Of Welles & wine

[MASCARO at HUMnet.UCLA.EDU]

Sorry to delay responding; there's  a Thurs-Tues gap in my office presence this term.  
Thanks for the smart commentary Don.  I should know better than to clast such an icon.  I 
promise (no sarcasm) to give CK another go.  But now, you do something for me:  tell me 
what breakthrough  significance I (must have) missed in that late work of Welles--I mean 
that series of vignettes, we might call them *commercials* where he stentoriously 
informs us that: PAUL MASSON WILL SELL NO WINE BEFORE ITS TIME!

john m
PS will the Pynch end up this way too?  Doing commercials, or better, infomercials, 
maybe?  What products would he endorse?




>
>
>Rising like a guppy to a gummy worm from John:
>"Shamed tamed blamed by Chris (I guess the honeymoon's over), I must confess that
> I find
>CITIZEN KANE a pompous and poorly paced film.  Yeah, sell off your little kid an
>d he'll
>probably grow up desperately and unsuccessfully looking for love.  Heavy.
> I know, I am evil and I am sorry.  I just can't appreciate it (nor that MAGNIFI
>CENT
>AMBERSONS either, for that matter).  Maybe it's just become--too familiar--such
>a
>cultural reference point!  Such an easy tale to summarize, to paraphrase, to enc
>apsulate, I
>dunno. A-and that *Boy Genius* crap, I never could get behind that either.  Some
> 
>excellent stuff, unquestionably.  But man, did you ever try to sit through his M
>ACBETH?
>Really risible.  Sorry again.  Chris is right:  deep end time for bonzo.  Need m
>ore sugar.
>Must cranch.
>
>
>"
>
>A. As someone else noted, CK is a film you *have* to see more than once.
>I first saw it on latenight tv and was mildly amused but no more.  Then saw it
>in a theater and was more impressed.  The third viewing (in a theater) began
>to truly open my eyes and more and more revealed itself to me on each viewing.
>Even after a long, long time, including shot-by-shot analysis on the Steenbeck,
>I catch something new once in a while.  (One simple example, you can't possibly
>understand that the music playing when Susan refuses to speak to the reporter
>is important until you've seen her second meeting with the reporter)
>
>B. *Was* it being brought up by a bank that ruined him?  That's one explanation?
>Was it just having a lot of money and power?  That's Another.
>Was he corrupted by his reporters, like Leland suggests?
>Or was a spoiled brat from the get-go?  (Look at his goodbye scene with mom and
>Thatcher again).
>
>I won't even mention all the stuff going on in the deep focus cinematography,
>the soundtrack, the editing, etc.
>
>And which version of MACBETH did you see?  Not a great film, maybe not even a
>good one, but he made it on a very low budget in ten days to prove it could be
>done--and it is much better in the version that restores several cut scenes
>and the original dialogue soundtrack (which the studio made him redub).
>
>Anyway, Welles was a bundle of contradictions--hating and exploiting that
>Boy Genius tag himself all his life.  "Rosebud,"
> though, he sometimes spoke of as a great idea (his own) and sometimes dismissed
>as a plot device that was the best Mankiewicz could come up with.
>
>I *do* think CK is a great film, but it's not my favorite Welles--those honors
>go, in order, to CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, TOUCH OF EVIL and THE MAGNIFICENT 
>(and
>mutilated) AMBERSONS.
>
>
>Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
>