The Criterion Collection

[ShellOilJunior]

It's been a while since I've seen Mr. Arkadin. I remember being impressed with the Criterion edit from 2006. It's the only Welles Criterion film without a blu-ray...

[djerdap]

Citizen Kane
The Trial
Touch of Evil
The Magnificent Ambersons
F for Fake
The Lady from Shanghai
The Stranger

...would be my list out of the ones I've seen.

[Al_The_Strange]

Of Welles' work, I enjoyed Lady From Shanghai the most.

Citizen Kane is a movie I can appreciate, but not necessarily "enjoy."

Need to rewatch Touch of Evil to see how it holds up.

F For Fake weirded me out when I first saw it, but when I took another glimpse I found it charming.

Wanted to like The Trial, but was put off by some of its editing quirks and narrative style. Same goes for the book, actually.

Was not a fan of The Magnificent Ambersons at all. Sorry.

That's all I've seen so far. He's a hit-or-miss for me, but his films all look pretty dang good.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Reddington

Criterion seems to have a close relationship with Lynch, who has distanced himself from Dune and stated he regretted directing it. So, not sure it would be a prime candidate for a release.

It always makes me sad when I hear him regretting the experience. I have an old Waldenbooks cassette with a long-form conversation between Lynch and Frank Herbert, just before the film came out, and he sounds so excited about the potential of the film, the philosophical underpinnings, and getting started on Dune Messiah.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I always held out hope a original work print would surface some day, but I get the impression the fabled print sent to Orson in Brazil was never actually sent for obvious reasons.

But it was sent to him in Brazil. The question was never if he received it (he did) but what happened to it after he left Brazil. Was it actually destroyed as instructed by RKO? Is it languishing somewhere? In the hands of a private collector? Etc.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I blind bought it and am looking forward to seeing it. Because of the film's history, it has been kind of an elusive film which is something that excites me.

What is the general consesus? Or is there one?: what is Welles' 3rd best film? Kane, Touch of Evil.. then what? Curious to read people's opinions.

There is no general consensus. Sight & Sound magazine's once-a-decade poll of the greatest movies of all time (probably the most authoritative poll of its kind because it surveys top movie critics and scholars from around the world) had Ambersons voted as one of the top 10 all-time best films in both the 1972 and 1982 polls. On the other hand, plenty of people (including those on this forum) think the movie is very overrated, boring, etc.

For me, Ambersons is my favorite Welles film (despite its flaws and heavy damage), followed by Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane. While Ambersons suffers greatly from the drastic editing and botched ending, it reaches the highest peaks of brilliance of all of Welles' films.

[bwdowiak]

I forgot about TSPDT. Here's what they have for Welles, for whatever it's worth:

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by edmoney

There is no general consensus. Sight & Sound magazine's once-a-decade poll of the greatest movies of all time (probably the most authoritative poll of its kind because it surveys top movie critics and scholars from around the world) had Ambersons voted as one of the top 10 all-time best films in both the 1972 and 1982 polls. On the other hand, plenty of people (including those on this forum) think the movie is very overrated, boring, etc.

For me, Ambersons is my favorite Welles film (despite its flaws and heavy damage), followed by Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane. While Ambersons suffers greatly from the drastic editing and botched ending, it reaches the highest peaks of brilliance of all of Welles' films.

It's art, not science. It's all a matter of opinion. Some of the world's most popular pieces of art, or films, are not desired by all. There is no right or wrong when it comes to personal taste.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by edmoney

There is no general consensus. Sight & Sound magazine's once-a-decade poll of the greatest movies of all time (probably the most authoritative poll of its kind because it surveys top movie critics and scholars from around the world) had Ambersons voted as one of the top 10 all-time best films in both the 1972 and 1982 polls. On the other hand, plenty of people (including those on this forum) think the movie is very overrated, boring, etc.

For me, Ambersons is my favorite Welles film (despite its flaws and heavy damage), followed by Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane. While Ambersons suffers greatly from the drastic editing and botched ending, it reaches the highest peaks of brilliance of all of Welles' films.

How is that NOT a general consensus though? General consensus is his movies are some of the best ever made, particularly Citizen Kane. Individual opinion among fans and those who don't care for his work think otherwise though. You can par it down to general consensus amongst them too.

Originally Posted by regeyer

It's art, not science. It's all a matter of opinion. Some of the world's most popular pieces of art, or films, are not desired by all. There is no right or wrong when it comes to personal taste.

Be careful, you're dancing on thin ice with these MUH OBJECTIVITY flaunters around here. (I know I am lmao)

TBH I think the only "objective" measure for art is its influence. Speaking of Citizen Kane, I wasn't particularly floored by it or anything but my favorite part about it was the craft. Technically it's really something special. It left a big mark on movies for that, that's a fact, not whether or not you enjoy the film.

[cmetz1984]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Of Welles' work, I enjoyed Lady From Shanghai the most.

Citizen Kane is a movie I can appreciate, but not necessarily "enjoy."

Need to rewatch Touch of Evil to see how it holds up.

F For Fake weirded me out when I first saw it, but when I took another glimpse I found it charming.

Wanted to like The Trial, but was put off by some of its editing quirks and narrative style. Same goes for the book, actually.

Was not a fan of The Magnificent Ambersons at all. Sorry.

That's all I've seen so far. He's a hit-or-miss for me, but his films all look pretty dang good.

Yeah, I would definitely rewatch Touch of Evil if Lady from Shanghai is currently your favorite. I'd put Touch of Evil in my top 3 film noirs easy with the Big Heat and Double Indemnity.

I love Lady from Shanghai, but it does bother me to know it was messed with by the studio. Touch of Evil on the other hand we at least had the opportunity to see what Welles intended and its pretty much perfect.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by regeyer

It's art, not science. It's all a matter of opinion. Some of the world's most popular pieces of art, or films, are not desired by all. There is no right or wrong when it comes to personal taste.

Well, sure. I was answering someone's question regarding consensus. I was saying on the one hand that there were a cadre of critics who believed one thing, yet many others who disagree. Not sure if you're disagreeing or agreeing with what I said.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

How is that NOT a general consensus though? General consensus is his movies are some of the best ever made, particularly Citizen Kane. Individual opinion among fans and those who don't care for his work think otherwise though. You can par it down to general consensus amongst them too.

Ok, we're getting a bit into semantics and context now. I guess you could say it was a general "consensus" (depending on how you define consensus) among critics circa 1972 and 1982. I should have added that Ambersons has fallen out of the "Top 10" in the 1992, 2002, and 2012 polls. Part of it could be that the film's luster has faded, part of it could be that there are simply way more films that have been made since then, so there is much more competition to consider with each successive poll.

Also, when I was saying that there wasn't consensus, I was speaking more broadly about film viewers in general (critics, scholars, cinephiles, regular Joes, etc.). And the person asking was asking about Ambersons specifically ... not Welles films in general. More people are going to agree that the body of Welles films is great, but you'll get less agreement about which ones in particular are his best.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by edmoney

More people are going to agree that the body of Welles films is great, but you'll get less agreement about which ones in particular are his best.

I always observed it was Citizen Kane, with Ambersons being the studio-botched other masterpiece.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by cmetz1984

Yeah, I would definitely rewatch Touch of Evil if Lady from Shanghai is currently your favorite. I'd put Touch of Evil in my top 3 film noirs easy with the Big Heat and Double Indemnity.

I love Lady from Shanghai, but it does bother me to know it was messed with by the studio. Touch of Evil on the other hand we at least had the opportunity to see what Welles intended and its pretty much perfect.

Except for the minor detail of Charlton Heston being cast as a Mexican

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

I always observed it was Citizen Kane, with Ambersons being the studio-botched other masterpiece.

We could do this all day.

I meant best as in plural (which ones are the best). Yes, Kane undeniably gets by far the most nods when asking which of Welles' films are his best.

It's the only film of his that he had full control over the finished product and had the financial backing and resources of a Hollywood studio.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by edmoney

We could do this all day.

We could, but I won't, cuz I don't see the point? I was making an observation as to why I feel there is a general consensus when you said there isn't. lol

I meant best as in plural (which ones are the best). Yes, Kane undeniably gets by far the most nods when asking which of Welles' films are his best.

So there's your general consensus.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Watched The Magnificent Ambersons last night. I haven’t seen this in probably 20 years and pretty much remembered nothing about it so it was like seeing it for the first time. I love Welles’ work. I think he is one of the best ever. Having said that, Ambersons was boring as hell. It felt twice as long as it’s runtime. Great camerawork and lighting and a wonderful score, but I couldn’t give a crap about any of the characters or their story.

Originally Posted by regeyer

I watched it for the first time a few weeks back and, yes, I felt the same way. I won't be watching it again. Glad I didn't buy it.

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

I feel very much the same. I owned it on VHS, but my inability to connect to any characters has left me with little reason to revisit it. Still, I can appreciate the art of it and would not disagree with anyone who enjoys it.

While I can certainly understand and accept those who believe TMA is revered because of what might have been as opposed to the film itself, here's what I posted over in the TMA thread last week:

"The unlikeability of the young heir, George Minafer (Tim Holt), is perhaps the most widely recognized 'issue' with the surviving film, but there is a strategy behind it and it is in fact one of its most Wellesian qualities." Perhaps the answer lies within the commentary, which I have yet to listen, but I don't believe the cuts/re-shoots would have changed the perception of George Minafer in the slightest, since his 'unlikeabilty' is at the core of the book and the film.

The issue for some filmgoers (and readers) is the fact there is no male 'hero' to self-identify/desire, which is a very honest, real-world take by both Tarkington and Welles.

As far as the ending, both the book and Welles original cut feature the reconciliation of George and Eugene, however the original Wells version has a final scene with a bitter Fanny alone in her bare boarding house visited by Eugene, as opposed to the more salable scene of the two of them together in the hospital, and their shared recognition of the presence of Isabel.

To my eyes, accepting the RKO cuts/re-shoots, the arc of the Ambersons is consistent with the book, and the essence of the story is starkly present in the film.

In the RKO ending, the redemption of George is highlighted, and in the other, the fall of the Ambersons, a reflection of a changed, and in many ways, diminished American society, is emphasized.

Regardless of which ending one would prefer, the gestalt is the same. The Ambersons never recover their wealth or position, and America moves on without them and their world.

I'm of the opinion that The Magnificent Ambersons is a masterpiece that no lost footage or alternate ending can diminish. Yes, the film was most likely far better executed in the rough cut than the finished reel, however Welles masterful cinematic techniques combined with performance of Agnes Moorehead, independent of any other aspects of the film, stands with the best in cinema.

The film, like CK, is about America and what it means to be an American. Unlike Kane, what's notable/less compelling about TMA is that the main character is not a person but an American family which was constructed to represent an ideal in American society.

That's a tough sell for audiences, as noted in your comments.

My take is that Wells walked away from America and Americans post-TMA in a meaningful way, simply because times changed and post-war America was a very different place.

[KentConn]

Not to get off the Orson Welles topic guys, but I have a question for you.

How often does Criterion release Warner Brothers titles on Blu, or do they not release them at all ?

I just wondered because there are many of Warner's catalog titles that I would like to see get the Criterion Blu-ray "treatment".

So, I was wondering if Criterion EVER releases Warner titles on Blu, how often, and what has been released so far, if anything ?

Any help on this would be appreciated !!

[KJones77]

Originally Posted by KentConn

Not to get off the Orson Welles topic guys, but I have a question for you.

How often does Criterion release Warner Brothers titles on Blu, or do they not release them at all ?

I just wondered because there are many of Warner's catalog titles that I would like to see get the Criterion Blu-ray "treatment".

So, I was wondering if Criterion EVER releases Warner titles on Blu, how often, and what has been released so far, if anything ?

Any help on this would be appreciated !!

Here's a list of films Criterion has licensed from WB.

There should be about one or two every few months.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Except for the minor detail of Charlton Heston being cast as a Mexican

Yeah, that's almost as distracting as the Irish accent in Shanghai