grabbed what is supposedly the ultimate version of orson welles'
Mr. Arkadin off of netflix. really interesting movie that i never got around to sitting down and watching. kinda doubt it'd be of much use to anyone that isn't a major welles enthusiast though. it's a very good, but very imperfect movie, due in large part to the fact that welles didn't get to edit it himself and the editing of the restructured version ended up being dictated primarily by things welles had told peter bogdanovich thirty years ago.
the movie itself ranges from kinda resoundingly imperfect to really stunning. some of the performances are incredibly good(redgrave, tamiroff), and some are phenomenally empty(arden). you could tell at some point welles gave the lead a very short leash because the guy goes from HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING AT ALL to vaguely appropriate from scene to scene. or maybe he just grew tired of picking apart every scene and just let the guy ruin the movie? also, it's a ridiculously beautiful movie, which i wasn't really expecting from something everyone was [justifiably] calling a disaster. he would have had something really special on his hands if everything went well with the project, as even everything basically being smashed to incomprehensible pieces on the editing room floor couldn't interfere with how excellent the shot composition is almost uniformly throughout the entire film.
from an academic point of view it's interesting watching the film as it's probably the first film that really shows welles really developing the major meat of his trademark filmmaking styles that would pace his later movies. don't know if this is of significance to most people though, as most people aren't going to watch
f for fake and FURIOUSLY MASTURBATE like i unashamedly do.
as always though, it's more frustrating than anything else that you kinda need to piece orson welles together rather than getting these glowing examples of what he was really capable of. you get someone like kurosawa and you don't need to dig particularly hard to get some clear picture of what he could do. figuring out what welles was like at his best is like this gigantic jigsaw puzzle, as you have bits and pieces scattered over like seven different films. that's kinda why it's not absurd hearing people call themselves WELLES SCHOLARS, since you have these little elements sprinkled throughout his various films that were completely revolutionary that just barely survive despite fifty years of pretty terrible misfortune and the meddling of irritating producers.
on a semi-related note i find it humorously narcissistic how welles would handle leads in movies where he played the BAD GUY himself. in touch of evil, the trial, and mr. arkadin the main character really seems profoundly, almost intentionally clueless as to what the movie is actually about. i'm of the opinion that this was intentional on welles part(maybe not even consciously) so you naturally focus your attention more on welles' character rather than the lead, who is deeply uninteresting and does not react to the happenings of the movie in a way that is at all meaningful. i read somewhere that he even told anthony perkins that the trial was a comedy(it was not), which would explain the unnerving smirk on his face throughout what was otherwise a deeply somber movie.
this is of minimal importance but i think it is a cool observation(also maybe pulling it out of my ass!!!) that probably nobody here will find any interest in. but whatever. at least i am POSTING WORDS ON A DEAD SITE so there.