Is this film and its maker great? well only if you make the allowances for ego, uncontrolled creative talent, and perhaps being unsure if you really want to work hard at all. The great 'Kane' from 1941 was certainly Welles' claim to fame, undoubtedly. Yes, it did suffer undeservedly at the hands of political giants and perhaps weak film distribution heads. But I've also heard it said that Welles made the claim: "that he started at the top, and worked his way to the bottom". If this is so, then maybe it tells us much about the man.
He knew from the outset, to surround himself with colleagues who were not simply talented, but also very hungry for success. So what happened...perhaps his ego was too big for even himself to control, or was he simply not able to recognize the good ideas from the bad? As for "Lady" I've tried twice to find the greatness that 'modern' critics are so passionate about. David Kehr calls it a masterpiece, but a masterpiece compared to what!? Here is a film made in 1947 that looks more like it was made during the downward spiral days of the mid 50s. When the el-cheapo directors were cashing in on quickie -'exploitation' films, and many mainstream movies had begun to look more like television productions.
Where is that magic look of 'Kane'?. "Lady from Shanghai" was a film with not one great Director of Photography but three! While it's solely credited to Charles Lawton Jr. who gave '3.10 to Yuma' '57, ~ 'The Tall T' (also '57) even 'The Big Store' '41 a quality cinematic look, how much of that shines here?. The two other (un-credited) photographic masters, namely: Rudolph Mate of: 'Dodsworth' 36 ~ 'Foreign Correspondent' 40 and 'Cover Girl' 44, along with Joseph Walker: 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington' 39 ~ It's a Wonderful Life' 46 ~ 'The Jolson Story' 46 (all 'A' grade looking films) could do little to give 'Lady' that 'special' look and sustain it.
"What about the ending"? I hear people say...a special effects mans dream. Lots of smashing glass, carnival sets, and an ending almost as foolishly indulged as the somewhat over the top courtroom scenes just before it. We're told that Welles had the side show fun-house scene running for an entire spool (that's 22 Min's!) before Harry Cohn had it cut to a more realistic length. I doubt many could have lasted the 2 1/2 Hrs Orson had originally intended this silly story to run. As for the opening scenes...just when it appears as if the main character is 'day dreaming', we find we are supposed to accept the action as 'real'.
Unfortunately I can't help feeling that those who repeatedly sing the praises of this film, and Welles, are those that may belong in the same club. Some, like Welles, made one film that was praised, then also sank rather rapidly to the bottom - could this praise be perhaps for the sake of 'their' own reputations? If so, then more's the pity. Orson Welles had greatness, and will be remembered for it, but didn't necessarily demonstrate that lasting mileage to sustain it. There are just too many other 'great' film makers from the past, whose achievements may be head and shoulders above Orson...but many of these tend to be somewhat sacrificed by certain 'modern' industry people and critics alike. Still, DVD is bringing other great classics from the past (and present) for us to study and fully appreciate.
Footnote: Another reviewer posted a suggestion to check out "The Third Man" as proof of Welles' greatness. Yes, he gives a sterling 'performance', but in 'The Third Man' Welles is being Directed by Carol Reed, from a story by Graham Green. Reed is just one of those great film-makers of sustained effort --over many years' work-- that are rarely acknowledged in the way we continually hear about Mr. Welles....
He knew from the outset, to surround himself with colleagues who were not simply talented, but also very hungry for success. So what happened...perhaps his ego was too big for even himself to control, or was he simply not able to recognize the good ideas from the bad? As for "Lady" I've tried twice to find the greatness that 'modern' critics are so passionate about. David Kehr calls it a masterpiece, but a masterpiece compared to what!? Here is a film made in 1947 that looks more like it was made during the downward spiral days of the mid 50s. When the el-cheapo directors were cashing in on quickie -'exploitation' films, and many mainstream movies had begun to look more like television productions.
Where is that magic look of 'Kane'?. "Lady from Shanghai" was a film with not one great Director of Photography but three! While it's solely credited to Charles Lawton Jr. who gave '3.10 to Yuma' '57, ~ 'The Tall T' (also '57) even 'The Big Store' '41 a quality cinematic look, how much of that shines here?. The two other (un-credited) photographic masters, namely: Rudolph Mate of: 'Dodsworth' 36 ~ 'Foreign Correspondent' 40 and 'Cover Girl' 44, along with Joseph Walker: 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington' 39 ~ It's a Wonderful Life' 46 ~ 'The Jolson Story' 46 (all 'A' grade looking films) could do little to give 'Lady' that 'special' look and sustain it.
"What about the ending"? I hear people say...a special effects mans dream. Lots of smashing glass, carnival sets, and an ending almost as foolishly indulged as the somewhat over the top courtroom scenes just before it. We're told that Welles had the side show fun-house scene running for an entire spool (that's 22 Min's!) before Harry Cohn had it cut to a more realistic length. I doubt many could have lasted the 2 1/2 Hrs Orson had originally intended this silly story to run. As for the opening scenes...just when it appears as if the main character is 'day dreaming', we find we are supposed to accept the action as 'real'.
Unfortunately I can't help feeling that those who repeatedly sing the praises of this film, and Welles, are those that may belong in the same club. Some, like Welles, made one film that was praised, then also sank rather rapidly to the bottom - could this praise be perhaps for the sake of 'their' own reputations? If so, then more's the pity. Orson Welles had greatness, and will be remembered for it, but didn't necessarily demonstrate that lasting mileage to sustain it. There are just too many other 'great' film makers from the past, whose achievements may be head and shoulders above Orson...but many of these tend to be somewhat sacrificed by certain 'modern' industry people and critics alike. Still, DVD is bringing other great classics from the past (and present) for us to study and fully appreciate.
Footnote: Another reviewer posted a suggestion to check out "The Third Man" as proof of Welles' greatness. Yes, he gives a sterling 'performance', but in 'The Third Man' Welles is being Directed by Carol Reed, from a story by Graham Green. Reed is just one of those great film-makers of sustained effort --over many years' work-- that are rarely acknowledged in the way we continually hear about Mr. Welles....