Now as I mentioned in my first post from nine (!) years ago, I am a big fan of Orson Welles and I do think that his first film, “Citizen Kane” is the most important film ever made. For his second film, he chose a literary adaptation of one of his favorite authors from boyhood, Booth Tarkington. An entirely different form and style from his first film, the first half of his second film, “The Magnificent Ambersons” is almost as brilliant a piece of film making as his debut. Unfortunately, at this point, the heads of RKO were so out of love with the ‘enfant terrible’ of the New York stage and the moment he was safely away in Brazil making a little harmless propaganda film called “It’s All True”, the studio set several people to work at completing the editing of ‘Ambersons’ with a legendary drastic result, cutting out about 45 minutes of footage and re-writing and re-shooting the ending to more closely resemble that of the novel (Welles’ ending , if other’s memories can be trusted, while totally departing from the author’s ending was a far more adult and realistic way to end the film, perfectly in keeping with the themes of the novel that Welles chose to emphasize in his adaptation: that of a proud Victorian family unwilling to change with the changing American culture, becomes ploughed under and obliterated by it.
That was the last time he tried to rise to the challenge of exploiting the medium. He had been defeated by the Hollywood machine. With the exception of the much later “Touch of Evil”, the rest of his Hollywood films were marred by his willingness to “play by the rules”, to try and prove that he could direct a film and keep it on time and on budget. From this point on, he was forever trying to earn enough money with acting in film and radio, directing from time to time, in order to fund the projects that he was really passionate about; stage productions and a handful of films that were shot in Europe on a shoestring budget and on weekends when he could get a cast and crew together.
And now to the SUBJECT of this post, “The Lady from Shanghai”. This film resulted in a trade to Columbia producer, Harry Cohen. If Cohen would help to fund Welles’ current stage production of “Around the World in 80 Days”, Welles would direct and act in a film for Columbia.
Tonight was probably the third or fourth time I have watched this film- no need to ever do so again! (In contrast- I feel like a part of me is missing if I go one year without watching ‘Kane’ or three years without watching the flawed but brilliant ‘Ambersons’). It is obvious to me that Welles’ only interest in making this film was to do the job he promised to. There is no attempt to tell ANY of this story visually- the film could have been made by any ‘B’ grade director of the day. Other than the much-ballyhooed funhouse sequence in the end (a total gimmick), there isn’t even any sort of visual style throughout the film. American critics did not take to it at the time. Europe was a little kinder to it (but when one looks at where European filmmaking was going- is there any surprise?). Now, of course, it is hailed as a masterpiece, one of the greatest film noirs of all time (to this we’ve come? I ask myself!).
The one pleasure this film gives me is the opportunity to see glimpses of The waterfront of Sausalito and parts of San Francisco the way I saw it as a child before things were ‘gussied up’ for the 1970’s and 80’s. As a native of Marin County, I have always been disappointed in how few great films take place in that great city, San Francisco. It’s a very important city culturally and historically and yet far more films are set in New York or Los Angeles. Watching “The Conversation” or “What’s Up Doc” makes me feel like a proud relative wanting someone to boast too (“Chu Chu and the Filly Flash” Inspires me to the shame of a poor relation).
I promise that some day I will get around to talking about “Citizen Kane”. I realize that I had very little to say about “Lady from Shanghai” but that is basically the point of this post; there is nothing worthwhile to say about this film!
Monday, April 13, 2020
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
Covid-19 and the Eight Year Hiatus
Often guilty of over promising and non-delivering, I really failed as a blogger! My first and only post eight years ago! Well, that is what happens when a man buys a dilapidated old house with the intention of giving it a full-body facelift. If it is not consuming all of my energy, I am recuperating from giving it all of my energy and it is still pretty far from done.
I’m done with excuses now and will proceed to the purpose of this post. Along with most everyone in this country (much of the world, actually) I am in isolation at home, trying to do my part to slow the destructive creep of this terrible disease. I wish I could say that I had more time to watch films but working from home has not meant that my duties have become lighter, they’ve become quite a bit heavier. To wrap up and unwind from the day, I allow myself to watch ONE film (two if they are short).
Months and months ago, I gave up on Netflix dvd and streaming because I’ve already seen everything that I can find that’s worth watching. Instead, I have been enjoying Turner Classic Movies on-demand service for cable subscribers. A lifelong film buff, I have seen most of the films worth watching on there but I enjoy watching some of them again and I have found quite a few that are very entertaining, if not really praiseworthy.
Peter Bogdanovich’s first film, “Targets” (1968), is a film that I watched AEONS ago in my former life as a young man. I don’t recall that the film made a very strong impression on me at the time. It was probably a lousy print but after just having watched it again, some thirty-odd years later, I am really astonished that all I could remember about the film was that it featured Boris Karloff. I was a film student at the time, constantly watching, studying and writing about great films. I also had not really cemented my own theoretical beliefs about the art of film. All this time later when a truly well-crafted film is a rare thing when it comes along, I never forget it!
Earlier this week, I sat through “Rashomon”, which I thought I had never seen (???: A film theory and criticism major? How could this be possible?) but about 2/3 of the way through, I realized that I HAD seen the film and evidently it went in one eye and out the other (the worst thing I can say about a film- well ALMOST the worst thing that I can say). I gave “The Seven Samurai” 45 minutes the next evening before giving up and watching “The Panic in Needle Park” instead. Akira Kurosawa’s films leave me scratching my head. I see plenty in his films but mostly I am hearing; words, words and more words. I see no cinema at all. And yet they announced that both of these films are considered to be among the top 30 films of ALL time.
Along comes “Targets”. I wasn’t even going to watch it because I remembered so little about it. Must have been a weak freshman effort. At the last moment, I decided to watch it after all. What a pleasant surprise. Now for those of you who judge the worth of a film by the performances of the actors, you would say it is a mediocre film but for those of us “in the know” film viewers, it is a very good example of the apex of cinematic art: visual storytelling. Bogdanovich was given a challenge by producer Roger Corman- if you can find a way to use Boris Karloff for his remaining two contract days and footage from his most recent release, “The Terror”- you can make any film you want to.
I have to heap praise on the young filmmakers ingenuity for he far exceeded anyone’s expectations with the result. It is not a perfect film but has so much greatness in it for the way Bogdanovich uses his visuals to tell the story. He uses almost every artistic arrow in a filmmakers quiver, slow pans, tilts, tracking shots, closeups, long shots, and intercutting them to create the slow burn of horrific suspense that makes this film so worthwhile.
Sadly, the theme of the film that the real-live horrors of the present day (1968 present day) are far more terrifying than the heavy-handed overextended tropes of the Victorian era, has become far too relevant and even more terrifying for our own present of 2020.
As always, I recommend that a really good film is best viewed without having read a synopsis or seen a trailer to give away the punchline. The viewing experience is so enhanced when the viewer has little to no expectations and allows the film to unfold exactly as its creators designed it to.
One word of caution: if you or someone close to you has been touched by a mass shooting incident- this film my be too disturbing. This is not a film to entertain, but to enlighten. Unless I wind up with dementia, I don’t expect that I will ever forget this film again!
I’m done with excuses now and will proceed to the purpose of this post. Along with most everyone in this country (much of the world, actually) I am in isolation at home, trying to do my part to slow the destructive creep of this terrible disease. I wish I could say that I had more time to watch films but working from home has not meant that my duties have become lighter, they’ve become quite a bit heavier. To wrap up and unwind from the day, I allow myself to watch ONE film (two if they are short).
Months and months ago, I gave up on Netflix dvd and streaming because I’ve already seen everything that I can find that’s worth watching. Instead, I have been enjoying Turner Classic Movies on-demand service for cable subscribers. A lifelong film buff, I have seen most of the films worth watching on there but I enjoy watching some of them again and I have found quite a few that are very entertaining, if not really praiseworthy.
Peter Bogdanovich’s first film, “Targets” (1968), is a film that I watched AEONS ago in my former life as a young man. I don’t recall that the film made a very strong impression on me at the time. It was probably a lousy print but after just having watched it again, some thirty-odd years later, I am really astonished that all I could remember about the film was that it featured Boris Karloff. I was a film student at the time, constantly watching, studying and writing about great films. I also had not really cemented my own theoretical beliefs about the art of film. All this time later when a truly well-crafted film is a rare thing when it comes along, I never forget it!
Earlier this week, I sat through “Rashomon”, which I thought I had never seen (???: A film theory and criticism major? How could this be possible?) but about 2/3 of the way through, I realized that I HAD seen the film and evidently it went in one eye and out the other (the worst thing I can say about a film- well ALMOST the worst thing that I can say). I gave “The Seven Samurai” 45 minutes the next evening before giving up and watching “The Panic in Needle Park” instead. Akira Kurosawa’s films leave me scratching my head. I see plenty in his films but mostly I am hearing; words, words and more words. I see no cinema at all. And yet they announced that both of these films are considered to be among the top 30 films of ALL time.
Along comes “Targets”. I wasn’t even going to watch it because I remembered so little about it. Must have been a weak freshman effort. At the last moment, I decided to watch it after all. What a pleasant surprise. Now for those of you who judge the worth of a film by the performances of the actors, you would say it is a mediocre film but for those of us “in the know” film viewers, it is a very good example of the apex of cinematic art: visual storytelling. Bogdanovich was given a challenge by producer Roger Corman- if you can find a way to use Boris Karloff for his remaining two contract days and footage from his most recent release, “The Terror”- you can make any film you want to.
I have to heap praise on the young filmmakers ingenuity for he far exceeded anyone’s expectations with the result. It is not a perfect film but has so much greatness in it for the way Bogdanovich uses his visuals to tell the story. He uses almost every artistic arrow in a filmmakers quiver, slow pans, tilts, tracking shots, closeups, long shots, and intercutting them to create the slow burn of horrific suspense that makes this film so worthwhile.
Sadly, the theme of the film that the real-live horrors of the present day (1968 present day) are far more terrifying than the heavy-handed overextended tropes of the Victorian era, has become far too relevant and even more terrifying for our own present of 2020.
As always, I recommend that a really good film is best viewed without having read a synopsis or seen a trailer to give away the punchline. The viewing experience is so enhanced when the viewer has little to no expectations and allows the film to unfold exactly as its creators designed it to.
One word of caution: if you or someone close to you has been touched by a mass shooting incident- this film my be too disturbing. This is not a film to entertain, but to enlighten. Unless I wind up with dementia, I don’t expect that I will ever forget this film again!
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The last Straw! "Citizen Kane" vs. "Vertigo" (or any other film for that matter)
I went to a 50th Anniversary celebration for my High School back home a few years ago and I reconnected with an old acquaintance (she was a year ahead of me and remembered me much better than I remembered her. It's very likely that the tables have turned since this last meeting) who told me that she had started a blog about cooking and recipes and how it eventually turned into a new and exciting career for her that took her all over the world to taste food and discover/disseminate new recipes. Her parting advice to me was this; Everyone needs a blog, YOU need a blog!
This conversation, in particular the parting shot before we said our 'goodbyes' left a strong and lasting impression on me. Do I think that it is going to propel me to the top of the film industry some day where I will realize my dreams on celluloid (or High Capacity Storage Device) and finally put my education to work where it belongs? Probably not. Nevertheless, It was good advice then and it still is. At last, I will have a place where I can talk freely about one of my VERY favorite subjects; FILM, and hopefully find an interested audience. My goal is to enlighten and educate readers on the basics of film theory so that they may go away with a little more understanding of what makes a great film and why they are so depressingly rare! Along the way, I will be featuring favorite films that the world has largely passed by and newly found gems that deserve to be watched and enjoyed which is much more than I can say for the vast majority of the offerings at your local RedBox.
Gentle Readers, if you haven't detected it from my tone by now, I will spell it out for you; I am a film snob. My eldest sister has proclaimed me thus and I admit that I proudly and willingly wear this title. I watch a lot of films. Most are lightweight entertainment, many are well acted, well costumed, well-lit but poorly constructed. I generally don't watch these films more than once. Some are TERRIBLE. In fairness to these films, I usually sit them out to see if they make anything of themselves by the time they get to the end (some of them surprise me) and it is rare that I turn a film off prematurely. Then there are the other films. The ones that hit me over the head with their brilliance (VERY rare!), The ones that stick with me and cause me to go back and review them, once, twice, thrice, The ones that I watch, not really sure how I feel about them immediately afterward and then feel a drive to watch them again, years later and discover that I had missed the point the first time along with the original release audiences.
Briefly, my background is that I was a movie-addicted child who decided as a teen that he wanted to become a film director. I decided before I even finished High School that I would study Film Theory in college with the intention that a person cannot become a great director unless they understand what makes a film great. I earned my degree in Theater & Film with an emphasis on Theory & Criticism from Brigham Young University. To this day, twenty one years later, I still think that my approach was sound and correct but also insanely impractical. Other than a few stints as a production assistant on some low budget shoots, I turned my back on the film industry, totally disillusioned when I discovered I was never the one who was "in the right place at the right time" or "knew the right people". Many of my fellow students were still trying to work their way up into the ranks of 'A' productions when I lost track of them long ago. I discovered that the people with clout on a set never earned a degree in film and usually had no intention of going into the industry, it just 'happened'. I have been toiling away in various positions in the personal care/cosmetic products manufacturing industry since 2001. A major depression at age 42 urged me to reassess my cinematic aspirations and I decided that I needed to write. I wrote my first screenplay, "Strigoi", in two and a half weeks of evenings and weekends and the sudden burst of creativity jolted me out of the depths of depression (I discovered that a British film with the same title was just finishing production when I wrote "The End" but it was too late- I could not envision any other title for the film. It has not been produced- it hasn't even been shopped around- this is my baby and I will be clutching it protectively to my breast in hopes that some day I will be able to produce it myself. Maybe I will tell more about this later...). The second script began well but halted repeatedly and came to rest at about page 79 three years ago and may never be revisited at this point. I am not daunted. I am only 47 years old and that gives me plenty of time to re-tackle the film industry in the future.
It's been a long time in coming to the subject of the title of this blog (brevity has never been my strength). It was recently announced that "Citizen Kane" is no longer the greatest film of all time and that now it is "Vertigo". At first, this announcement baffled me; after all, how can two films each made over fifty years ago suddenly switch places as far as cinematic value?? Did someone suddenly discover that "Kane" was actually a less significant achievement than it was previously believed? Has new information been discovered about Vertigo, available for viewing since the early 1980's and while hailed by many as a masterpiece, it still was not considered Hitchcock's greatest film by most people "in the know". And yet, somehow, suddenly it is the GREATEST film of ALL TIME. This was the final straw that prompted me to start my blog
It is my belief that the value of a film cannot change over time, especially in relation to other films that it has already been compared against repeatedly. No, it would have to be a newly made film that could upset the order of the great films. What HAS changed over time is the film critics and film directors who are evidently the people who have been given the authority to make these distinctions for all of us. In college, I had the reputation for 'knowing my stuff' when it came to Theory. I knew a lot of 'stuff' but it took several years of pondering and individual study before I really felt that I understood the nebulous world of film theory and could put it to practical use. It is not a cold and hard science but fits more into the subjective and fluid realm of art.
This first post has gone on way too long but I will close it with this statement; rest assured, "Citizen Kane" is still not only the greatest film of all time (to date) but it is also by far and away the most important film of all time. "Vertigo" on the other hand, is not even Alfred Hitchcock's greatest film. I think that would belong to either "The Lady Vanishes" or "Rear Window"- two delightful films that rely heavily on cinematic narrativity to tell their respective stories in a uniquely visual fashion. One big thing that escapes most film critics is that when talking about film, the image is king and the word is merely a servant in the king's household.
I will next follow up with a post about just WHAT makes CK the greatest and most important film ever made- in the nebulous world of film theory, its maker, Orson Welles, leaves vast amounts of concrete evidence pointing to this fact. Until then...
This conversation, in particular the parting shot before we said our 'goodbyes' left a strong and lasting impression on me. Do I think that it is going to propel me to the top of the film industry some day where I will realize my dreams on celluloid (or High Capacity Storage Device) and finally put my education to work where it belongs? Probably not. Nevertheless, It was good advice then and it still is. At last, I will have a place where I can talk freely about one of my VERY favorite subjects; FILM, and hopefully find an interested audience. My goal is to enlighten and educate readers on the basics of film theory so that they may go away with a little more understanding of what makes a great film and why they are so depressingly rare! Along the way, I will be featuring favorite films that the world has largely passed by and newly found gems that deserve to be watched and enjoyed which is much more than I can say for the vast majority of the offerings at your local RedBox.
Gentle Readers, if you haven't detected it from my tone by now, I will spell it out for you; I am a film snob. My eldest sister has proclaimed me thus and I admit that I proudly and willingly wear this title. I watch a lot of films. Most are lightweight entertainment, many are well acted, well costumed, well-lit but poorly constructed. I generally don't watch these films more than once. Some are TERRIBLE. In fairness to these films, I usually sit them out to see if they make anything of themselves by the time they get to the end (some of them surprise me) and it is rare that I turn a film off prematurely. Then there are the other films. The ones that hit me over the head with their brilliance (VERY rare!), The ones that stick with me and cause me to go back and review them, once, twice, thrice, The ones that I watch, not really sure how I feel about them immediately afterward and then feel a drive to watch them again, years later and discover that I had missed the point the first time along with the original release audiences.
Briefly, my background is that I was a movie-addicted child who decided as a teen that he wanted to become a film director. I decided before I even finished High School that I would study Film Theory in college with the intention that a person cannot become a great director unless they understand what makes a film great. I earned my degree in Theater & Film with an emphasis on Theory & Criticism from Brigham Young University. To this day, twenty one years later, I still think that my approach was sound and correct but also insanely impractical. Other than a few stints as a production assistant on some low budget shoots, I turned my back on the film industry, totally disillusioned when I discovered I was never the one who was "in the right place at the right time" or "knew the right people". Many of my fellow students were still trying to work their way up into the ranks of 'A' productions when I lost track of them long ago. I discovered that the people with clout on a set never earned a degree in film and usually had no intention of going into the industry, it just 'happened'. I have been toiling away in various positions in the personal care/cosmetic products manufacturing industry since 2001. A major depression at age 42 urged me to reassess my cinematic aspirations and I decided that I needed to write. I wrote my first screenplay, "Strigoi", in two and a half weeks of evenings and weekends and the sudden burst of creativity jolted me out of the depths of depression (I discovered that a British film with the same title was just finishing production when I wrote "The End" but it was too late- I could not envision any other title for the film. It has not been produced- it hasn't even been shopped around- this is my baby and I will be clutching it protectively to my breast in hopes that some day I will be able to produce it myself. Maybe I will tell more about this later...). The second script began well but halted repeatedly and came to rest at about page 79 three years ago and may never be revisited at this point. I am not daunted. I am only 47 years old and that gives me plenty of time to re-tackle the film industry in the future.
It's been a long time in coming to the subject of the title of this blog (brevity has never been my strength). It was recently announced that "Citizen Kane" is no longer the greatest film of all time and that now it is "Vertigo". At first, this announcement baffled me; after all, how can two films each made over fifty years ago suddenly switch places as far as cinematic value?? Did someone suddenly discover that "Kane" was actually a less significant achievement than it was previously believed? Has new information been discovered about Vertigo, available for viewing since the early 1980's and while hailed by many as a masterpiece, it still was not considered Hitchcock's greatest film by most people "in the know". And yet, somehow, suddenly it is the GREATEST film of ALL TIME. This was the final straw that prompted me to start my blog
It is my belief that the value of a film cannot change over time, especially in relation to other films that it has already been compared against repeatedly. No, it would have to be a newly made film that could upset the order of the great films. What HAS changed over time is the film critics and film directors who are evidently the people who have been given the authority to make these distinctions for all of us. In college, I had the reputation for 'knowing my stuff' when it came to Theory. I knew a lot of 'stuff' but it took several years of pondering and individual study before I really felt that I understood the nebulous world of film theory and could put it to practical use. It is not a cold and hard science but fits more into the subjective and fluid realm of art.
This first post has gone on way too long but I will close it with this statement; rest assured, "Citizen Kane" is still not only the greatest film of all time (to date) but it is also by far and away the most important film of all time. "Vertigo" on the other hand, is not even Alfred Hitchcock's greatest film. I think that would belong to either "The Lady Vanishes" or "Rear Window"- two delightful films that rely heavily on cinematic narrativity to tell their respective stories in a uniquely visual fashion. One big thing that escapes most film critics is that when talking about film, the image is king and the word is merely a servant in the king's household.
I will next follow up with a post about just WHAT makes CK the greatest and most important film ever made- in the nebulous world of film theory, its maker, Orson Welles, leaves vast amounts of concrete evidence pointing to this fact. Until then...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)