the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

Originally posted by wpqx
Welles at the source was also seldom if ever original. Come to think of it, I don't think there is an Orson Welles film not based on the work of someone else

Indeed, most of the scripts of his films are adaptations. He was able to stamp his own personal vision on them at different stages of the process of turning an existing text into cinema. Only the short The Hearts of Age, Mr. Arkadin, and The Other Side of the Wind (being finished and readied for release by Peter Bogdanovich et. al) are based on original screenplays by Welles.

Citizen Kane, which in turn was more the brainchild of Mankiewicz, at least the sotry of it.

The most thorough research on the authorship of Citizen Kane is the essay "The Scripts of Citizen Kane" by Robert Carringer which you can find in the book "Perspectives on Citizen Kane", edited by Ronald Gottesman and published in 1996.

Evidence indicates that both credited writers, Mankiewicz and Welles, are equally deserving of recognition for that excellent script, and that Joseph Cotten and John Houseman also contributed to it.

"In Andre Bazin's archives I have found the issue of L'Ecran Francaise containing the first interview with Welles by Bazin himself. Welles declared to Bazin: "Four of us wrote the Kane script. Only Mankiewicz and I were credited, but it should be said that Joseph Cotten and John Houseman are also authors of Citizen Kane"
(Francois Truffaut, 1972)


I will always feel a slight melancholy watching the work of Welles, because it is so damn tragic, and Welles wasn't the victim. He welcomed his own destruction, and had the ambition to make the greatest films of all time, but lacked the determination to finish anything.

Exactly what the Hollywood moguls hoped to achieve throughout Welles life via the spinning and propagation of false rumors and lies that the mainstream press was oh-so-willing to take as fact. What is really sad is that even during the 1990s, there were writers of dubious repute, who never had access to the subject, who never bother to examine the available research that contradicts the view of Welles that you obviously bought into. Which one did you read, the character assasination known as "Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles" by David Thomson", or Simon Callow's "Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu"? Maybe both. These are two of the worst, particularly Thomson's trashy tome.
It would be edifying to read books by those who had access to Welles and/or come to their subject without agendas and/or take the time to avail themselves of the copious research already in existence. I recommend: Andre Bazin's "Orson Welles: A Critical Study", Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich's "This Is Orson Welles", Joseph McBride's "Orson Welles, and Peter Cowie's "The Cinema of Orson Welles".

Again I agree with you more than you might realize. Dead Man is by far the best. It's his masterpiece. I love that movie and I can remember first seeing it in a theater as a special time. I don't know what I was thinking; I was talking about his first films and how they kept their rhythm. I admit I don't like Raising Arizona as much as Blood Simple but I believe a lot of smart people do. I thought Kes was Ken Loach, but I"m afraid I missed it.

Iwould like to read Bogdonovich. I respect him.

Damn! My post got buried at the bottom of the previous page. The more I watch the Coens' films the less I like them but I still do like most of them (not the last three), Fargo and Lebowski more than others. Dead Man is a personal favorite. I imported Kes on dvd from the UK because I like it a lot. I plan to watch it again this year and post some comments.

Funny you should mention Thompson, because I did read that book. I still believe Welles was self destructive. Granted I certainly had my arguments with Thompson, I do think he did a fair job on Welles. The validity of Thompson's biography is it's own source for debate however. My primary source for Welles though is his own movies. I'll admit I haven't seen Macbeth, but of the other 10 acknowledged directorial efforts, I got them covered.

Always feared Bogdanovich's Welles book would be too shamelessly ass kissing. I've read some of his reviews of Welles films, and well he's a little enthusiastic about his work to say the least. Peter Cowie's book will probably be the next source, but I'm most likely not going to look into Welles work much in the near future. Other directors to tackle. Generally speaking though I don't care much about director's biographies, I'm much more interested in their work. Welles life story, so full of contradictions and multiple opinions, made it interesting to me.

Orson Welles was like a kid in a candy shop. He was just starting to explore one area when something else popped up and entranced him. Still, I love watching his stuff. "Touch of Evil", "Mr. Arkadin", "The Lady from Shanghai", "The Magnificent Ambersons" , and "Citizen Kane" all have something to offer.

Welles had an eye for talent and that might explain his penchant for adaptation. If something beautiful or stirring exists in one art form, why not adapt it to another?

The Coen brothers films have been weak as of late. I would rank their films as follows:


1. "Miller's Crossing"
2. "Blood Simple"
3. "Barton Fink"
4. "Raising Arizona"
5. "The Big Lebowski"
6. " Oh, Brother Where Art Thou?"
7. "Fargo"
8. "The Hudsucker Proxy"

RE Thompson vs. Bogdonovich: "Ass kissing" -- writing that comes out of a positve, admiring attitude toward the subject is of more value than writing that comes out of a pervasive negativity, and Bogdonovich knows a lot about movies. Thompson does too; however from what I've seen, his remarks are pungent, but suspect, on many topics.

Oscar: I scanned your longer reply on Welles comments. I have taken note of the fact that industry hacks falsely attacked Welles, but I still agree with wpqx in thinking the man had self destructive tendences and a degree of unreliablity that got in the way of funding for his work. His personal lifestyle is some indication: his overconsumption of lobsters, champagne, his enormous girth are warning signs. He had a prodigious, multi-faceted talent. That in itself can be hard to handle for its possessor, and can burn itself out early. I myself have known someone of exceptional intelligence as well as exceptional moral fervor. He has had a hard time fitting in anywhere -- genius isn't something people know how to deal with -- or getting anything substantial accomplished in his later years, but he has remarkable early accomplishments to his credit and stil time spent talking with him on any topic, including film, is pure gold.

Quote:

---

[Steve Seitz:] If something beautiful or stirring exists in one art form, why not adapt it to another?

---

That's what I was saying to Oscar in defense of Ali.

As for the Coen brothers, we seem to be agreeing that their more recent movies show a falling off.

I think his so called self-destructive tendencies (which we all have to some degree) have been vastly exaggerated as causal factors in several projects of his being unfinished or incomplete. I also think that too much mainstream writing on him neglects the accomplished fiction works made-for-TV (The Immortal Story ('68) for instance) and brilliant essay films (F for Fake ('74), Filming "Othello" ('78)).
Regrettably, the bad guys won. The Welles image the contemptuous moguls and trashy gossip writers wanted the general public to have of him has prevailed. At its most benign, and I certainly don't fault Steve or Chris for it, he is characterized as a self-indulgent "kid in a candy shop". Yes, he was fat and loved his lobster and champagne and there are a zillion things to say and think about him that are more important than those, no matter how true. If we examine his gargantuan genius and skill in several artistic disciplines, we'd never have time to discuss banalities.

Given Welles's obviously extreme detractors and supporters, it may be hard to get a clear picture. By the way, Oscar (or anybody), have you read Pauline Kael's writing about him and Citizen Kane? If so what do you think of that?

I did not use the phrase "kid in a china shop" or subscribe to it, nor have I read or been influenced by David Thompson's writings on Welles in any context. I just don't admire his achievements quite as much as you do and I have some of wpqx's suspicions or assumptions about his having some responsiblity for his failures and their not being totally the fault of others, which is usually true of everybody anyway. I saw F is for Fake and was not as deeply impressed as you were, at all. Again, as with "Midas touch," your choice of words with "gargantuan" is a bit misjudged since it naturally gives rise to thoughts of gargantual appetites and gargantuan girth -- precisely the sort of associations you want to declare irrelevant (there's that word again, but in a more honorable context). Ditto your use of "bad guys," which suggests stereotyping and polarizing issues that may be less black and white.

Epidemic (1987) - Lars Von Trier

Speaking of black and white, I'm gonna attempt to get back to basics. I got a chance to watch this earlier Von Trier film, and I was enamored with it. Many people may not appreciate his style, but I always admire originality, even if misguided. Epidemic avoids some of the melodramatic touches of his more recent work, but it makes up for it in structure. He's able to go from a screenplay, to a film, to life immitating art, and somehow the irrelevant winds up important. Many scenes seem like they have no bearing on the film, but somehow everything finds it's place here. Auteur or egoist, whichever you deem appropriate, Von Trier wrote, directed, acted, and edited this film, and probably did a little more as well. Make no mistakes about it, this is HIS film.

Have not seen this, but just wanted to say I would tend to agree with you; he's the kind of director you have to be aware of even if he annoys you. He wants to annoy you. My negative reaction to von Trier was considerably softened when I saw The Five Obstructions, which is a cooly conceptual film that unguardedly reveals a lot about his personality. It made him more human for me. In a way he became the object of his own devious practical jokes, his challenges to his old friend and idol backfired, and he showed more who he is. His willingness to show his own abject failures was appealing. I reviewed it favorably, overall. It was the first time I didn't walk out of a von Trier movie alienated and angry.

Just watched Bamboozled (2000)

my review is in the Favorite Films section.

Ace in the Hole/The Big Carnival (1951) - Billy Wilder

Rarely does a film I look forward to seeing for so long actually deliver. This was far better than I could have hoped for, and it boggles my mind why this has been so long out of print. For the record I got to see it at a bank of all places. This place in the city shows a movie every Saturday Night, the place was packed for this one, and as one might expect mostly senior citizens. I'll try and elaborate on the film in a separate thread.

Yeah, I agree that Ace in the Hole was one of Wilder's best. A bit surprised that you hadn't seen it till now, considering that it was nominated for an Oscar et al. I loved Kirk Douglas in it, one of his best performances I think. Paramount changed the name of the film to make some $$$... I guess things have remained the same. Anyway, I saw it when it was re-released theatrically a couple of years ago, but certainly it deserves more.

Well I have been persistent on it, couldn't find it on VHS, of course no DVD for it, TCM never played the movie, so that left few options. Luckily for some strange reason this specialty theater had a print and decided to show it tonight only. Well worth the $5.