322 The Complete Mr. Arkadin

[tryavna]

Issa Clubb interview can be found here

Does anyone else think that the interviewer's voice sounds like Greg the Bunny's?

[kinjitsu]

NY Times DVD review, semi-positive, if a tad skeptical of the film's importance....

NYTimes review

"Is "Mr. Arkadin" a brilliant piece of prepostmodernist "appropriation," recycling past achievements into a Wellesian meta-movie? Or is it just a mess, reflecting the difficulty Welles was experiencing as he tried to restart his failed American career in Europe?

Compelling arguments can be made either way, and many are in the course of the documentation that comes with the discs, which includes essays by the critic J. Hoberman, the French Welles scholar François Thomas (who prefers "Confidential Report" for its polished sound mix) and Mr. Rosenbaum, as well as an audio commentary by Mr. Rosenbaum and another American Wellesian, James Naremore. What is indisputable is that the film has never looked better than it does in this painstaking restoration. For those of us in the United States who have known "Mr. Arkadin" largely through a fuzzy, pirated edition, that is revelation enough." -- Dave Kehr

[gubbelsj]

Yes, but also:

"It's a captivating package, even if the film or films don't belong to the first rank of Welles's work." -Dave Kehr

It's a positive review of the DVD package, but not necessarily of the film itself.

A similar argument had been made by various critics for F For Fake, somewhere along the lines of "glad to have it available finally, but not really that great of a movie." Until many of them actually re-watched the film. Already, there seems to have been a critical rethinking of Fake as a major work. I'm curious if such a comprehensive release as Mr. Arkadin will result in a similar reconsideration.

[Donald Trampoline]

In a way I view it as Welles's Soviet montage film (at least in part). It is fairly frenetically edited, but even more so it has a lot of those unusual low dramatic angles when people are talking that were prevalent in a lot of Soviet montage.

(Apologies if this was covered. This thread is so long I don't have time to go back and re-read the entire thing.)

[kinjitsu]

Yes, but also:

"It's a captivating package, even if the film or films don't belong to the first rank of Welles's work." -Dave Kehr

I wouldn't call it first rank Welles either, but think Kehr's overall response to the set is a very positive one.

[denti alligator]

Having now watched Confidential Report, I'd have to agree with Gary at the Beaver that the audio synch is really bad and borders on ruining the presentation. Anyone else feel this was a problem? Is the synch better with the other versions?

[leo goldsmith]

Is the synch better with the other versions?

No, I'm fairly certain that these problems originate with Welles, who persisted in many complicated post-synching strategies to save money by avoiding synch-sound recording. You can see this problem in nearly all of his films from at least The Trial onwards.

[arsonfilms]

Welles was constantly rewriting dialogue in the editing room, and actually recorded most of the dialogue for the minor parts himself. The synch issue is something that will never be fixed, and in fact if you ever see a version that does NOT have a synch problem, you can be sure that it went against Welles intentions, and you should avoid it like the plague.

[denti alligator]

So I watched the Corinth version tonight and was surprised because it differs so little from Confidential Report. I was expecting starker differences. I mean, with the exception of a few more framing scenes and the slight re-ordering of the flashback, it's basically identical. Except that the picture on Confidential Report is far better, and so is the sound. The narrative re-sequencing didn't seem to me to add clarity to one version or the other, but maybe that's only because I watched the Corinth version after watching Confidential Report. Any thoughts?

Can I watch the documentary on disc three without spoiling anything from the comprehensive version, or should I view that first?

Great set overall. Certainly a fantastic film!

[GringoTex]

Just watched this for the first time, and jesus ache cristo, what a bad movie. Thank gawd Welles never realized his dream of consistent creative freedom. He obviously needed tight control, whether it be Toland, a tight screenwriter, Shakespeare, or a Hollywood studio breathing down his neck. He may very well be the greatest director of all time, but he didn't have a clue how to put a movie together.

[justeleblanc]

Just watched this for the first time, and jesus ache cristo, what a bad movie. Thank gawd Welles never realized his dream of consistent creative freedom. He obviously needed tight control, whether it be Toland, a tight screenwriter, Shakespeare, or a Hollywood studio breathing down his neck. He may very well be the greatest director of all time, but he didn't have a clue how to put a movie together.

?????

I just watched it myself and I couldn't disagree with you more. Which version did you watch? I rented the Comprehensive Version and loved every second of it.

Maybe you were joking?

[jorencain]

He may very well be the greatest director of all time, but he didn't have a clue how to put a movie together.

I don't understand how this sentence (or senario) can exist.

[GringoTex]

?????

I just watched it myself and I couldn't disagree with you more. Which version did you watch? I rented the Comprehensive Version and loved every second of it.

I watched the Corinth version. There are, of course, great scenes and set pieces; but the poor acting, atrocious dialogue, poorly disguised locations, and lack of any coherent rhythm make it a bad movie. I also found the treatment of the "man behind the curtain" theme trite and in no way comparable to Welles' treatment of the same in Citizen Kane and F for Fake. The plot is simple and straight forward almost to the point of banality, and I wonder if Welles' decision to reorder the flashbacks after the fact was an attempt to disguise this.

[GringoTex]

He may very well be the greatest director of all time, but he didn't have a clue how to put a movie together.

I don't understand how this sentence (or senario) can exist.

I meant putting a film as a production together.

[Ste]

I haven't gotten around to watching the comprehensive version yet, but, for me, this is Welles's worst film. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no matter which way you cut it. It is not fair, however, to say that Welles didn't know how to put a picture together. Clearly, he knew what he was doing, even here. The worst you can say about the technical aspects of the film is that the post-synching is pretty dodgy at times.

Mr. Arkadin is usually (and unfavourably) compared with Citizen Kane, but to see it in context, one should really view it in the same terms as The Lady From Shanghai. In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

Welles obviously had a hankering to create a huge, sprawling, international mystery, but for whatever reason (time, money), he wasn't able to realise a true vision for either Arkadin or Lady before the cameras started rolling. He therefore spent the majority of his time rewriting on the fly and trying to make the best of what he had to work with. Hence the dodgy kitchen synch-job on Arkadin.

Once Welles realised that he was never going to regain the kind of creative freedom he was allowed on Kane, he settled down to making smaller, more lucid pictures.

Touch of Evil, although butchered in the editing room, attempts much the same thing as Arkadin and Lady, but with more satisfying results. Why? Because Welles had a decent script beforehand and didn't try to over-stretch the film's international angle. (A small border town suited his purposes rather conveniently.)

Without wanting to labour the point any more than is necessary, it is also worth pointing out that The Stranger works in much the same way as Touch of Evil i.e. a potentially sprawling, international mystery is instead 'focused' on a small, rural town. The effect, again, is a much more lucid picture. So much so, in fact, that many Welles fans decry The Stranger as being too formulaic! Welles couldn't win either way.

[denti alligator]

In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

The plot seemed pretty clear to me. Only two things were sloppy or unclear (SPOILERS): 1) did Arkadin really think he could frame Van Straten for all those murders? Seems highly unlikely. 2) Why exactly did Arkadin want to talk to his daughter before Van Straten at the end? I mean, how was this to pre-empt the story (truth) that Van Straten was to tell her? (This, I'm sure, someone can explain.) Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

[Gigi M.]

Touch of Evil, although butchered in the editing room, attempts much the same thing as Arkadin and Lady, but with more satisfying results. Why? Because Welles had a decent script beforehand and didn't try to over-stretch the film's international angle. (A small border town suited his purposes rather conveniently.)

Very true. However, I believe is Welles's fault that Mr. Arkadin is a hard to follow / very bad acted picture. After watching every version on set (left the "comprehensive" version for last), I was very disappointed with each version. I though there was still some hope after the first two versions, but unfortunately there wasn't. The main problem with Arkadin is the script. It carries two much for a 100 minutes picture and rushes through the very interesting parts. The acting is terrible, especially Welles's Arkadin. I know Welles didn't have the same financial support he had on his earlier years, but still, is hard to believe this was the same man who directed the great Citizen Kane.

Anyway, Criterion awesome edition is one of the best overall packages I've ever seen.

[tryavna]

In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

The plot seemed pretty clear to me. Only two things were sloppy or unclear (SPOILERS): 1) did Arkadin really think he could frame Van Straten for all those murders? Seems highly unlikely. 2) Why exactly did Arkadin want to talk to his daughter before Van Straten at the end? I mean, how was this to pre-empt the story (truth) that Van Straten was to tell her? (This, I'm sure, someone can explain.) Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

Denti, I'm with you. I've never found Arkadin to be "unfathomable." Complicated? Yes, but in much the same way as many film noir mysteries. I mean, The Big Sleep is much harder to keep track of than Arkadin, but it's still a brilliant film.

[denti alligator]

In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

The plot seemed pretty clear to me. Only two things were sloppy or unclear (SPOILERS): 1) did Arkadin really think he could frame Van Straten for all those murders? Seems highly unlikely. 2) Why exactly did Arkadin want to talk to his daughter before Van Straten at the end? I mean, how was this to pre-empt the story (truth) that Van Straten was to tell her? (This, I'm sure, someone can explain.) Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

Denti, I'm with you. I've never found Arkadin to be "unfathomable." Complicated? Yes, but in much the same way as many film noir mysteries. I mean, The Big Sleep is much harder to keep track of than Arkadin, but it's still a brilliant film.

"much harder to keep track of"?? The Big Sleep --the film, without the book as a fall-back structure -- is, indeed, "completely unfathomable." It's also fucking awesome! (I mean that in the technical, film-theory, sense.)

[kinjitsu]

Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

The plot is hardly unfathomable.

I couldn't help but be reminded after watching Mr. Arkadin again last night how it bears a more than just a passing thematic resemblance to Eric Ambler's A Coffin for Dimitrios. In fact, I have always thought Welles stitched together Arkadin with the same thematic threads as Ambler's story (if not entirely ripping it off), the result, however, is typically Wellesian.

Weak performances and plot holes aside, I still think the film a visually stunning (if at times overly baroque) dazzler. And while it may not be one of Welles' best, we should be grateful to Criterion and everyone involved in this production for this extraordinary package, and very likely one of this year's best.

[Ste]

The basic plot is fairly simple. Welles wasn't a fool. But once you start to break it down, there are innumerable holes in the narrative. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute the problems to time and money issues, but problems they remain.

My issues with the picture seem to be different to yours. And therein lays the main problem. No one can seem to agree what exactly is wrong with Mr. Arkadin, but most agree that something is awry.

As you, yourself, denti, said in an earlier post:

The narrative re-sequencing didn't seem to me to add clarity to one version or the other ...

(SPOILERS AHOY!)

Your point about the murders/framing is a fair one, in logical terms, but we all know that the rich and famous are capable of getting away with these things.

Similarly, why does it matter who gets in first with their story to the daughter? Logically, she should be able to weigh the pros and cons of the situation and make her own mind up. But anyone who has siblings has done this very thing when they were a kid. Getting to your parents first, with your version of events, gives you the home-field advantage, so to speak. It doesn't always result in a win, but you are increasing your chances nonetheless.

One of the problems I have with Arkadin is the whole love angle. Admittedly, this is a standard device in most pictures of the time, but Welles was no ordinary director, so why should we judge him in ordinary terms?

The way Van Stratten's allegiance changes from his existing partner to Arkadin's daughter is mind-boggling. Why doesn't he just stick to the plan? He's only known her for a couple of days and already he's in love with her. Likewise, the daughter's falling for Van Stratten is equally unbelievable. The whole thing is as ludicrous as when Joseph Cotten declares his love for Alida Valli in The Third Man. But in that film Valli shoots old Joe down with the not-unreasonable "you don't even know me" line.

In fact, the daughter doesn't show any real reciprocal feelings for Van Stratten until very late in the picture, by which time she's prepared to kill her own father for him! Why? Because he stole some gold 30 years earlier … not a very convincing reason, IMO.

There are more examples, but I don't have time to delineate them all. Suffice to say, my interest in the plot usually diminishes around the point where Van Stratten is rushing around Europe, getting snippets of information from various people on the street.

The frenetic editing is in no small way responsible for all this. If you are going to edit a picture in this style, you'd better be damn sure you have a rock-solid script beforehand.

[kinjitsu]

Better to suspend disbelief & throw logic out the window with this one, plus, overanalyzing the plot (sans spoiler tags) risks killing the film's little surprises for others...

[Ste]

Exactly! Which is why I said it's better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

[justeleblanc]

First,

Spoiler

I loved the character of Zouk in just how frustrating and annoying he was. To me he wasn't a comical character but someone I wanted to kill, and Van Stratten's having to deal with him and Zouk's complete lack of reality reminded me of the sick and twisted humor found in a Polanski film. In fact I say that while the script is a bit more predictable than say Touch of Evil, the nightmarish tone of the entire movie is really where it stands out for me.

Second,

Spoiler

I don't buy that Arkadin was trying to frame Van Stratten, I assumed he was going to kill him as well -- although it's not entirely clear. Yes, the race to the daughter at the end wasn't all that suspenseful. But, since the whole movie seems to hinge around pretending not to know something, it's nice how he's finally killed by someone who instead pretends to know something.

And also,

Spoiler

I do like how scary Arkadin's character was and I honestly believed that he had no idea that Sophie didn't want to kill him, so when he's told that she was letting him live I thought that made his character even more interesting. Was it just me or does the volitile behavior of Welles remind you of Cassavetes. Maybe it's just me.

Again, I only watched the Comprehensive Version. With its flaws, I do still rank this up there with his best work.

[Donald Trampoline]

Spoiler

(SPOILER-ISH, LINES FROM FILM)

"Here's to crime!"

- "I didn't know she was in any danger."
- "That should have been obvious."

Thought those were real keepers. (Well, second one doesn't sound as good on paper without the incredible line reading!)