The Orson Welles Discussion Thread
Re: The Orson Welles Discussion Thread
THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1947) - 3/10. I reviewed this film in the Read A Book, Watch Its Movie thread, so I won't repeat that here. However, some time has passed since I wrote my comments about the film, and after watching the film again, I still feel like it's a mixed bag and doesn't quite work. There are some really amazing visual moments in the film that show Welles at his best (the Hall of Mirror sequence, the Aquarium sequence, the facial close-ups, etc.), but there is just a lot wrong with how the story is presented (IMO). It is incredibly choppy and lacks consistency while Welles' faux-Irish accent is extremely distracting. There are a lot of back-screen projections mixed with actual on-site footage that make the film pretty visually clunky. And I just don't care for how Welles (and others) adapted the source material. It is hard to express, but I find myself unsatisfied after watching the film, as if something is just not quite right. I respect its place in film history but don't feel this is one of the great noir classics or even one of Welles' best films (acting or directing).
Re: The Orson Welles Discussion Thread
MACBETH (1948 [107 minutes]/1950 [85 minutes]) - 6.5/10 (1948), 4.5/10 (1950). Right off the bat, I have to fully admit that I know next to nothing about Shakespeare. I read a couple of his plays in high school (probably abridged), and have never seen a live stage performance of a Shakespeare play. So basically I have no foundational context with which to review the adaptations of Shakespeare's work. The only two films I have seen that I am aware of that were adaptations of Shakespeare's works were THRONE OF BLOOD and RAN - both of which are among some of my favorite Japanese films of all time. Kurosawa's adaptations are greatly respected, and I would give 10/10 to both films no matter how closely or how much they deviate from the source material. I appreciate and respect the commitment and love fans of Shakespeare have of the original material, as well as their hope and desire that his material would be respectfully represented on screen or on the stage.
Caveats aside, on the Welles' adaptation of Macbeth. I am aware that Welles loved Shakespeare; and I am also aware that Welles took great liberties in adapting Shakespeare's works when it came to his films. Macbeth is no exception in that he added a character (the Holy Father played by Alan Napier), had Macbeth witness Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking and descent into madness, as well as several other things. The original version of the film in 1948 comes off as a hybrid between a move and a stage play - I kept thinking the whole time that it was very "minimalistic" in its presentation. And while I not really a fan of movies that "look" like staged plays, for whatever reason I did not mind it here (maybe it is because the source material was originally for the stage...I honestly don't know). The film is full of long takes which "fit" well into the flow of the film, as if I was a member of the audience watching it in a theater. I feel like the long takes and the actors' movements added a real sense of drama and foreboding to the narrative. Opening and closing the movie with the witches and the clay figure of Macbeth was interesting as well - it recalled his 1937 adaptation of Macbeth for the Federal Theater Project. Although I disliked Michael's Irish accent in THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, this time I really enjoyed the use of Scottish accents throughout the film.
I enjoyed other aspects of the original version of MACBETH as well. I enjoyed how absurd and restless Welles looked as Macbeth - the budget for the film was not very high, so his costumes looked very odd. After murdering King Duncan and taking over the kingship, Macbeth wears a crown that looks like an upside-down footstool. Welles joked about how his battle helmet made him look like the Statue of Liberty - his costumes were very gaudy, but in a weird way it worked, for it fit Welles' portrayal of Macbeth. I found Jeanette Nolan's performance as Lady Macbeth to be riveting and hypnotic; the long King Duncan murder sequence and the vision of Banquo sequences really stick out to me as some of the best stuff the film has to offer. What doesn't work for me is the Christian versus pagan theme of the film (Welles' reason for putting in the Holy Father character). It just doesn't gel well with the rest of the film. And the shorter version of the film released in 1950 leaves too much out. I guess the initial reaction to the 1948 version was atrocious, and Welles agreed to make some cuts in good faith with Republic Pictures. Both versions of the film are on the Olive Signature Blu-Ray with insightful commentary by Joseph McBride as well as some other contextual documentaries.
This was my first time seeing MACBETH, and I have to admit that overall I was more impressed than I though I was going to be, given the bad press the film has had over the decades.
Caveats aside, on the Welles' adaptation of Macbeth. I am aware that Welles loved Shakespeare; and I am also aware that Welles took great liberties in adapting Shakespeare's works when it came to his films. Macbeth is no exception in that he added a character (the Holy Father played by Alan Napier), had Macbeth witness Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking and descent into madness, as well as several other things. The original version of the film in 1948 comes off as a hybrid between a move and a stage play - I kept thinking the whole time that it was very "minimalistic" in its presentation. And while I not really a fan of movies that "look" like staged plays, for whatever reason I did not mind it here (maybe it is because the source material was originally for the stage...I honestly don't know). The film is full of long takes which "fit" well into the flow of the film, as if I was a member of the audience watching it in a theater. I feel like the long takes and the actors' movements added a real sense of drama and foreboding to the narrative. Opening and closing the movie with the witches and the clay figure of Macbeth was interesting as well - it recalled his 1937 adaptation of Macbeth for the Federal Theater Project. Although I disliked Michael's Irish accent in THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, this time I really enjoyed the use of Scottish accents throughout the film.
I enjoyed other aspects of the original version of MACBETH as well. I enjoyed how absurd and restless Welles looked as Macbeth - the budget for the film was not very high, so his costumes looked very odd. After murdering King Duncan and taking over the kingship, Macbeth wears a crown that looks like an upside-down footstool. Welles joked about how his battle helmet made him look like the Statue of Liberty - his costumes were very gaudy, but in a weird way it worked, for it fit Welles' portrayal of Macbeth. I found Jeanette Nolan's performance as Lady Macbeth to be riveting and hypnotic; the long King Duncan murder sequence and the vision of Banquo sequences really stick out to me as some of the best stuff the film has to offer. What doesn't work for me is the Christian versus pagan theme of the film (Welles' reason for putting in the Holy Father character). It just doesn't gel well with the rest of the film. And the shorter version of the film released in 1950 leaves too much out. I guess the initial reaction to the 1948 version was atrocious, and Welles agreed to make some cuts in good faith with Republic Pictures. Both versions of the film are on the Olive Signature Blu-Ray with insightful commentary by Joseph McBride as well as some other contextual documentaries.
This was my first time seeing MACBETH, and I have to admit that overall I was more impressed than I though I was going to be, given the bad press the film has had over the decades.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: The Orson Welles Discussion Thread
I have only seen a few selected scenes from Welles' Macbeth, so I can't pass judgement on the entire film based on what I saw -- but I can't say I cared for the look of the film, which I found overly stylized and stagey.
I prefer the style of Roman Polanski's Macbeth, which was mostly shot on location, and the actors speak the dialog more conversationally, and dispense with sweeping gestures and other theatrical cliches...
I prefer the style of Roman Polanski's Macbeth, which was mostly shot on location, and the actors speak the dialog more conversationally, and dispense with sweeping gestures and other theatrical cliches...
Re: The Orson Welles Discussion Thread
OTHELLO (1952 [Europe; 93 minutes]/1955 [US and UK; 91 minutes]) - 5.5/10. Along with KING LEAR, OTHELLO was Welles' favorite Shakespearean work. The story behind the making of OTHELLO is long and complex - it took him three years to finish the project due to financial difficulties. Welles, who was over in Europe at the time, had to take on acting roles in movies (such as PRINCE OF FOXES and THE THIRD MAN) in order to pay for the making of OTHELLO after his initial investor went bankrupt. The finished product is thus both exhilarating and frustrating to watch. Welles chose to downplay the ethnic aspects of Shakespeare's work and instead emphasized the theme of jealousy throughout the film. Iago (Micheal MacLiammoir), the instigator of Othello's downfall, comes across as Othello's darker side. Iago is portrayed as sexually impotent (purposefully) which in turn fuels his jealousy against the Moor and his wife Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier) as well as against Cassio (Michael Laurence), Othello's lieutenant. The film opens with the funeral of Othello and Desdemona as well as the incarceration of Iago before going on to show how the story got to that point (much like he did in CITIZEN KANE).
There is much to like about the film; the performance of MacLiammoir is very strong. His visage has the look of evil and scheming about it; his character is always moving about in and out of shadows to see his plan come to fruition. Cloutier's Desdemona was also strong in my opinion. The best part of the film for me was the visuals - from the cinematography to the lighting to the places Welles chose to shoot (Morocco, Rome, Venice, Tuscany), the film is a visual treat and breathtaking. Skewed/Tilted camera angles are jarring and increase the unsettling feeling one gets seeing such a tragic story; Welles used light and dark to great effect in several shots, not the least of which was the final scenes between Othello and Desdemona before he wrongly murders her for infidelity. Desdemona's murder is effectively disturbing (moreso in the European version), and there are a few other moments in the film where Welles effectively communicated vertigo, confusion, and dizziness visually with the camera. Overall the film keeps the viewer off-balance by using techniques that are not really 'linear' in a Hollywood way; in some respects I feel the film is schizophrenic in a way as Welles' typical long takes are absent (understandably so due to the sporadic nature of finances).
However, on the frustrating side of things, the film took three years to make so it is incredibly inconsistent at times. Welles is very hit or miss in his performance (MacLiammoir really carries the film). One thing that really irritated me was Welles' continuity errors where Othello's complexion was concerned. At times he is darker skinned; at other times it looked like Welles had no makeup on at all. Sometimes Welles' close-ups of himself look like they were filmed in a different location and therefore look out of place. In addition, Welles' post-synched the dialogue in the film; supposedly this was common in European films at the time. But in my opinion, Welles did a really poor job with it. Many times the enunciation and emotion of the dialogue delivery do not match up with the expressions of the character on screen (for example, a line delivered verbally with strength is synched with a mouth that looks to be mumbling). While Cloutier dubbed her own lines in the 1952 version of the film, Welles dubbed her performance with Gudrun Ure's vocals in the 1955 version (she was playing Desdemona opposite Welles in a London stage production of OTHELLO); he even changed the delivery of his own lines in 1952 when doing the 1955 cut of the film! With four different editors and three different cinematographers working on this project, I doubt any kind of strong continuity could have existed.
Both cuts of the film are pretty similar; for the 1955 US/UK cut Welles changed the introductory spoken credits from the 1952 version to title cards and voice-over narration. Later in the 1955 version he also provides a bit of voice-over narration at the war council to advance the story, and toward the end the 1955 version has a less shocking insert to show Desdemona's face with eyes closed and peaceful-looking on the floor (the original image was pretty shocking - Desdemona's eyes and mouth were wide open). If there was a version I preferred it would be the 1952 version, but just barely. Criterion's Blu-Ray set has some very cool extras: Welles' FILMING OTHELLO from 1979, a 1995 documentary with Suzanne Cloutier, interviews from Simon Callow and Joseph McBride, an analysis of the different cuts of the film by Francois Thomas, and comments about Othello and ethnicity by Ayanna Thompson. To be honest, I found the history of the making of this film to be wildly entertaining. The 1955 version of the film has commentary by Peter Bogdanovich and Myron Meisel. All in all, as I said above, OTHELLO is both exhilarating and frustrating. Still, I would say that it is worth watching.
Up next: MR. ARKADIN (aka CONFIDENTIAL REPORT)...all three versions of it!
There is much to like about the film; the performance of MacLiammoir is very strong. His visage has the look of evil and scheming about it; his character is always moving about in and out of shadows to see his plan come to fruition. Cloutier's Desdemona was also strong in my opinion. The best part of the film for me was the visuals - from the cinematography to the lighting to the places Welles chose to shoot (Morocco, Rome, Venice, Tuscany), the film is a visual treat and breathtaking. Skewed/Tilted camera angles are jarring and increase the unsettling feeling one gets seeing such a tragic story; Welles used light and dark to great effect in several shots, not the least of which was the final scenes between Othello and Desdemona before he wrongly murders her for infidelity. Desdemona's murder is effectively disturbing (moreso in the European version), and there are a few other moments in the film where Welles effectively communicated vertigo, confusion, and dizziness visually with the camera. Overall the film keeps the viewer off-balance by using techniques that are not really 'linear' in a Hollywood way; in some respects I feel the film is schizophrenic in a way as Welles' typical long takes are absent (understandably so due to the sporadic nature of finances).
However, on the frustrating side of things, the film took three years to make so it is incredibly inconsistent at times. Welles is very hit or miss in his performance (MacLiammoir really carries the film). One thing that really irritated me was Welles' continuity errors where Othello's complexion was concerned. At times he is darker skinned; at other times it looked like Welles had no makeup on at all. Sometimes Welles' close-ups of himself look like they were filmed in a different location and therefore look out of place. In addition, Welles' post-synched the dialogue in the film; supposedly this was common in European films at the time. But in my opinion, Welles did a really poor job with it. Many times the enunciation and emotion of the dialogue delivery do not match up with the expressions of the character on screen (for example, a line delivered verbally with strength is synched with a mouth that looks to be mumbling). While Cloutier dubbed her own lines in the 1952 version of the film, Welles dubbed her performance with Gudrun Ure's vocals in the 1955 version (she was playing Desdemona opposite Welles in a London stage production of OTHELLO); he even changed the delivery of his own lines in 1952 when doing the 1955 cut of the film! With four different editors and three different cinematographers working on this project, I doubt any kind of strong continuity could have existed.
Both cuts of the film are pretty similar; for the 1955 US/UK cut Welles changed the introductory spoken credits from the 1952 version to title cards and voice-over narration. Later in the 1955 version he also provides a bit of voice-over narration at the war council to advance the story, and toward the end the 1955 version has a less shocking insert to show Desdemona's face with eyes closed and peaceful-looking on the floor (the original image was pretty shocking - Desdemona's eyes and mouth were wide open). If there was a version I preferred it would be the 1952 version, but just barely. Criterion's Blu-Ray set has some very cool extras: Welles' FILMING OTHELLO from 1979, a 1995 documentary with Suzanne Cloutier, interviews from Simon Callow and Joseph McBride, an analysis of the different cuts of the film by Francois Thomas, and comments about Othello and ethnicity by Ayanna Thompson. To be honest, I found the history of the making of this film to be wildly entertaining. The 1955 version of the film has commentary by Peter Bogdanovich and Myron Meisel. All in all, as I said above, OTHELLO is both exhilarating and frustrating. Still, I would say that it is worth watching.
Up next: MR. ARKADIN (aka CONFIDENTIAL REPORT)...all three versions of it!
Re: The Orson Welles Discussion Thread
MR. ARKADIN [The Corinth Version, 1955, 99 minutes; The Comprehensive Version, 2006, 105 minutes]/CONFIDENTIAL REPORT [European Cut, 1955, 98 minutes]. 6/10. Right off the bat I have to say that I am likely ranking this film way higher than it should be, but for whatever reason I am completely fascinated by this film and the drama surrounding it: Welles never made a final cut of the film because he was kicked out of the editing process by producer Louis Doulivet; there are several existing cuts of the film - two in Spanish, one for America (95 minutes), and the three cuts I listed above (the Corinth Version is believed to be the earliest cut and the one existing cut that most represents Welles' vision for the film); each cut has overdubbed dialogue and scenes that are unique to each cut; Welles overdubbed several of the characters in the films as well; there is also a novel based on the film for which Orson Welles was credited as author but the novel was actually written by Maurice Bessy. Of the three cuts I like The Corinth Version the most; CONFIDENTIAL REPORT is more choppy and unbalanced, and The Comprehensive Version was a film restoration attempt to put together the best elements of all the available cuts to get as close as possible to what Welles tried to accomplish (it is not a definitive cut or a director's cut). The film is a mix of genres (fantasy, fable, film noir, spy thriller, etc.).
The film is based on a series of Harry Lime radio broadcasts that Welles did back in the day, and its original title was MASQUERADE. Robert Alden plays Guy van Stratten, a two-bit mercenary/crook who ends up crossing paths with billionaire Gregory Arkadin (Orson Welles), a man of great mystery. Arkadin is displeased that his daughter Raina (Paola Mori, Welles' fiancee at the time) seems attracted to Guy. Thinking van Stratten is out to blackmail him, Arkadin "hires" him to uncover his past, for it seems Arkadin suffers from amnesia and doesn't remember anything that happened to him before 1927. Van Stratten tracks down people who knew Arkadin back in the day and discovers quite a lot, though he doesn't realize how much danger he is in. Alden does a great job as the annoying, aloof fish out of water American who thinks he's so smart...so much so that his character is hard to like through most of the film. Interestingly, in the novel Raina is eighteen years old; in the film she is much older (Paola Mori was in her late twenties at the time of the shooting of the film). Her look in the film reminded me of Audrey Hepburn so I think Welles purposefully tried to make Mori look like Hepburn. The film is full of colorful, bizarre characters, and their performances are really strong. For example, Michael Redgrave (Trebitsch) looks like he is having a blast playing such an eccentric character; Suzanne Flon (Baroness Nagel) is instantly likable and provides a warmth missing in nearly all the characters in the film; Akim Tamiroff (Jakob Zouk) provides a lot of comic relief, and Katina Paxinou (Sophie Radzweickz Martinez) steals the show as she reminisces about the past.
From a technical standpoint, Welles mostly stayed away from long takes (likely due to financial constraints). His camera is placed at odd angles throughout the picture, and characters loom large or look small depending on where the camera is placed - it all works to show the changing dynamics of power throughout the film (who is in control and who is not) as well as give a sense of unease and disorientation. There is a scene on Arkadin's yacht in which he and van Stratten's girlfriend Milly (Patricia Medina) are engaged in discussion - the set moves and shifts from side to side while the camera remains still, creating a "seasick" kind of visual that I thought was really effective. There are lots of close-ups and lots of crowded areas that add a nightmarish sense to the action on screen, like it's a bad dream you cannot wake up from. Some things don't work well in the film though - the scene in which Arkadin gets van Stratten drunk just doesn't come off well, for example. Once again, as with OTHELLO, the overdubbing not synching up with the actors' and actresses' lip movement is very jarring - however, you get used to it after a while. It was something that did not bother Welles at the time and was just part of his style I guess. I do think that the film succeeds in showing how Arkadin and van Stratten are cut from the same cloth - both are mirror images of one another though they are clearly in different positions. And there is much in MR. ARKADIN that calls to mind parallels with CITIZEN KANE: the giant house/castle, the imposing figure of Kane/Arkadin and his control of others through money and power, etc.
Having said all that, I am finding Welles' post-Hollywood work to have an "undisciplined" feel to it...his work is not polished. Finances and lack of singular focus had a lot to do with all that, but as a result, in a way he developed his own kind of filmmaking that made his work stick out from the rest. The Criterion DVD set (not available on Blu-Ray domestically) has some good extras: an excellent commentary by Jonathan Rosenbaum and James Naremore, the three radio episodes of The Lives of Harry Lime upon which the film was based, a short interview with Simon Callow (I don't really care for him though), outtakes, rushes and alternate scenes, a documentary on the making of the Comprehensive Version, and a look at two of the scenes from the Spanish versions of the film in which Spanish actresses were given the parts of Baroness Nagel and Sophie Radzweickz Martinez. To top it all off, the complete novel is included in the set...which I actually liked more than the film (especially the romance between van Stratten and Raina which is much more intense and meaningful in the book).
Up next...TOUCH OF EVIL in its three versions.
The film is based on a series of Harry Lime radio broadcasts that Welles did back in the day, and its original title was MASQUERADE. Robert Alden plays Guy van Stratten, a two-bit mercenary/crook who ends up crossing paths with billionaire Gregory Arkadin (Orson Welles), a man of great mystery. Arkadin is displeased that his daughter Raina (Paola Mori, Welles' fiancee at the time) seems attracted to Guy. Thinking van Stratten is out to blackmail him, Arkadin "hires" him to uncover his past, for it seems Arkadin suffers from amnesia and doesn't remember anything that happened to him before 1927. Van Stratten tracks down people who knew Arkadin back in the day and discovers quite a lot, though he doesn't realize how much danger he is in. Alden does a great job as the annoying, aloof fish out of water American who thinks he's so smart...so much so that his character is hard to like through most of the film. Interestingly, in the novel Raina is eighteen years old; in the film she is much older (Paola Mori was in her late twenties at the time of the shooting of the film). Her look in the film reminded me of Audrey Hepburn so I think Welles purposefully tried to make Mori look like Hepburn. The film is full of colorful, bizarre characters, and their performances are really strong. For example, Michael Redgrave (Trebitsch) looks like he is having a blast playing such an eccentric character; Suzanne Flon (Baroness Nagel) is instantly likable and provides a warmth missing in nearly all the characters in the film; Akim Tamiroff (Jakob Zouk) provides a lot of comic relief, and Katina Paxinou (Sophie Radzweickz Martinez) steals the show as she reminisces about the past.
From a technical standpoint, Welles mostly stayed away from long takes (likely due to financial constraints). His camera is placed at odd angles throughout the picture, and characters loom large or look small depending on where the camera is placed - it all works to show the changing dynamics of power throughout the film (who is in control and who is not) as well as give a sense of unease and disorientation. There is a scene on Arkadin's yacht in which he and van Stratten's girlfriend Milly (Patricia Medina) are engaged in discussion - the set moves and shifts from side to side while the camera remains still, creating a "seasick" kind of visual that I thought was really effective. There are lots of close-ups and lots of crowded areas that add a nightmarish sense to the action on screen, like it's a bad dream you cannot wake up from. Some things don't work well in the film though - the scene in which Arkadin gets van Stratten drunk just doesn't come off well, for example. Once again, as with OTHELLO, the overdubbing not synching up with the actors' and actresses' lip movement is very jarring - however, you get used to it after a while. It was something that did not bother Welles at the time and was just part of his style I guess. I do think that the film succeeds in showing how Arkadin and van Stratten are cut from the same cloth - both are mirror images of one another though they are clearly in different positions. And there is much in MR. ARKADIN that calls to mind parallels with CITIZEN KANE: the giant house/castle, the imposing figure of Kane/Arkadin and his control of others through money and power, etc.
Having said all that, I am finding Welles' post-Hollywood work to have an "undisciplined" feel to it...his work is not polished. Finances and lack of singular focus had a lot to do with all that, but as a result, in a way he developed his own kind of filmmaking that made his work stick out from the rest. The Criterion DVD set (not available on Blu-Ray domestically) has some good extras: an excellent commentary by Jonathan Rosenbaum and James Naremore, the three radio episodes of The Lives of Harry Lime upon which the film was based, a short interview with Simon Callow (I don't really care for him though), outtakes, rushes and alternate scenes, a documentary on the making of the Comprehensive Version, and a look at two of the scenes from the Spanish versions of the film in which Spanish actresses were given the parts of Baroness Nagel and Sophie Radzweickz Martinez. To top it all off, the complete novel is included in the set...which I actually liked more than the film (especially the romance between van Stratten and Raina which is much more intense and meaningful in the book).
Up next...TOUCH OF EVIL in its three versions.