Mr Arkadin as comedic?

[Colmena]

Last night enjoyed easily my best viewing of Mr. Arkadin... It finally worked in a way that it never has before: came through as both essentially coherent and also enjoyable. However, much of the enjoyable part was a matter of finding it humorous, and here I don't know if I'm laughing at it, or with it? It is so exaggerated... and is this a matter of deliberate farce, or am I enjoying a camp experience? It's a question since I don't recall Welles, who did not like to speak of it (since it was esp. ruined, from his standpoint) characterizing it as comedic. The characters of Guy and Mili are clearly deliberately comedic, a couple of clueless yanks whose personas derive from cinematic cliche. But was the whole package supposed to be a farcical?

Not completely farcical, since I take Welles' much repeated moral stance against Arkadin, the man, the type, the barbarian from the East (e.g. Stalin) as sincere-- but then raised into farce...?

Let me underline that this time the movie, typically classified as OW's worst, came through as an enjoyable and admirable movie, so I now take it to be maligned. So many wonderful scenes. The bad dubbing and surprising cuts added to it, rather than detracting.

BTW, this was the Corinth version. I'd watched the comprehensive about a month ago, but that time it didn't work. But I don't think that this difference was a matter of the different versions, rather me being in the right frame of mind.

[Roger Ryan]

The "Comprehensive" version is the best of the edits in my eyes since it has the best continuity and pacing. While Welles could be very witty in interviews, I don't think he was particularly successful at handling comedy in his films. What he did have a penchant for was pushing certain characters into the grotesque to create an unsettling dark humor. TOUCH OF EVIL is full of this as is THE TRIAL (probably his "funniest" film, actually). MR. ARKADIN does this as well but not as successfully. Certainly Mr. Zouk is quite amusing; Akim Tamiroff is very good and Welles' direction makes the scenes funnier than they appear on paper. Michael Redgrave's pawn shop proprietor also generates some laughs, but this character is one of those grotesques I mentioned earlier, so those laughs come from a sense of unease. As to the film's lead characters, they could be viewed as farcical...or just plain ridiculous as well. For me, MR. ARKADIN has the unreal aura of a fable. There are enough fable-like elements acknowledged in it ("scorpion and frog", "my father's an ogre who lives in a castle", etc.) that I believe this is what Welles was using as subtext. There are also the re-occurring masquerade elements with characters playing roles that conceal their true intentions. Welles' Arkadin make-up is so poor that one wonders if the audience is supposed to realize that Arkadin is always wearing a disguise. Fable, farce? Sure. The film is so loopy and unreal that it's nearly impossible to take seriously, so it's probably beneficial to approach the work in another way altogether.

[mteal]

I think most of Welles's movies have camp touches throughout, and some characters could be described as "jester-like", such as Uncle John in AMBERSONS (most of whose part was eliminated, unfortunately), George Grisby in THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, the Night Man in TOUCH OF EVIL, etc. Jacob Zouk is also something of a jester, especially when he starts fixating on his demand for a goose liver. These characters are part of the fabric of that "unsettling dark humor" that Welles seemed to like. He never attempted an outright comedy though, unless you count ORSON'S BAG, which was never completed (maybe he still had scars from the O.W. ALMANAC). I've seen ARKADIN once in a theatre with an audience and people definitely laughed at Zouk several times...in a good way I think, although you can never be sure. And I agree with Roger that Arkadin's beard is right on the edge of farce.

[Glenn Anders]

I agree with Roger and Mike, colmena, in that MR. ARKADIN is full of grotesques, as is the case to a lesser extent in his other movies -- perhaps the influence of Sherwood Anderson. My take on MR. ARKADIN would not use the term "camp," mainly because that was an unfamiliar concept in 1955. Welles has a very serious purpose in the film. He is suggesting that men of absolute power, such as Arkadin, are emerging in Europe of the Postwar, much as Robber Barons did in Post Civil War America. They are seizing upon the wealth buried in the detritus left by Adolph Hitler and the Fascists in a bid to become secret masters; some like Stalin more public; others like Sir Basil Zaharoff (a favorite subject for Welles), secretive for decades. Roger may very well be right that Gregorie Arkadin is purposely wearing a false beard and makeup. [In those circles, in that time, the practice was not unheard of -- Somewhere, I once suggested to Stefan Droessler there might be a lost scene in which Arkadin puts on or strips off his mask.] You will notice that almost all of the characters in MR. ARKADIN are on the make for something; they are all grifters, with the notable exception of Riena. She is the "rosebud" of . . . ARKADIN. The billionaire ruler of the Postwar demimonde has everything, can control everything, but his origins and the daughter he has so carefully protected. Guy Van Stratten, not unlike Arkadin in certain aspects, uses her to get into the milieux of the " the Great 5 Percenter." [A term applied to another Zaharoff-like figure, Calouste Gulbenkian.) And the conflict between Arkadin and Van Stratten destroys just about everything and everyone in the film. A comparison has been made suggesting that MR. ARKADIN is the Welles' European CITIZEN KANE. I would not go that far. Both of these films share themes found most of Welles' other work.

Glenn Anders

[The Night Man]

My take on MR. ARKADIN would not use the term "camp," mainly because that was an unfamiliar concept in 1955. Welles has a very serious purpose in the film.

The OED cites the first print appearance of "camp" in terms of style as occurring in 1909. Welles, with his extensive theater background and numerous personal relationships with homosexuals, would have been well aware of camp. Only squares would have been unfamiliar with the concept in 1955, which would likely have increased its appeal to Welles in my opinion. Plus, I believe camp's subversive and rebellious qualities would also have appealed to him, leaving him free to deal with serious subject matter in genre-based popular entertainments without resorting to po-faced solemnity. And let's not forget that Welles loved a good laugh and camp is all about that.

[Glenn Anders]

You got me, Night Man! I confess that I was pretty "square" in 1955, and "camp" was not on my radar until the 1970's. [I think much of what passes for motion picture art today is either portentous self-important hokum like THE TREE OF LIFE or works which are sniggeringly recognized from the start by their creators as "camp," such as all the movies based on comic books and video games.] I just think that Orson Welles, in a film with a serious purpose like MR. ARKADIN would have seen his strange, tormented characters as "grotesques."

But after all, it's only a matter of semantics.

Glenn

[mteal]

"Grotesques" is a good description, although "Caricature" might work as well as "Camp", as I've seen both defined as "something deliberately exaggerated for comic effect.", which seems to fit many Welles side characters.

From the 1982 Leslie Megahey interview:

LM: You do seem to need that edge all the time, don't you? It's a sort of balancing act between drama and melodrama and parody almost.

OW: Yes, and I'm bored with stories that don't seem to be balanced dangerously like a, you know . . . when you walk down a highway with a story instead of on a tightrope. I'm bored with it, you know.

[Glenn Anders]

Very good, Mike: I've thought about this subject some more. The concept of "grotesques," as Sherwood Anderson laid it out, was not comedic. He suggested that many of his characters were ill-formed emotionally, therefore often physically, and his stories were full of them, mostly in their Midwestern settings. We know that Welles was a fan of Anderson's work, would have hobnobbed with the writer, and dramatized a couple of Anderson's stories on Radio.

I've also thought about the term "camp." Whether or not the term dates back to 1909 or not, I'll let etymologists determine; it probably relates to Chatauqua, another interest of Welles. I just know that, in the context of the 1940's and 1950's, the word "camp" was very little used. But nother term, closer to our mark, one that Welles would have done his best to avoid is "corny." That was used a lot, though not much heard today (when there are a great many corny things in our entertainment). I think maybe "camp" has superceded "corny," a kind of polite step up.

Glenn

[The Night Man]

I've also thought about the term "camp." Whether or not the term dates back to 1909 or not, I'll let etymologists determine; it probably relates to Chatauqua, another interest of Welles. I just know that, in the context of the 1940's and 1950's, the word "camp" was very little used. But nother term, closer to our mark, one that Welles would have done his best to avoid is "corny." That was used a lot, though not much heard today (when there are a great many corny things in our entertainment). I think maybe "camp" has superceded "corny," a kind of polite step up.

I hate to tell you this, Glenn, but if you're trying to draw an equivalence between camp and corn then you're really off the trail. Camp is in no way related to corn or corny; in fact, they're practically diametrical opposites. I don't doubt that camp was a term (and a style) that was largely, if not completely, unknown to the average heterosexual in the 40s & 50s, but it was a term quite familiar to homosexuals and, by extension, I would guess, to people who worked in the theater, especially in the big cities.

[Glenn Anders]

With due respect, Nightman, born and bred in a small Ohio town, I had very little conscious experience, none in fact, with gay culture until I was nearly out of college, in the Army, in fact. As you suggest, I would not have come across many references to gay slang. Might I suggest that those au courant in that time would find "camp" rather "corny," by today's standards. Precious, perhaps, sentimental -- in an arch sense. By all means, give some contrasting examples, and enlighten me further.

At the moment, all I know is that practically no references to "camp" can be found in writings of or references to Orson Welles, but dozens of connections can be found to Welles and "grotesques," my original point. [I am not suggesting, obviously, that Welles would have been unaware of gay culture, given his wide theatrical background and the number of his close professional friends who were gay.]

Glenn

[Colmena]

My understanding of "camp" (and I think this point is made in Sontag's classic essay on the topic) is that material which is appreciated in a camp manner is not deliberately fashioned to be camp. Rather, it is over-the-top in an unself-conscious manner-- e.g. hyper-romantic, hyper-patriotic, hyper-cornball-- but one enjoys it in a campy & humorous manner. So, typically, the original artifact is serious-- but the camp experience is humorous.

Which points back to my puzzlement whether in finding Mr A funny, I was laughing at it, or with it.

Hence one can certainly appreciate novels or movies which were created prior to the general usage of "camp" (the word) as camp.

On the other hand,
Items which are deliberately camp are self-consciously farcical, and appreciating them is different from appreciating originally serious (but now camp) items.

Sontag notes the link between camp and gay playfulness, & gay appreciation of theatrical and operatic excess.

[Glenn Anders]

Very precise, colmena. I like that. Perhaps we all might reach compromise by agreeing that about everything in Orson Welles' work was "stylized," and that inimitable stylization always identified the "Wellesian."

Welles throughout his career attempted to be accepted as a comic actor, even a comedian. Aside from his glorious turn as Falstaff, he never was very good at at it. He had himself booked onto the Jack Benny Program on Radio, for instance, and even took over for Benny, when the master comedian was ill. In his later career, he hung out and traded quips with the like of Dean Martin and his companions. But his attempts at being a formal comic were often hampered by a slight stiffness in his delivery, a difficulty in connecting. It was a failing, reading between the lines, that he was most aware of.

Aside from one or two "Mercury Theater on the Air Shows" or "Campbell Playhouses," he was most effective in the little introductions or green room banter on or after his radio performances. The ad libs allowed his great affection for people he admired to bubble out, seemingly naturally.

By your definitions, examples, and descriptions of the term, colmena, I would say that the last thing Orson Welles wanted to be was camp -- a stylist, a conscious artist, yes. A creator of camp, no. What Welles' was overwhelmingly was an ironist. All of his best work turned on irony. In MR. ARKADIN, what makes you wonder about the "comedic" may be that most serious form of humor: irony. Every character in the film turns out to have been working against his or her best interests.

Certainly, a figure like Gregorie Arkadin, who is successfully attempting to take over the burgeoning Post War arms trade, the international defense cartels, and the governments that are increasingly controlled by them following World War II -- having everything almost within his grasp, is not intended by Welles as a figure of fun. At heart, Welles is trying to find some humanity in Arkadin, and he finds it in the man's daughter. It is a very timely, serious subject, newly evident in the dark figures (now in America, too), the 1% who would sacrifice "the little people" for "excess profits." We have not found much humanity in them . . . yet.

Irony.

Orson Welles always harked back to a classical age, and obviously, he did think much of where we were in 1955, less, hope against hope, of where we were going.

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

There are deliberate attempts at humor in ARKADIN (almost all of Welles' films have some humor). Certainly Zouk's character is primarily comedic. There's also the German police inspector who has trouble with his English, the silliness of Michael Redgrave's pawn shop proprietor, etc. You can certainly laugh at the film legitimately. What I think we're trying to get at is that there is a darker side to Welles' humor that is more in line with Kafka: humor that comes from the uncomfortable or the grotesque. This is what makes George Grisby's character in SHANGHAI so amusing or the Night Man in TOUCH OF EVIL. THE TRIAL, naturally, is full of this type of humor (the implication that K is doing something unseemly to his niece, the policeman gladly accepting a beating as being just, etc.). One could call this type of humor ironic or satirical. Bunuel's films are full of this as are David Lynch's.

[Glenn Anders]

Precisely, Roger: You'v said it.

Glenn

[Colmena]

I just read Naremore on Mr Arkadin yesterday (in his _Magic World of OW_) and found it the best thing on the movie I've come upon. He underlines its comedic & farcical quality-- and is very positive about it. (Like me.) Recommended, esp on this matter of Mr. A as comedic.

It also contains an extended passage by Welles where he describes a certain "barbarian from the east" type, who offered one model for Arkadin.

Then, as point of contrast, I re-read D Thompson humorless and negative assessment of Mr A, which now seems more & more clueless.