Last Films of Orson Welles article

[Skylark]

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/ ... films.html

Nice article - I agree with what he says about Citizen Kane -

The canonization of Kane as the great film has not only fossilized the film itself. It has fossilized its maker as well. Cast forever in cinematic amber, Welles is widely perceived as the great director of the greatest film of all time. After that, he ceases to exist. His memory is sealed in a gilded cage. With the exception, perhaps, of Touch of Evil (1958) and, to a lesser extent, The Lady From Shanghai (1948), there has been remarkably little appreciation of Welles’ other films or his œuvre as a whole. There is still less regard for Welles as an evolving stylist: i.e., as an artist who did not cease to exist when the credits rolled at the end of Citizen Kane. As a result, Welles is generally seen as a bizarre, outside force in the history of cinema. He is a brief, eruptive act of violence that stormed in, changed the world forever and then disappeared.

It would of been nice to include Immortal Story.

[Jeff Wilson]

Much of that is due to defying expectations however, be they commercial or artistic. KANE wasn't heralded until many years after it had premiered, and Welles was already on his way "down" in many eyes by that point. It's easy to say now that he made KANE and then vanished, because he worked outside the system for the most part. To the money people and those obsessed with box office take, certainly a film like MACBETH or CHIMES isn't going to look like much. When you leave the system, you both lose and gain; Welles lost a lot, but he probably felt he gained much more in terms of artistic freedom.

Plus, even if Joe Sixpack thinks that Welles only made one film and then vanished into obscurity and wine commercials, then let him. If you gain more than a passing acquaintance with film history, you'll soon learn a different story. Could most people on the street even name five directors of pre-1980s film these days?

[Skylark]

The thing for me is that I find the notion of a poll for the 'greatest' film of all time to be vague - what's the criteria? Is a western better than a musical,BW better than color, silent better than sound, 70's better than 40's - fun, but largely meaningless and subjective (Like there was a Rolling Stone magazine 100 greatest rock guitarists of all time - which normally is based on recognized guitar technique per se, but they kind of based their criteria on guitarists who wrote interesting music, so from a guitar player's point of view, the list was considered downright weird by many.)


So I find it ironic that Welles' primary claim to critical and popular acclaim is based on the wrong reasons (although a lot of the journalistic cliches began in the 70's are starting to disappear, thankfully). Although on the other hand, it is fascinating that Kane has such a stranglehold on the top spot (in Sight and Sound for example, where its pre-eminince has been going on for so long with no signs of changeing anytime soon, and yet with the other 9 positions being very movable.)

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/top ... tor=Welles

Although it is cool that Joe Sixpack has at least an appreciation of Citizen Kane (although probably not as great as 'Dude, where's my car?' or 'Deuce Bigelow, Ace Gigolo'

[ToddBaesen]

In his SENSES OF CINEMA article Benjamin Kerstein says:

Joesph McBride, unfortunately, boils this down to nothing more than the question of whether or not Orson Welles was a success or a failure. In truth, the question of whether Welles was a failure misses the point. The only important question is whether or not his films were failures.

__________

I don't happen to agree with Kerstein's contention that all McBride has done in his book is to boil Welles career down to being a success or a failure. I also think he is the one missing a vital point, if he thinks the only important question of real interest is whether or not Welles films were failures or successful. If Mr. ARKADIN is an artistic failure, what does that prove? Does it make Welles any less of a great artist? I don't believe so for a minute.

In fact, I'd say Kerstein's own argument on this point is somewhat absurd. Firstly, whether Welles movies are "messes or masterpieces," it's only an answer that can come from the viewer of each film. Beyond that, there is of course, the consensus of critical opinion. Now we all know that by a wide margin, most critics consider CITIZEN KANE a masterpiece. I also happen to think that all three of the Welles films Kerstein is discussing, THE TRIAL, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT and F FOR FAKE are masterpieces. But they were all deemed flawed or outright failures by the majority of the reviewing press on their initial release in America. This is more along the lines of what I think McBride was addressing in his book... this notion that late Welles is somehow not as good as early Welles, presumably because he lost his studio backing or worse, his talent. Contrary to that widely held view, many of us think that Welles later films have only improved with age.

[Glenn Anders]

Todd: I think what you neglect in your thinking is the terrible judgment of Time [no pun intended -- well . . .], which hails first efforts early in a career; then, later denigrates similar works or acts for not being the same . . . or being different. Welles, from the beginning of his career, it seems to me, was obsessed by this paradox. In his predictive cinematic autobiographical allusions, he returns to the observation again and again. What was admired in Youth is condemned in Old Age.

For instance, at the end of "The Newsreel" in CITIZEN KANE:

"Charles Foster Kane continued to
direct his falling empire ... vainly
attempting to sway, as he once
did, the destinies of a nation
that has ceased to listen to him
... ceased to trust him..."

That observation of the elderly Kane's struggles becomes perilously close to self-judgment as early as THE STRANGER. The view and vision of this transition between youth and age continues through MR. ARKADIN, TOUCH OF EVIL, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, and F FOR FAKE. [I was increasingly struck by illustrations of the idea as I watched what is really a whimsical epilogue or summation of the latter film: the complete mixed media trailer contributed by ste and Hadji elsewhere.] That central duality might be an obvious organizing principle for a more satisfactory DON QUIXOTE. It might be the touchstone for anyone trying to edit the dual [multiple?] takes on J.J. "Jake" Hanaford's real/cinematic experiences, at the end of his life, in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND.

Increasingly, toward his own end, Welles comes to say that none of the mundane biographical details really matter. Only the works count.

Still, Todd, as Louis McNiece wrote so memorably in "Bagpipe Music": "But if you break the bloody glass you won't hold up the weather!"

A majority of the public, if not our critics, I'm afraid, accept that dictum. Again, if we could only whisper in the ear of Sasha Welles [or whoever it is has the uncut negative in a closet somewhere]: "The movie is called THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, and it is now . . . Showtime!"

Glenn