WRT Blade Runner, when I last watched it I did think about how I had grown up with the movie, and wondered how I would evaluate it with fresh eyes now. The story I think could have been more involved, but where they went deep was the world-building. Mostly I just get lost in how technically beautiful and atmospheric it is. As a kid I really disliked the soundtrack score, but I have grown to appreciate it over the years.
Not only does it not overlap that much with Dick’s novella, it has nothing much to do with William S. Burrough’s play Blade Runner. I guess they just liked the name? The play is about black market surgery, and would make an interesting movie in its own right.
Yeah, I watched it again a couple of years ago on the basis I was probably being overly harsh as I’m a big fan of the book. I’ll agree that visually it’s stunning and the soundtrack is amazing but the film has no soul and the acting is terrible.
The Blade Runner computer game is much better in that it keeps the look and feel of the film but actually has a plot related to the book. It’s a shame I can’t get it to run properly.
IMO, Kubrick was a true master. Welles took theatre actors to the silver screen. But it was Kubrick who pioneered so many things. And unlike Chaplin, Kubrick was an artistic perfectionist (Chaplin was a dick, once forcing an actress to do 100 takes of a line in a silent film)
Another infamous set of takes also involved Crothers. Kubrick told his crew that he anticipated shooting 70 takes of Crothers getting killed by Jack Torrance. Jack Nicholson asked Kubrick to go easy on the 69-year-old Crothers. After 40 takes, Kubrick finally agreed to stop. The scene in which Halloran shows Wendy and Danny through the kitchen took another 85 takes. Crothers broke down and shouted, “What do you want, Mr. Kubrick? What do you want?!?” Kubrick also forced Crothers to slam a car door 75 times. He shot a close-up of Crothers – saying nothing – 130 times.
Granted the linked blogpost doesn’t seem to be completely accurate. Just after the part I quoted, it claims that Crothers was forced to walk through real snow 40 times by Kubrick. I don’t think Kubrick did any of the location-shooting in the US, which is the only part of the movie with real snow.
Kubrick is notorious for the amount of footage he would shoot. I can only imagine it would be worse now given the practically unlimited resources of digital film.
Welles did not only bring theatre to the screen, he also pioneered many of the techniques of visual storytelling people now take for granted. Such as dissolves, wipes, deep focus, nonlinear narrative. Many forget that those are why Citizen Kane is an important movie historically, but is not only perhaps not one of the best movies ever - it is arguably not even one of Welles better movies. Some of his techniques such as expressionist lighting and set design definitely had a lot of precedent in stage and silent movies, but the low angles and editing made these truly cinematic.
Why I brought it up is that I think that CK is overrated, whereas all of Welles other work is underrated. I don’t think there are any parallels with Kubrick, who was acclaimed more throughout his career. There is more in common I think with directors such as Shinya Tsukamoto who were greatly acclaimed for a daring first feature, and had their subsequent more mature work mostly ignored.
Welles pioneered none of these. Deep focus and nonlinear narrative were uncommon enough at the time that they did attract attention in Citizen Kane. Wipes and dissolves, however, were not at all obscure. Wipes were used very often in the serials of the '30s and '40s and the dissolve goes all the way back to Méliès, who used it frequently.
I wasn’t suggesting that he invented them. But I think it can be argued that Citizen Kane was the first time all of these disparate techniques were brought together to form something resembling a “modern” movie in terms of storytelling and visual style. That is why it is remembered. But I think that such techniques were bound to converge around that time anyway. While Welles’ later work such as Touch of Evil and The Trial better show off his skill as a storyteller and visual stylist. Better films which get none of the acclaim because of the capricious insular nature of Hollywood itself.
This isn’t to suggest that he is my favorite director or anything. It just amazes me how so many polls and critics proclaim him to have been “the greatest director ever” - and yet few of them acknowledge anything past his first feature. That’s a theme I have encountered quite a few times when somebody’s first feature is overly hyped.
I’m not so certain those techniques would have converged at that time without Welles. I don’t say this simply to praise Welles’ genius, but also to note a very unique situation he found himself in. He had complete control of the picture, and the entire resources of a studio behind him. This was basically unprecedented and wouldn’t become even close to common until the '70s. To make such a radical picture as CK, one needed such power and Welles found himself in the right place to wield it. If there had been no Welles, I don’t see anyone else filling that space.
A few years ago someone was repeating to me, “Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made, right?”. I replied that I thouht it certainly was a great movie, but it wasn’t very different from other great movies made at that time. She didn’t believe me.
No worries, I wasn’t trying to start an argument. (Although I may anyway.)
Yeah, all the elements you mention had been around before, sometimes at as high a level of quality. I think one could easily argue that these elements were combined in a fairly groundbreaking way in Kane, though. However, what I find more interesting is a more conceptual difference. CK is often touted as the best Hollywood had (or has) to offer, but its status as a Hollywood film, while technically true, is rather nominal. In many ways, it’s the first of Welles’ independent films. Not that this is readily apparent to the casual viewer, to whom it may look just as much a studio picture as something like Casablanca.
Yes. I think what differentiates Citizen Kane from other Hollywood movies at the time is that it was directed by a youthful outsider. He knew nothing about making movies and had to be given a crash-course in cinema technique by RKO. The movie has a mood of enthusiasm and experimentation to it which was unusual in an A-movie then and now.
But on the whole I think Casablanca is a better film. Largely because the Epstein brothers are telling a story that is less self-indulgent than Kane.
