There's actually quite a bit of love for The Stranger among movie buffs and many critics. No need to feel "guilty" Michael!