criterionforum.org

mteller wrote:Why would you EVER want to watch a doc before seeing the film itself?

Jameson281 wrote:

broadwayrock wrote:More contributions for the 'misinformed flamers':

R2 DVD

Armond White wrote:Gigi has suffered a similar infamy due to critical snobbery that denies Minnelli’s greatness.

Armond White wrote:By favoring Gigi, the Motion Picture Academy did not insult Touch of Evil or Vertigo but picked a worthy contender—the best default choice since How Green Was My Valley beat Citizen Kane. Gigi seriously challenges any official canon.

Armond White wrote:Finally, Paramount’s new DVD transfer of The Godfather trilogy is superfluous. But it must be stressed that the continued dismissal of Coppola’s Third Opus—omitted from theatrical presentations—not only diminishes the whole but all who go along with it.

domino harvey wrote:White probably thinks he's a rebel for saying Valley deserved to win over Citizen Kane, but Bogdanovich beat him by several years when he said it in his Year of Movies book-- and Bogdanovich recorded the commentary for Kane! Now there's a crazy value judgment with at least some weight to it. White is just doing anything in his power to get attention... and it's clearly working.

The 1941 Academy Awards are often denigrated becausee Orson Welles's maverick Citizen Kane didn't win best picture that year. Usually overlooked, therefore, is the movie that did win-one of the finest classic American films, though it's about a Welsh coal-mining family: John Ford's profoundly touching visualization of Richard Llewellyn's best-selling novel, HGWMV. Coincidentally, both Kane and HGWMV are about the dissolution of family, but while Kane, in a modern way, seems to throw that part of the story away until the end, it is the essential plot of HGWMV. Both films were also made with the war in Europe about to expand into World War II, and the impermanence of the time is reflected in these two stories of impermanence and loss.

I think HGWMV, superbly adapted by screenwriter Philip Dunne, is the best film ever to win the Oscar for best picture, which also makes the disparagement of the Academy's choice over Citizen Kane such a poor case. If these two films went up against each other today in the heart of the country, I believe the Academy vote would reflect the public's reaction for two basic resons: Kane is about the rich and privileged, while HGWMV is about everybody else. As Welles himself-an ardent Ford admirer-said to me once, "With Ford at his best, you can feel what the earth is made of." The other reason is hope, which Welles's film doesn't give, but which Ford's does.

It really wasn't until the late Fifties and early Sixties that [Kane] began to gather the kind of immortal legend of priceless quality it now carries, internationally acknowledged as either the best film ever made, or certainly high among the ten best of all time.

Since May 6 is Welles's birthday, the perfect way to celebrate is by seeing his birth-fully formed-as one of the truly great filmmakers of the world. The complexity of this script and of the performances remain rare in pictures, and still seems fresh now, nearly sixty years after Kane was first seen.

Of course, the most subversive aspect of Citizen Kane, in 1941 and now-because it is still relevant thematically and still devastating in its implications-is the dark light it throws on fame, success, wealth, and the heritage of plutocracy. Imagine how its negativity seemed to an American establishment about to enter World War II; its uncompromising picture of loneliness at the top is absolutely without any feature of redemption or spiritual survival. Impossible to think of an Amercian film as essentially bleak in outlook, and yet the exhilarating freshness of its pace, wit, construction, and directorial style creates a kind of optimistic counterpoint, as if to say that only through the poetry of art can wee hope to survive.

Since I have already analyzed Mr. Arkadin at some length, I don´t need to linger over the direction of Touch of Evil, which is, in some sense, the fulfillment of the previous experiments in filming and découpage. I should simply add that these experiments obviously run counter to the various wide-screen formats which Welles reproaches for restricting the plastic language of cinema.

RobertAltman wrote:I just finished reading the Orson Welles book by André Bazin, and his section on Touch of Evil ends with these words:

Since I have already analyzed Mr. Arkadin at some length, I don´t need to linger over the direction of Touch of Evil, which is, in some sense, the fulfillment of the previous experiments in filming and découpage. I should simply add that these experiments obviously run counter to the various wide-screen formats which Welles reproaches for restricting the plastic language of cinema.

This means the film was shown in Academy Ratio in France right? Or am I misunderstanding this quote...
I´ve never seen the film in Academy, but would very much like to. If anyone knows where I might get a copy of it, please PM me.

kekid wrote:

RobertAltman wrote:I just finished reading the Orson Welles book by André Bazin, and his section on Touch of Evil ends with these words:

Since I have already analyzed Mr. Arkadin at some length, I don´t need to linger over the direction of Touch of Evil, which is, in some sense, the fulfillment of the previous experiments in filming and découpage. I should simply add that these experiments obviously run counter to the various wide-screen formats which Welles reproaches for restricting the plastic language of cinema.

This means the film was shown in Academy Ratio in France right? Or am I misunderstanding this quote...
I´ve never seen the film in Academy, but would very much like to. If anyone knows where I might get a copy of it, please PM me.

Can someone please explain what is "the plastic language of cinema", and how does a widescreen format restrict it?