I enjoyed the acting. It seems everyone took their role very tongue-in-cheek.
*Spoiler*
I do think that the covering up your past to maintain your daughter's ideal of yourself thingy was very weak though.
322 The Complete Mr. Arkadin
-
zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm
I haven't looked at the new set yet (it's on its way), but in past encounters with the film I've been impressed by Welles' resourcefulness under the production circumstances - and a big part of that is his use of montage and mise en scene to cover up deficiencies and budgetary short-cuts. At the same time, the film's content (story and performances) hasn't done much for me.
The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.
The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.
-
Toshiro De Niro
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:16 am
-
ByMarkClark.com
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:59 pm
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Contact:
Last week, I plowed through THE COMPLETE MR. ARKADIN set, watching the new Comprehensive Version, sampling the other 2 versions and watching all of the supplements. I've always liked ARKADIN, even its previous versions, but I think the new Comprehensive Version is the closest thing to a definitive cut we'll ever see. It preserves Welles' intended flashback stucture, but has greater narrative clarity than the early working version (the "Corinth" version) with the same structure.
I suspect that a couple of scenes in the Comprehensive version would have been jettisoned by Welles (do we really need the graveyard story AND the frog-and-the-scorpion story?), but I understand that leaving them in helps make the Comprehensive version, well, comprehensive! Also, there are certain elements I like in CONFIDENTIAL REPORT, even though Welles rejected them. (Particularly, I like the idea that the dying man is out for revenge -- a much more understandable motivation than what the Welles-dubbed version provides.) Nevertheless, the Comprehensive remains the best option, imho. Among other reasons: It brings out more clearly than any other version the idea that Guy is a mirror for Arkadin -- just as, or nearly as, scheming and ruthless as Arkadin himself (albeit not as worldy or charming). And of course, Criterion's meticulous restoration looks fantastic.
While not a top-tier Welles film, ANY Welles film remains worth seeing, and Criertion's new boxed set is the ultimate ARKADIN experience. Whatever its faults -- and certainly it has its share -- I find this gloriously eccentric, pulpy picture more enjoyable and more fascinating than the better-respected, Welles-approved F FOR FAKE. Although I'm delighted both are now part of the CC.
I sincerely hope there are Criterion versions of THE TRIAL, THE STRANGER and/or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT in our collective future.
I suspect that a couple of scenes in the Comprehensive version would have been jettisoned by Welles (do we really need the graveyard story AND the frog-and-the-scorpion story?), but I understand that leaving them in helps make the Comprehensive version, well, comprehensive! Also, there are certain elements I like in CONFIDENTIAL REPORT, even though Welles rejected them. (Particularly, I like the idea that the dying man is out for revenge -- a much more understandable motivation than what the Welles-dubbed version provides.) Nevertheless, the Comprehensive remains the best option, imho. Among other reasons: It brings out more clearly than any other version the idea that Guy is a mirror for Arkadin -- just as, or nearly as, scheming and ruthless as Arkadin himself (albeit not as worldy or charming). And of course, Criterion's meticulous restoration looks fantastic.
While not a top-tier Welles film, ANY Welles film remains worth seeing, and Criertion's new boxed set is the ultimate ARKADIN experience. Whatever its faults -- and certainly it has its share -- I find this gloriously eccentric, pulpy picture more enjoyable and more fascinating than the better-respected, Welles-approved F FOR FAKE. Although I'm delighted both are now part of the CC.
I sincerely hope there are Criterion versions of THE TRIAL, THE STRANGER and/or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT in our collective future.
-
ByMarkClark.com
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:59 pm
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Contact:
>>The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.<<
Strangely enough, after watching ARKADIN, I decided to revisit THE TRIAL! That one's a masterpiece, imho.
Strangely enough, after watching ARKADIN, I decided to revisit THE TRIAL! That one's a masterpiece, imho.
-
ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
I was just removing my old bfi/connoisseur tape of CONFIDENTIAL REPORT from the shelf, to replace with the new box set... Noticed it records R/T of 100 mins approx (equivalent to 104 mins approx taking into account PAL speedup)... Whereas the CC CONFIDENTIAL REPORT runs only 98 mins... Wonder what therefore is on the VHS version - another mutation?
BTW CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS in the boxset pales alongside both the Corinth and the Comprehensive versions, in my book... Fascinating package altogether...
BTW CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS in the boxset pales alongside both the Corinth and the Comprehensive versions, in my book... Fascinating package altogether...
-
arsonfilms
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Running times can be funny things sometimes. While it is typically standard practice to start counting at the first frame the first logos appear and end at the last frame you can still see credits or hear music, I've encountered plenty of filmmakers, theaters and distributors that count from the first frame of the movie proper, and end after the picture fades out before the credits. You can easily lop off or add 7 or 8 minutes of running time, depending on how exactly you're counting everything.
Add to that the PAL NTSC differential (which is further complicated depending on how the film was initially transfered) and just basic human error, and there's really no way of knowing for sure what the difference is between two running times. Odds are though, when you're talking about cross format versions of older films, a difference of just a few minutes is easy to get lost in the shuffle.
Add to that the PAL NTSC differential (which is further complicated depending on how the film was initially transfered) and just basic human error, and there's really no way of knowing for sure what the difference is between two running times. Odds are though, when you're talking about cross format versions of older films, a difference of just a few minutes is easy to get lost in the shuffle.
-
nredding2
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:46 pm
Those of you who would like to hear more of Orson Welles radio programs may be interested to know that they are available inexpensively in MP3 format from http://www.otrcat.com/orsonwelles.htm.
-
kschell
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:41 pm
- Location: Arlington, VA
- Contact:
Ouch!Langlois68 wrote: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 have to admit, there's quite a bit of truth there. I feel like I've plunked down my hard-earned bux for three versions of a really bad movie.
-
kschell
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:41 pm
- Location: Arlington, VA
- Contact:
zedz wrote:The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.
A good point. The Trial has the advantage of being filmed after Welles' experiments in "Theater of the Absurd" directing plays by Ionesco if I recall. It can be read as Welles' staging of Kafka as re-written by Samuel Beckett.
This film didn't seem experimental or stylish; merely slapdash.
Has anyone seen the Orson Welles short on the Kino "Avant Garde Short" set? It's similarly slapdash.
-
skuhn8
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Chico, CA
Yeah, slapdash may not be far off. But there's a lot more to it. I confess that I was a little bewildered--that is: disappointed--after a first viewing. That was the Corinth version. Then watched the commentary, and I have to confess I let the a comment associating Arkadin with the French New Wave have an influence over my subsequent viewing of Confidential Report. It helped. There's a frenetic pace not unlike Breathless. Also helps to get over what-s-his-face's shit acting/miscasting (for which we can only blame Welles obviously) much the same as The River turns into a masterpiece when you get over the acting. And Michael Redgrave, I think that piece of work is more rewarding with each viewing, not to mention Tamiroff. All in all I like the film alot. It's no masterpiece but definitly worth 30-odd bucks. I still like the Stranger much more and would love to take another look at The Trial: haven't seen that in 15 years.kschell wrote:zedz wrote:The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.
A good point. The Trial has the advantage of being filmed after Welles' experiments in "Theater of the Absurd" directing plays by Ionesco if I recall. It can be read as Welles' staging of Kafka as re-written by Samuel Beckett.
This film didn't seem experimental or stylish; merely slapdash.
Has anyone seen the Orson Welles short on the Kino "Avant Garde Short" set? It's similarly slapdash.
-
Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
For my money, this release is simply spectacular! I watched the comprehensive version of the film, time has not permitted me to go through the entire set yet, but what a treasure for Criterion to bestow on the film community. Here is everything collected that one could possibly hope to have access to with respect to MR. ARKADIN. As several of the posts on this thread attest to, before this set becoming available, being able to even view this film (let alone three different versions of it) could easily have taken decades of effort to accomplish. Add to that the commentary, copious extras, and even the book! This kind of comprehensive gathering of material on a single film is truly what the DVD medium, and Criterion in particular, is so great for.
As for the film ARKADIN, and its relative size and stature within the Welles canon:
I do not think that I am a hard line auteurist, but with Welles each film that he created does appear like a little piece in the mosaic of a life's work. Some of the pieces have brighter colors and figure more prominently in the greater picture, but it is the over-all image that materializes which is so daunting, and brings such pleasure to viewing each individual work. (In this mosaic, I would tend to include the radio work, and to a certain extent Welles's appearance in other director's films, and even in some instances his appearances as interviewee).
KANE and AMBERSONS were some of the first films that I saw as a young teenager that truly opened my eyes to the richness and diversity and inexhaustible world of film. These were also some of the first films that made me understand the role of the director as the leader of the creative/artistic achievement of a film. They were also the first to make me understand the great collaborative nature of the medium. Surely there would have been no KANE or AMBERSONS without Welles, but just as surely, there would have been no KANE or AMBERSONS, as we know it, without Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, Tim Holt, Anne Baxter, Dolores Costello, Richard Bennett, or, Bernard Herrmann, Greg Tolland, Stanley Cortez, Mark-Lee Kirk or even Robert Wise and Herman Mankiewicz. Together with a huge group of fellow artists, Welles created a world, and so, each new Welles film that I saw over the years was like glimpsing another corner of this fascinating world.
It is a world permeated simultaneously by a great lust for life and vitality, and a great sense of foreboding and world weariness. The characters are etched in high relief, they are often larger than life, and then of a sudden they wax into moments of the greatest tenderness. It would be easy to fill pages with examples… is there in the collective works of any other director a greater ensemble of characters (in this sense I almost think Welles is the cinematic equivalent of Dickens)?
So, possibly my views are uninteresting in the discussion of the merits of MR. ARKADIN, as it is difficult for me to view it merely as one film in the sea of motion pictures. I think the character of Arkadin is vintage Welles, as only he could have envisioned and acted a character – to me it works completely, and I love the anecdotes of the graveyard and the frog and the scorpion. This endless stream of strange anecdotes and aphorisms dug up from a life of reading and traveling, and inserted into the mouths of the characters in his films (often those portrayed by Welles himself). There is the impressive roster of characters again, almost thrown away at times in the onward rush of the story (already mentioned in another entry above). There is the central set piece of the derelict building in which Stratten finds Zouk – the falling snow amplifying the sense of loneliness and having come to the end of the road, and the band playing hopeless Christmas ballads in the background, and the snow falling still, as Stratten enters the building and finds himself in the narrow inner courtyard of the building. Such a great setting and mood that reverberates throughout the entire film.
Finally, I think Welles created a great portrait of the collective amnesia and sense of fall and loss that pervaded in Europe in the decades immediately following the Second World War. Look at all these characters in the film, all of them nostalgic for a past that has been shattered by war and violence. People, entire communities, have been torn away from each other and flung to the winds by circumstances out of their control, and no one is really sure what has become of anyone. Partners in crime, friends, lovers, all separated with little or no knowledge of the whereabouts of each other. So, it is a fractured and splintered world that Welles depicts in this film, just as the central story is about a fragmented/amnesiac mind, and I think that a lot of the pacing and editing concerns that one could raise against the film, could just as well be noted down on the credit side of the balance sheet as a means to capture in form the qualities of the world that is being depicted.
I would recommend anyone new to Welles to begin at the beginning with KANE and AMBERSONS, or, alternatively to begin with probably any other film than ARKADIN, but I would definitely recommend this film to anyone with an inkling of interest in Welles. It may not be a masterpiece (whatever that is), but it is a small miracle of filmmaking all to itself, and a wonderful place to visit in the world of Welles.
As for the film ARKADIN, and its relative size and stature within the Welles canon:
I do not think that I am a hard line auteurist, but with Welles each film that he created does appear like a little piece in the mosaic of a life's work. Some of the pieces have brighter colors and figure more prominently in the greater picture, but it is the over-all image that materializes which is so daunting, and brings such pleasure to viewing each individual work. (In this mosaic, I would tend to include the radio work, and to a certain extent Welles's appearance in other director's films, and even in some instances his appearances as interviewee).
KANE and AMBERSONS were some of the first films that I saw as a young teenager that truly opened my eyes to the richness and diversity and inexhaustible world of film. These were also some of the first films that made me understand the role of the director as the leader of the creative/artistic achievement of a film. They were also the first to make me understand the great collaborative nature of the medium. Surely there would have been no KANE or AMBERSONS without Welles, but just as surely, there would have been no KANE or AMBERSONS, as we know it, without Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, Tim Holt, Anne Baxter, Dolores Costello, Richard Bennett, or, Bernard Herrmann, Greg Tolland, Stanley Cortez, Mark-Lee Kirk or even Robert Wise and Herman Mankiewicz. Together with a huge group of fellow artists, Welles created a world, and so, each new Welles film that I saw over the years was like glimpsing another corner of this fascinating world.
It is a world permeated simultaneously by a great lust for life and vitality, and a great sense of foreboding and world weariness. The characters are etched in high relief, they are often larger than life, and then of a sudden they wax into moments of the greatest tenderness. It would be easy to fill pages with examples… is there in the collective works of any other director a greater ensemble of characters (in this sense I almost think Welles is the cinematic equivalent of Dickens)?
So, possibly my views are uninteresting in the discussion of the merits of MR. ARKADIN, as it is difficult for me to view it merely as one film in the sea of motion pictures. I think the character of Arkadin is vintage Welles, as only he could have envisioned and acted a character – to me it works completely, and I love the anecdotes of the graveyard and the frog and the scorpion. This endless stream of strange anecdotes and aphorisms dug up from a life of reading and traveling, and inserted into the mouths of the characters in his films (often those portrayed by Welles himself). There is the impressive roster of characters again, almost thrown away at times in the onward rush of the story (already mentioned in another entry above). There is the central set piece of the derelict building in which Stratten finds Zouk – the falling snow amplifying the sense of loneliness and having come to the end of the road, and the band playing hopeless Christmas ballads in the background, and the snow falling still, as Stratten enters the building and finds himself in the narrow inner courtyard of the building. Such a great setting and mood that reverberates throughout the entire film.
Finally, I think Welles created a great portrait of the collective amnesia and sense of fall and loss that pervaded in Europe in the decades immediately following the Second World War. Look at all these characters in the film, all of them nostalgic for a past that has been shattered by war and violence. People, entire communities, have been torn away from each other and flung to the winds by circumstances out of their control, and no one is really sure what has become of anyone. Partners in crime, friends, lovers, all separated with little or no knowledge of the whereabouts of each other. So, it is a fractured and splintered world that Welles depicts in this film, just as the central story is about a fragmented/amnesiac mind, and I think that a lot of the pacing and editing concerns that one could raise against the film, could just as well be noted down on the credit side of the balance sheet as a means to capture in form the qualities of the world that is being depicted.
I would recommend anyone new to Welles to begin at the beginning with KANE and AMBERSONS, or, alternatively to begin with probably any other film than ARKADIN, but I would definitely recommend this film to anyone with an inkling of interest in Welles. It may not be a masterpiece (whatever that is), but it is a small miracle of filmmaking all to itself, and a wonderful place to visit in the world of Welles.
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
David, I agree that the two-man commentary is fantastic. Their comments about the indirect references the film makes to the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain (all those Polish characters) made me "get" that deeper level in a way I never had before. They've led me to agree with Scharphedin's views that the film really is about "collective amnesia" and the will to foget unpleasant details of one's own past.
I do recommend viewing the Comprehensive version before long -- before you forget any of the details of the Corinth, at any rate. In my opinion, the Comprehensive version may run a little too long. It just feels padded in a way that I doubt Welles would have left -- he almost certainly would have trimmed it to create a slightly faster rhythm. Nevertheless, there are some truly amusing details that are present here that I hope Welles would have kept, particularly the scene where all of Arkadin's spies are carrying suitcases in their hurry to keep up with Arden.
I do recommend viewing the Comprehensive version before long -- before you forget any of the details of the Corinth, at any rate. In my opinion, the Comprehensive version may run a little too long. It just feels padded in a way that I doubt Welles would have left -- he almost certainly would have trimmed it to create a slightly faster rhythm. Nevertheless, there are some truly amusing details that are present here that I hope Welles would have kept, particularly the scene where all of Arkadin's spies are carrying suitcases in their hurry to keep up with Arden.
-
daniel p
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
I just got this, and trying to decide which cut to watch - with the intention of only watching one for now, and perhaps revisiting in a few months. I had my heart set on the Comprehensive Version, but now I am rethinking.
tryavna, were you to recommend the best version, for a singular screening, would it be the Conrith version?
tryavna, were you to recommend the best version, for a singular screening, would it be the Conrith version?
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
My normal recommendation would be to start with Confidential Report and then move "up" (in terms of cinematic quality) to the Corinth version. But if you only have enough time to watch one version, then it definitely ought to be the Corinth version. As David has pointed out, it comes closest to Welles' stated intentions (especially the editing of those first 10 or so minutes).daniel p wrote:I just got this, and trying to decide which cut to watch - with the intention of only watching one for now, and perhaps revisiting in a few months. I had my heart set on the Comprehensive Version, but now I am rethinking.
tryavna, were you to recommend the best version, for a singular screening, would it be the Conrith version?
One thing to keep in mind: Even though the Corinth version is cinematically better, Confidential Report boasts better A/V quality. It's not a significant difference, but it's noticeable (I think so anyway).
-
daniel p
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
-
Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:58 pm
Interesting factoid: I'm at a new media conference and was at an event sponsored by Apple. They've got a "sizzle reel" for Final Cut Studio that features Criterion and Arkadin. I'm assuming that Criterion used Final Cut to assemble the comprehensive version or maybe they just use it for editing all of their features and stuff.
Okay, so not that interesting, but someone out there would want to know, I'm sure.
Okay, so not that interesting, but someone out there would want to know, I'm sure.
-
The Fanciful Norwegian
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:24 pm
- Location: Teegeeack
There's a Studio Daily article (which I think has been mentioned here before) that goes into a bit more detail on it. It's a pretty interesting if you're at all interested the technology behind this work.
-
Anonymous
Well, if their mission statement is to make money from gullible collectors, then they have succeeded admirably.
I thought ARKADIN was a fascinating failure, but if they dedicate this much energy and space to a third-rate film like this, they damn well better rerelease ANDREI RUBLEV in a similar multi-disc manner.
I thought ARKADIN was a fascinating failure, but if they dedicate this much energy and space to a third-rate film like this, they damn well better rerelease ANDREI RUBLEV in a similar multi-disc manner.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
DrewReiber
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:27 am
-
arsonfilms
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Amen.DrewReiber wrote:Well, all I can say is that I'm sure glad Criterion isn't interested in either of your opinions.
Aside from Arkadin's influence on world cinema (particularly on the likes of Godard and Truffaut) and it's importance within the mystery and story of Welles life and work...
...I happen to think that Arkadin is an incredibly entertaining flick.
-
djali999
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:41 pm
- Location: Florie-dah
And brilliantly directed, given the circumstances. It's simply a gothic, baroque delight and trascends even it's own apparent limitations (Welles' marvelously phony disguise, for example, which to be fair is no worse than Joseph Cotton's makeup in Kane).arsonfilms wrote:...I happen to think that Arkadin is an incredibly entertaining flick.
-
daniel p
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
I was pleasantly surprised, after reading negative view points on the film.
I thought it lagged a little in places, and is no masterpiece, but was highly entertaining, and beautiful to watch - great camerawork.
I watched the Conrith version, and look forward to reading the booklet, and delving into the other versions (something I am now interested in after seeing the film).
I thought it lagged a little in places, and is no masterpiece, but was highly entertaining, and beautiful to watch - great camerawork.
I watched the Conrith version, and look forward to reading the booklet, and delving into the other versions (something I am now interested in after seeing the film).
-
Anonymous
The next time you watch Mr. Arkadin, keep in mind the following list from a poll conducted of the editorial staff of Cahiers du Cinema some time in the late 1950's. There were some well-known names on that staff in those days (e.g., Bazin, Godard, Rivette, Rohmer, Truffault). The editors picked the top directors of all time, then picked the best film of those directors. Below is their list.
1. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
2. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
3. Journey to Italy (Rossellini, 1953)
4. Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein, 1945/1958)
5. Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915)
6. Confidential Report/ Mr. Arkadin (Welles, 1956)
7. Ordet (Dreyer, 1955)
8. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
9. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
10. The Wedding March (Stroheim, 1927)
11. Under Capricorn (Hitchcock, 1949)
12. Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
1. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
2. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
3. Journey to Italy (Rossellini, 1953)
4. Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein, 1945/1958)
5. Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915)
6. Confidential Report/ Mr. Arkadin (Welles, 1956)
7. Ordet (Dreyer, 1955)
8. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
9. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
10. The Wedding March (Stroheim, 1927)
11. Under Capricorn (Hitchcock, 1949)
12. Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)