What am I in for?
Citizen Kino is all I know of him.
You're in for one of the many cures to insomnia
>>70163143
I actually have that, for some reason I am expecting something on the level of Exit Through the Gift Shop which single handedly made me hate all graffiti.
It's fantastic. Just chill and enjoy.
>>70163017
look no further fäm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFevH5vP32s
>>70163017
MWAAAHAAA
>>70163757
> Imagine being Orson in that ad and having to be all like "Muuuhaaaahhh, Paul Masson, you fuckin' fine, all delicious with your in-the-bottle fermentation and horrific faux-French monstrous taste. I would totally drink you, both in this advert and one for frozen peas." when all he really wants to do is drink another $500 Dom Perignon in his dressing room. Like seriously imagine having to be Orson and not only sit in that chair while the extra pours his disgusting California champagne in front of you, the favorable lighting barely concealing the suspicious-looking sediment building in it, and just sit there, take after take, hour after hour, while he perfected that pour. Not only having to tolerate the monstrous fucking taste but Paul Masson's haughty attitude as everyone on set says it's VINTAGE DATED and DAMN, PAUL MASSON CHAMPAGNE TASTES LIKE THAT?? because they're not the ones who have to sit there and drink the disgusting fucking piss water contorting your palette into horrific flavours you didn't even know existed before that day. You've been drinking nothing but a healthy diet of Krug and Bollinger and later alleged moonshine for your ENTIRE CAREER coming straight out of the boonies in Wisconsin. You've never even drunk anything this fucking disgusting before, and now you swear you can taste the chemical contaminants in this mass produced sham pigswill as it's poured again and again for you, the extra smugly assured that you are enjoying the opportunity to get paid to sit there and revel in the "French excellence (for that is what they call it)", the excellence they worked so hard for with fermentation techniques in the previous months. And then the director calls for another take, and you know you could break a bottle and stab everyone in this room, but you sit there and endure, because you're fucking Orson Welles. You're drunk as fuck and don't know why the extra isn't doing anything. Just bear it. Slurr your lines and bear it.
>>70164201
There it is
>>70163017
Welles isn't in the film save from the prologue
>>70164312
he's in it throughout... and is also the narrator
>>70163017
The Third Man is my favorite Welles movie.
>>70164338
Are you talking about F For Fake
>>70164201
nice
>>70163757
does he say
>just do anything?
or
>she doesn't do anything?
or
>he doesn't do anything?
I can't quite tell
>>70163017
Touch of Evil is better
>>70164554
>Jus' do anything
>>70164486
Of course it about F For Fake
>>70164619
So what?
>>70164955
Touch of Evil is better
>>70163017
Ok OP serious answer. I love Orson and saw all his full length films. His films are great in many ways, but especially for cinematography and lighting, shadows. Also his films are old so, if you mostly watch modern flicks you will find yourself bored by his films, but if you are used to pre 70s films it'll be ok.
You should start with Citizen Kane, and after that read some Roger Ebert reviews and some wikipedia. The story behind creation of this film is incredible. Then if you like it proceed with The Magnificent Ambersons. After that watch Touch of Evil. After that watch Chimes at Midnight. After that if you will still be willing to proceed you'll be able to pick what you want to see next by yourself.
>>70164970
Yeah, so what?
>>70164554
>does she do anything?
He was waiting for her line.
>Actually we went back into the recording studio with Orson a week later and re-recorded his dialog and edited it in to the best footage we had from that day's shoot... we didn't do another day of shooting. We did as the post below says we "salvaged" a commercial and the client claimed they could still see his red eyes in the final edited and aired spot.
>He was some kind of a man... What does it matter what you say about people?
Great film, but what did she even mean by this? That reputation doesn't matter?
>>70165012
Op here, thank you /film/ I will check em out first. I've only seen him do little cameos and Shakespeare. I'm very intrigued by the topic but something told me it would go over my head if I don't understand the man properly first.
What, hold up... Anons actually discussing movies without shitposting on /tv/ ? I'm shocked.
F for Fake is a contrived garbage.
watched Mr Arkadin the other day after i was recommended it months ago on /tv/...
I liked it overall but the plot had many faults, the dutch angle technique was used a lot and grew tiresome, and the 'great man' story is weak compared to Kane.
First of all, the daughter. The love between Guy and the daughter is well developed in the first act but is barely seen for the later two acts. This is the opposite of most films, where the love interest is shoehorned into the later parts of the films. I get that Mr. Arkadin forced Guy to stay away but it still felt awkward. Another thing is her and her british boyfriend. Does the brit know about their love affair? Does he care? He seems to be rather cool at the end of the movie when Guy and the daughter say they love each other but can't be together.
Next is the whole contract thing. So Arkadin finds them together, which breaks the contract, and arkadin essentially fires guy. But then Guy keeps investigating, and his motivation is never really made clear; is he expecting the money? isn't the contract nullified? You could argue that he wanted to find out about mr arkadin in order to blackmail him, but a few scenes later Guy reports to Mr. Arkadin his findings
Then there's Guy's first girlfriend, Miley. What was her purpose? Ok, she relayed the information from Guy to Arkadin, but I think 1) Guy should know Mr. Arkadin could force the info out of her or 2) Mr. Arkadin could use his spy network to figure out what Guy Van Stratten knows anyways (and presumably does when Miley is killed).
Lastly, I didn't like was the Mr. Arkadin lost most of his charm the moment he talks to Guy Van Stratten and only regains a little with the story of his amnesia. This contrasts well with Kane, as we never get to meet him, only catching glimpses through flashbacks, and the mystery shrouding the Kane works better.
tl;dr although flawed, worth checking out for welles fans
>>70169906
>the plot had many faults
my brother, I don't think you understand Welles, or psycho-film noir type movies. All the film noir plots have many faults, the point of them has never been the convoluted plots or the uncertain character motivations. It's only neo-noir that tries to be that coherently story-driven. Think of it like a Luis* Bunuel spanish-language narrative film. About 95% normal narrative that only exists so he can give you those handful of surreal images, like cracked eggs dripping down a woman's legs. Film noir is all about psychotic shit and Arkadin, not really a typical noir can count, so we cannot compare it to Kane on that level even if we can find some similarities.
Compare it more to The Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil.
f for fake was the only really original film welles made since kane.
>>70165012
what a weird guide.
he only has abt a dozen films just watch em in any order, it'd make sense to see his shakespeare trilogy in order th o.
>>70170652
Considering Welles's genius, all his works are of strong originality, doesn't matter if they come from Shakespeare or Cervantes text. And that guide makes sense for someone without any contact with the man. It's simply a growing process in accessibility.
I only disagree with that poster in them being 'old' films, but I suppose this is a concern in dealing with people who have the thinking old=boring or bad.
>>70171086
tb h i was literally quoting orson lmao "anyway, i think f for fake is the only really original film i've made since kane". he was a genius thou & if accessibility was a priority, f for fake should be first, then touch of evil, mr arkadin prolly, citizen kane, all his other films and the shakespeare films last.
How do you guys feel about The Lady from Shanghai?
>>70170391
Firstly, I was only comparing Arkadin to Kane on the 'great man' aspects.
Secondly, I understand the plot is only a vehicle for the atmosphere and imagery but I still feel these aspects weren't strong enough to support the lackluster plot
>>70172123
My local film club was having a screening of it, I thought that there were a lot of really good scenes, but I felt it kinda meandered a lot during the first half? I dunno' I'm probably being pleb as fuck here, I'm not too used to older style films. I know they have a different rhythm to them, are they usually like this or is tLFS an odd one?
>>70172123
Better than Touch of Evil. One of his best movies along with the Shakespeare adaptions.
>>70172324
The first 40 minutes will give you whiplash. I actually get a headache watching it up until the scene in the aquariam which is one of Welles' best scenes. I'd say that and the fun house scene are top. That's when you finally get a chance to breathe. Moving from Central Park to the Docks to all these island locations with dissolve after dissolve and disjointed shot after disjointed shot makes for a great movie but you never get a chance to rest.
>>70172123
one of my favourites, that ending - i prefer it to touch of evil. & rita hayworth was great in it
>>70172324
as far as old films go, this is a complex one.
Get the fuck out of the way plebs, most underrated Orson coming through
>>70172303
Your mistake is that you're thinking about plot as something that have luster. The point of a film noir plot is to make you question authenticities of the narrative and to make you question the entire presented reality. It's constructed so that it crumbles under any logical scrutiny so that to actually make sense of the movie you have to pick up the pieces and come up with an alternative understanding. Detour probably does this best.
>>70172543
One of the greatest adaptations of all time, nailed the aesthetic like no other
>>70172543
Most overrated, actually. The movie is Welles jerking off for two hours, and it gets a shitload of praise because people think Kafka is difficult.
>>70172616
i believe welles called it an inspiration of the book, rather than an adaption
>>70172447
>>70172475
Ah, alright, I'm going to have to revisit it when I finally buck up and start watching classic cinema in earnest, thanks for the replies
>>70172650
>The movie is Welles jerking off for two hours
this is every orson welles film
>>70170652
you're just quoting orson himself, don't you have your own opinion? have you even seen his films?
>>70163326
Why do you hate graffiti? I know why I do, but what's your reason?
>>70172863
well i wasnt gonna read his conversations book before i watched his films. also u saved that image from me bruh bruh same filename too whats up
>>70172922
because it ruins all the good locations im scouting
>>70172650
Well I really liked it. I never read the novel, but I watched my dad go through a lengthy, painful, and expensive trial over some dumb shit, and the movie really hit home. Welles completely nails the feeling of getting caught in this bureaucratic machine, trying to pull yourself out, and just getting dragged deeper and deeper into the gears. And there's a weird surreal, almost comical tone to it that reminded me a lot of David Lynch. So I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as art-house wankery when it's actually entertaining and true to life in so many ways.
I'm Charles Foster Kane!
Welles incorporated ceilings into his sets and scenes - an innovation.
>>70163017
Master trole 1975 rused you all
>>70172543
my patrician nigger
>>70173668
& you jus spoiled the film for eveyone who hasnt seen it u goblin
Citizen Kane's trailer is fucking amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyv19bg0scg
>>70173010
bruh bruh
>>70173785
Not quite. It's not a spoilerable kind of film, really. And the title itself would go in the same vein.
>>70173355
all the ceilings are fake in citizen kane, above them are microphones.
>>70173844
orson always filmed his trailers seperately. f for fake's was 10 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMkZWWLHGXU
>>70164554
>>70163757
He just didnt
>>70173844
Its a little movie in itself, thats great.
>>70173886
that's not what I said you ass
of course they;re fake
watch movies from that era
no ceilings in the scenes
please an hero
>>70173785
It was extremely predictable.
>movie about fakes
>"for the next hour everything will be true"
>movie is actually one hour and a half
GEE I WONDER IF THE NEXT HALF AN HOUR WILL BE ABOUT TRUE FACTS OR IF THEY ARE GOING TO SHOW A BIG FAT LIE
>>70173984
>no ceilings in the scenes
Welles privately watched Stagecoach (1939) about 40 times while making this film
>>70173984
you're stupid, i didn't meant to say fake ceilings are bad, they are great! they created fake ceilings to film them, but hide microphones above. never done before. GOOD THING.
>>70163017
LITTLE WHITE DICKS
>>70174247
... Trump?
>>70174057
wow anon yr cool i wish i was you
>>70164399
Fell sleep twice. Sorry
