tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post5807770034295208370..comments2023-07-12T09:16:45.437-04:00Comments on The Cinema: "Minor" WellesTed Pigeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-50099733226165207412008-08-04T12:38:00.000-04:002008-08-04T12:38:00.000-04:00Thanks for commenting, Jonathan! You make a numbe...Thanks for commenting, Jonathan! <BR/><BR/>You make a number of a good points, and you've eloquently summed up the reasons for auteurist criticism to focus on the smaller achievements in a canonized filmmaker's filmography. <BR/><BR/>It's also nice to have the input of a Welles expert, which I most certainly am not. <I>The Lady From Shanghai</I>, despite its status as a larger budget Welles feature represents the first film of his where I noticed more than just the quintessential auteur and aesthetic perfection. I saw the same commitment to visual invention and filmmaking craft, but not the same execution. And the most interesting aspect about my experience with the movie is that I can almost say I liked it more because of that.<BR/><BR/>I can't wait to dive into more of his films.Ted Pigeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-67138583850572074882008-08-04T11:16:00.000-04:002008-08-04T11:16:00.000-04:00Well I am now, and have always been, a bit obsesse...Well I am now, and have always been, a bit obsessed with Welles. I've seen everything except <B>The Deep</B> (but I don't think that's been released has it?), <B>The Other Side of the Wind</B> (same unreleased status) and <B>The Immortal Story</B>. But everything from <B>Chimes at Midnight</B> and before I've seen and I can tell you that I find Welles to be a wonder. The opening shots of <B>Othello</B>, the stylized sets and feel of <B>Macbeth</B>, the wide open shadowy spaces of <B>The Trial</B>. What fascinates me with Welles are the minor films, the ones made on a shoestring over many years of stops and starts, like <B>Mr. Arkadin</B>. They fascinate me because despite bad film stock, uneven acting, poor continuity and the other disadvantages that come from making films this way, there remain so many intriguing shots, so many inventive visuals. <BR/><BR/>When you watch his films, from <B>Kane</B> to <B>Ambersons</B> to <B>Touch of Evil</B> and realize that despite having three different cinematographers they all share much the same look, it becomes clear that Welles was the visual authority on all of his films. This comes through on the low budget later works as well. You can imagine Welles on the set of <B>Arkadin</B>, frustrated that he has no money, annoyed that he is using old stock and no proper lights but saying, "I don't care if we don't have the time for it, I'm digging a hole and setting this camera in it so we can get a bug's eye vantage point of Bracco walking past the camera. And yes I know it's a throwaway shot, I don't care!"<BR/><BR/>That's what you see with his low budget work: A rigorous resolve to still do everything in his power to give the film style and visual meaning, no matter what the circumstances.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-29512898386074255382008-07-28T13:29:00.000-04:002008-07-28T13:29:00.000-04:00Thanks, Ed. The flaws you point out are often gla...Thanks, Ed. The flaws you point out are often glaring. I'm actually glad you pointed this out. It would have been relevant to point out the studio interference, but my only knowledge of this came from watching the Bogdonavich interview on the DVD after I watched the film. <BR/><BR/>Part of the intent of my essay was to highlight Welles' brilliance even when he is not working under the best circumstances. <EM>The Lady From Shanghai</EM> shows that even a supreme craftsperson and artist like Welles is susceptible to studio takeovers. It's a harsh reminder that the commercial has just about always accompanied the artistic. Welles' efforts to distort cinematic space and recreate it are evident in all of his films to some capacity, and it was almost refreshing to see Welles make a flawed or hacked film, given my position. Certainly the film may be "less" than his other triumphs, but that inquiry is still there. In fact, it is arguably more interesting to see such subtle craft in a film with a dime-a-dozen plot that was marred by studio interference. The formal precision coupled with the brief, seemingly sporadic humorous asides make for a wonderful viewing experience in spite of the disjointedness. Seeing these disparate sensibilites juxtaposed provides a raw portrait of cinema offering a glimpse of the various aesthetic and economic tensions from which they are born.<BR/><BR/>So I suppose I'm looking at the film less from a point of view of rate-able quality, and more from a reflexive auteurist angle. I think if we are to really run with this form of criticism, i.e. auteurism, we should look to the failures or near-misses just as much as the more accepted major works. The gaps, the lapses, and the uneasy contrasts provide a fuller vision of the artist and the work.Ted Pigeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-1965599276543418662008-07-28T11:08:00.000-04:002008-07-28T11:08:00.000-04:00An interesting essay. You see a lot more in Lady F...An interesting essay. You see a lot more in <I>Lady From Shanghai</I> than I do, although my experience of the film may be irretrievably marred by the fact that Welles' vision for the film was hacked to bits by studio interference. It's hard not to imagine what might've been if he'd had his own way. The film's narrative setup is fairly slapdash, although often endearingly so. Welles comes across as disinterested in the prosaic plot, and he skips over seemingly crucial details with a light touch. There are lots of rough montages that fade quickly from one image to the next, signaling the long ellipses with which Welles skips through the narrative. Hell, the entire development of the romance between the leads is essentially left to an ellipsis; they fall in love sometime between scenes and the audience is left to believe it or not.<BR/><BR/>Within this hazy narrative framework, there are moments that simply shine through with great intensity and ingenuity, like the eerie shot where Welles threatening describes a shark feeding frenzy, or the final funhouse sequence that's so justifiably famous. Of course, even this finale was massively cut by the studio, and would've been much longer in Welles' cut. This scene is a masterpiece as is, nearly avant-garde in its treatment of screen space, and I only wish I could see it at its full length.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.com