criterionforum.org

This thread has being lying dormant for some time, but I came across a quotation I admit being slightly confused about, and hoped somebody on the board could shed some light. In an aside from German Film Directors in Hollywood, John Russell Taylor comments, "Citizen Kane may be the best American film ever made; but it just might be also the best German film ever made."

I recognize Welles' knowledge of and respect for numerous German film directors, even he rarely made mention of these influences, and certainly there are many visual similarities between Kane and various German Expressionist and Kammerspielfilm works. But this argument isn't one I've heard explained in any detail, and I'm not sure if it's even much accepted. Anybody care to comment?

The only similarity I see between KANE and German Expressionist & Kammerspielfilm is the hyper-expressive use of chiaroscuro. I don't see much if any of the deliberate artifice for psychological effect (or ashen gloom & death-atmosphere) a la Expressionsim, nor the intimacy and gritty stimmung of the kammerspiel.

It's obviously a hyperbolic statement, but there are a whole lot of correlations between Kane and German Expressionism, not least of which is a highly agile and expressive (duh) camera (à la Murnau) and a use of mise-en-scene (sets, nature) to establish mood and character.

But then again, Citizen Kane ain't no German film.

leo goldsmith wrote:It's obviously a hyperbolic statement, but there are a whole lot of correlations between Kane and German Expressionism, not least of which is a highly agile and expressive (duh) camera (à la Murnau) and a use of mise-en-scene (sets, nature) to establish mood and character.

I've always had a little bit of a problem with this description of German Expressionism-- that is, assigning the highly influential innovations of the triumvirate of Mayer/Freund/Murnau in LAST LAUGH to the school of Expressionism, which by 1924 when the film came out, was on it's last legs. That year saw the release of one of the last purely Expressionist (at least as this term was understood in Germany in the 20's) films, Leni's DER WACHSFIGURENKABINETT. Even more stretching and straining is the general attribution of Mood Creation (usually thru lighting), no matter how pedestrian, to German Expressionism.

Firstly, the silent German cinema appeals to me more than any other period/region. I just can never get enough of it. Expressionism is a deep love and so therefore may find me perhaps nitpicking perceived faulty assumptions about it much more than other perceived 'indescretions'.

There is no mistaking true German Expressionism: it was one of, if not THE, most radical film movements ever to strike a Cinematic Mainstream, hands down, end of conversation.

Certainly Expressionism weilded a huge influence on the global cinema from the late twenties through the first couple of decades of the sound era, then of course straight on thru to today in more or less variable degrees. Not least of course owing to the fact of so many German expats coming to Hollywood (Leni, Lang, Murnau, Sirk, Wilder, hell even Will Wyler pre-career) bearing within them the DNA of the German cinema.

But of all the faulty assertions I've heard about cinematic influence, the claim that shadowy lighting or moving camera are clear evidence of Expressionistic influence is the most dubious. Psychological moving camera was a very specific innovation by the above triumvirate in the specific above film, and is patently not evident in any other classically expressionist film. On the other hand moving the camera for physical, geographic reasons, i e varying vantage point or moving with the characters to maintain a consistent vantage point within the mise en scene had been around years before the dawn of expressionism i e the grand cinema of the italians as well as Griffith (and Yevgeni Bauer, whose camera movments seem more subjective than objective to me... as well as being a decade before Murnau).

But most of all, I hear the definition tagged so often, that Expressionism is "the expression of the mood of the characters with lighting and camera, i e taking what is within and manifesting it without".

Well, yeah-- yes and no. All art is a physical manifestation of what was once within. The simple creation of a scene's mood with lights & camera doesn't automatically make it expressionism-related. THE MYSTERIOUS X by Christiansen was noted for creating a mood of suspense and sinister tense world of it's characters thru the striking use of single source lighting. Ditto for so much of the lighting effects of the Italians, Griffith, etc. The intimate chamber dramas, which fell under the anti-Expressionist Kammerspiels, that comprised a large chunk of the New Objectivity which swept the German film industry as the economy picked up a bit after the early 20's... these films were soaked to the bone with extreme chiaroscuro, deep shadowy, smoky stimmung, evident in so much of the work of Pabst, Lupu Pick's N.Obj foundational films with Mayer, etc. Incidentally THE LAST LAUGH was generally considered to be a part of the anti-Expressionist "new objectivity" trilogy of kammerspiels written by Carl Mayer for Lupu Pick (including SYLVESTER aka NEW YEARS EVE, and SCHERBEN aka SHATTERED) but Pick was replaced by Murnau on LAUGH as production time neared.

Mood creation with lights & camera is what film is all about. Every director on earth is concerned with it. Method actors go through great lengths looking to manifest as accurately as possible the interior life of the characters as possible-- yet what could be more opposite than the results of a method actor than an expressionist actor's patently, deliberately artificial performance? Mood creation is universal: example.. having a breakup take place in the chilly grey rain rather than on a sunny day is not expressionism, it's old fashioned storytelling, can be creakily simpleminded, even gimmicky & conventional, which the bizarre world of german expressionism most certainly was not.

Mood creation is beyond any specific style. Critics like to toss these terminologies (isms) around, creating "styles" and "schools", therefore show their stuff, "trace influences", find films which "anticipate" others, whereas in reality the directors don't know what the hell they're even talking about.

So then: German Expressionism as it existed in it's time was... a bizarre, highly eerie style of filmmaking which manifested itself in extremely bizarre art direction, jerky spastic acting, and morose scripts which seemed quite strange to the audiences at the time. TORGUS, VON MORGEN BIS MITTERNACHT, CALIGARI (of course), GENUINE, RASKALNIKOV, WARNING SHADOWS, BACKSTAIRS, WAXWORKS, DIE STRASSE, are some of the most notable examples. Clear influences in the art direction for GOLEM, as well as MABUSE DER SPIELER, even DER MUDE TOD... though Lang, like Murnau, was so iconoclastic that his films were unlike anybody else's and therefore are better described as Fritz Lang style. He looked down his nose at expressionism in the 20's though as he entered old age & saw the huge awe and respect for expressionism which had manifested before his eyes in the younger generation growing up around him, he pragmatically held back from poo-pooing the era that midwived him. Maybe time & sentimentality had changed his mind, too-- who knows? The fading away of a sense of competition can make room for a bit of ex post facto goodwill, especially for a time and place long gone forever.

I wish Welles had kept a f***ing PRINT or two, at least copies of scenes that were shot and unused in the final version. To be fair, even if Welles fought harder, RKO certainly would've made SOME changes, with or without his approval - unlike "Kane," the picture was covered under a later, compromise contract that gave Welles complete control of the first preview cut but not the final cut, which had to be made under RKO's orders. Regardless, Welles should've done more to protect his work.

I had always thought that German Expressionist cinema evolved out of modest budgetary considerations in aftermath of WWI, as well as the war's devastating impact on the German psyche, and arguably, as a way to cash in on what was then a new and popular art movement, and (in spite of what Eisner or Kreimeir might have to say about the latter) therein lie its roots. From my point of view (as a once upon a time painter), the art direction, lighting and the framing seem to verify this, albeit, with obvious differences. Nevertheless, whenever I watch a film like Caligari, I can't help but be reminded of any number of paintings by Ludwig Meidner, Otto Dix or Georg Grosz... and which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Anyhow, to get back to Citizen Kane. German cinema must have had an influence on Welles somehow, since Kane's imposing Gothic art direction, oblique lighting and aggressive camera work (credit Gregg Toland) seem to point in that direction and are what give the film its distinct visual style. Of course none of this makes Kane a 'German' film any more than Springtime in the Rockies is one.

By they way Schreck, I never thought Lang an expressionist, but rather a terrific storyteller with an extraordinarily inventive eye.

kinjitsu wrote:By they way Schreck, I never thought Lang an expressionist, but rather a terrific storyteller with an extraordinarily inventive eye.

Good! I can't tell you how funny it is to hear Lang endlessly described by critics & numbnuts alike as an Expressionist. There are actually people who think Pabst's PANDORA was Expressionist, that M and 3PENNY were too... folks unfamiliar with the german silent cinema hear a big name from the era and automatically assign them the term Expressionist.

HerrSchreck wrote:There are actually people who think Pabst's PANDORA was Expressionist, that M and 3PENNY were too... folks unfamiliar with the german silent cinema hear a big name from the era and automatically assign them the term Expressionist.

I've never seen M as an expressionist film. For me M is one of the first modern thrillers, and quite possible the film that inspired the Noir wave starting with Houston's Falcon in 41. The same thing happens with Murnau's Sunrise. So many people call it an expressionist piece made in the US, but is certainly not. I believe Welles and Toland borrowed a lot from the expressionist, especially from Lang and Murnau, but hey… who didn't. Even Chaplin at one point was deeply influenced by them.

davidhare wrote:Lets remind ourselves of Freund's gorgeous 1935 Mad Love which must have been hugely influential on Welles and Toland, right down to the "stolen" shock cut of the screaming bird.

Incidentally, anyone catch a release date on MAD LOVE yet? I know Kael made promulgating her idea of the influence of this film on KANE one of her flagship pet projects.

kinjitsu wrote:(in spite of what Eisner or Kreimeir might have to say about the latter)

I find Lotte Eiser usually right on the money when it comes to German Cinema in general, and Expressionism in particular, weeding the truth out of mass assumptions and falsehoods in the literature on cinema. I find her spot on in piercing the usual red-herrings & tiresome over-ratings (much of Pabst in particular). I found Kreimeir's book one of the drabbest reads I ever had the misfortune of crossing paths with... certainly a fragmentary portait of the UFA experience as it is primarily merely a straight, dry financial/corporate analysis, with some significant errors when it comes to the aesthetic side of the coin (when this aspect is in fact even touched upon; that is, talking about the films themselves, who made them, why they made them, what else they made, what competing production companies ran parallel, what the impact of UFA was there and abroad. In other words, demonstrate why you are even embarking upon such a deep fiduciary investigation of the corporate/govt entity in the first place). nice latterly pictures of an aging Lil Dagover though.

Most useless however, though required reading if only to trace to their source so many of the faulty assumptions about the German silent era, is FROM CALIGARI TO HITLER by Sigfreid Kracauer.

gigimonagas wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:There are actually people who think Pabst's PANDORA was Expressionist, that M and 3PENNY were too... folks unfamiliar with the german silent cinema hear a big name from the era and automatically assign them the term Expressionist.

I've never seen M as an expressionist film. For me M is one of the first modern thrillers, and quite possible the film that inspired the Noir wave starting with Houston's Falcon in 41. The same thing happens with Murnau's Sunrise. So many people call it an expressionist piece made in the US, but is certainly not. I believe Welles and Toland borrowed a lot from the expressionist, especially from Lang and Murnau, but hey… who didn't. Even Chaplin at one point was deeply influenced by them.

Certainly. To observe some direct contempporary era-influence of expressionsim, see some of William Cameron Menzies' art direction. See the magnificent THEIF OF BAGDHAD w Fairbanks (directed by the unimaginably versatile Raoul Walsh; wanna see 3 silent films made by one guy that seem to be made by 3 different peeple? REGENERATION ('15), THEIF OF BAGDHAD ('24), and SADIE THOMPSON ('28). See Menzies' wonderfully bizarre sets for the very very (very) obscure early Roland West talkie ALIBI from '29. A tough film to see, as the only print on the face of the earth is a ragged (though very watchable) 16mm reduction print held by Rohauer (Douris). The primitive sound-system for this extremely early talkie was via record played along with the projection in the cinema! The only way to see it is via a VHS by Kino, who's Bret Wood invested in cleaning up the image and sound disc as much as possible, digitally cleaning so much of the surface noise & scratches & pops. Barring a miraculous discovery of a new print (Gosfilmofund?) I suspect those owners of Kino's one struck batch of VHS's of this amazing film will be the only ones capable of viewing this half-lost film. A strange, menacing, user unfriendly film, clearly influenced by German Expressionism in art direction and bizarre and gloomy tone.

OT but how sinful is it that Walsh's name never comes up in the pantheon of silent directors? Put him together with the masterful (very reminiscent of Karl Freund, incidentally, particularly w his work with James Whale) Arthur Edeson in THEIF OF BAGDHAD and you have one of the greatest fantasies ever made. Speaking of Welles, his intro to the film on the new Kino Bagdhad disc pretty much sums it up for me. Those folks who write off Fairbanks simply because they are fantasy/adventures don't know the massiveness of the purely cinematic experience that they're missing.

On Edeson: he's always noted for his work in the early Universal horror talkies w Whale as well as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT w Milestone (also MALTESE FALCON and many others in the sound era), but less-mentioned is the fact he was already a monstrous dp in the silent era: BAGDHAD, the mind-numbingly gorgeous Fairbanks ROBIN HOOD from '22 (one of the few silents having, along w THEIF BAGDHAD, sets coming close to INTOLERANCE in scale), 1925's THE BAT (another Roland West w Menzies), not to mention THE LOST WORLD from the same year, and many more going back into the teens, including Fairbank's films from the teens like WILD & WOOLY, prior to his Zorro+ superatomic stardom.

Schreck, Are all these films that you mention available on DVD? I know a few of them have been release by Kino.

gigimonagas wrote:Schreck, Are all these films that you mention available on DVD? I know a few of them have been release by Kino.

All of them-- the Fairbanks are all in sterling restorations in the Kino Fairbanks box, most from the original nitrate negs (including the beautiful full color 1926 BLACK PIRATE restored from the original 2-strip technicolor negs. Obscure 2-strip processing equipment-- which hadn't been in existence for decades after the last 2-strip lab rigs laying around during the 3-strip days disintegrated into the trash-- was built by Technicolor specifically for the truest restoration from the original elements; for those aficionados of Technicolor and it's history the Behlmer commentary to this disc is fascinating.) The only flick not in a premium edition (aside from the vhs of ALIBI) is THE BAT, which Alpha unofrtunately has the only (VHS-to-DVD) edition on the market-- a sin.

The German Expressionist films are a different story. Either image or Kino have decent R1's for the stuff that's in print. On the other hand all of Lupu Pick, TORGUS, RASKALNIKOV, FROM MORNING TO MIDNIGHT, DIE STRASSE, Jessner's BACKSTAIRS... to name a few, are not available on DVD. Thank god for Kino or none of Paul Leni's masterpieces (aside from the more "fun" CAT & CANARY) would be available at all: the must-must-own's THE MAN WHO LAUGHS (usa) & WAXWORKS (Germany) are available only thru Kino in restored editions.

EDIT: another sin is the fact that Alpha are the only DVD co to bring out either of STUDENT OF PRAGUE's.

I recently gave a stack of DVDs to a friend who wanted some good movies to see. I picked "classics" that she hadn't seen like: Vertigo, Psycho, The Killing, The Third Man, Citizen Kane, and (the lesser known, but equally as good) Le Trou.

To my surprise my friend did not like Kane, much preferring the Hitchcocks and Le Trou (which she said was her favorite of all of these! fancy that: Le Trou wins out over all of these!). Her reaction to Kane was: this is the trite story of "money doesn't bring happiness." Interesting, huh? How many people respond to the film in this way, I wonder. I found myself unable to defend the film, since its brilliance, I think, can't be located in the plot. But whatever I thought of to justify its place as "one of the best films ever" ended up sounding like a list of the film's innovations, most of which have been appropriated into cinematic language of today to such a degree that they're hardly noticeable to someone who isn't a film buff/scholar. I wonder how many contemporary, non-film buff, viewers of this film (presumably led to watch it because of its ubiquity on best-of lists) leave feeling disappointed.

It sounds like Citizen Kane is too surreal and gothic for your friend, who seems to prefer the gritty realism of Le Trou. IMO Kane is now beyond criticism and part of the collective human unconscious, an archetype of a film.

Hrm, money doesn't bring happiness? That blows. She wasn't moved at all I take it.

She needs to see it again with the commentary on. Multiple viewings reward one's appreciation of a well known classic, I think. Hey, my first viewings of The Conformist or 8 1/2 were not so good but after giving them a couple of more tries, their richness unfolded to me in a big, big way.

I wonder how many contemporary, non-film buff, viewers of this film (presumably led to watch it because of its ubiquity on best-of lists) leave feeling disappointed.

I think most of them, especially if a well-meaning friend makes the mistake of calling it "the greatest film ever made" or one of the "all-time great films" in advance. I've made this error before and it led to the friend being disappointed in the film and to me being disappointed in the friend. Bad stuff. I agree that the film's language has been so influential that its radical nature (at least for Hollywood) is now virtually invisible. Also, most audiences are concerned first with plot or the "moral"; the rest of it is for people who take their entertainment too seriously.

Having said that, I actually like Touch of Evil better.

It might be better to start with his less well-known films like Chimes at Midnight and F for Fake. Both of these are great films and pretty different from mainstream cinema. A problem with watching Kane for the first time is that it doesn't feel all that different from many other great films. It's extremely well-polished but the first time viewer (especially if they are not a film scholar) may not see that.

I actually found Kael pretty accurate when it comes to "liking" KANE. She said despite it's obvious greatness, it's not neccessarily something that you or the average viewer might wanna slap on tv on a lazy sunday afternoon.

Qualifying this, there've been many lazy afternoons & evenings that I have thrown this on. But at the same time I know exactly what she means. There's a tongue-in-cheekness to the narrative which reminds the viewer (along with the stop-start aspects of the jigsaw narrative) You Are Now Watching A Movie which may be prohibitive to escapism.

That's welles' conceit, and I mean that in the good sense of the word. He has a confidence and a belief in his own genius which causes him to riff, embellish with invention, imbue to the bone his projects with his own special stamp THIS IS AN ORSON WELLES PITCURE.

For other filmmakers who are not gifted with Welles genius (or who are simply Not Welles) this kind of elmbellishment would be pure self-indulgence. The greatness for me is when welles exhbibits the text with that Special SOmething rather than exhibit himself with that special something, which for me F FOR FAKE dances at times perilously close to... in places hilarious & purely original entertainment, in others Welles playing the genius filmmaker giving the audience the kind of film that he thinks that they expect from him, with something self-conciously "great" going on in every frame. I think his reputation & legend was a bit of a personal problem for his career in his later years.

Bringing a friend to see Welles can be a real downer, as has been noted in this thread. I brought someone to see a double bill of "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons."

Now I think Kane is a great film (although not one of my absolute faves) and I believe Ambersons to be the greatest American film. So I described Kane as "shallow but very exciting" and didn't say much about Ambersons at all. Well, he found Kane entertaining enough but wasn't really able to appreciate the cinematic innovation in the service of a theme he thought somewhat trite-what does it profit a man, etc. And he just hated the dissection of the idle aristocracy in Ambersons.

But my friend throughly enjoyed, and appreciated the cinematic flourishes of, "Lady From Shanghai" and "Touch of Evil." "The Trial" was a different matter entirely since he felt Welles had trashed his favorite author by taking unusual liberties with the novel..

So I would certainly agree with HerrSchreck and I would also add that Welles (post Ambersons) is at his best when his material is at its worst.

Panda

Panda wrote:I would also add that Welles (post Ambersons) is at his best when his material is at its worst.

I really love this quotation, Panda, and wish I could fully subscribe to it. Unfortunately, there are the Shakespeare adaptations (in particular, Othello and Falstaff). I consider them to be brilliant and exciting cinematic adaptations, but the material is already pretty good to begin with. Or would you consider Shakespeare to among Welles' "worst" material?

Thanks Tryavna,

Of course, I cannot think of Shakespeare as Welles' worst material. However, I do find that his interpretations of Othello and Falstaff, in spite of moments of cinematic brilliance, fail precisely in their theatrical shortcomings.
Welles can be a lazy actor-mannered, posturing, and straining for effect.
His Othello and Falstaff display this. And this laziness as an actor, has helped him to accept considerably less than good performances by Suzanne Cloutier (Desdemona) and Jeanne Moreau (Doll Tearsheet).

I can easily overlook shortcomings in production (often these brought out the best in Welles) but I find Welles' Shakespeare to be wildly uneven.

Panda

Panda were you quoting someone else when you said Welles is at his best when the source material is at its worst? I ask that because if it is a famous quote (Im no welles scholar so its quite possible Id have never heard a famous quote along those lines) then that would explain your dropping that line without substantiating it with examples or explanation. If that's your own original idea I would have expected a far longer post from you explaining what you mean by that.

Could you get into that a little deeper? Not trying to put you on the spot & nor am I being mean spirited or challenging, but it's quite a broad & powerful statement-- not sure I agree with it because of his handling of classics on the radio & stage prior to his entry to hollywood, to the fine original script for KANE, etc, I see excellence in all manner of source material. And flops in each too.

Mas! mas.

Some of you might be interested to know that the new issue of The New Yorker (June 19) carries an article about Gregg Toland by Hilton Als. Haven't had a chance to read it yet, as it just arrived in this morning's mail. Unfortunately, it's not available online (yet). I'll try to scan a copy, but that probably won't be until tomorrow -- in case someone else has quicker access both to the magazine and a scanner.

OK, I've made a PDF file of the six-page New Yorker article, but I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to making these sorts of things available on the Internet. So for the time being, I've uploaded it to YouSendIt, a free file-sharing website. Unfortunately, YouSendIt limits the length of time that this file will remain available, so if somebody wants to recommend a better way to make this available, please feel free. (Feel free to take some initiative on this, too. I won't be offended if somebody beats me to the punch.)

Oh, the article itself is fairly short for a New Yorker piece. It's worth a read.

Here is the download link.