322 The Complete Mr. Arkadin
- daniel p
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
I just got this, and trying to decide which cut to watch - with the intention of only watching one for now, and perhaps revisiting in a few months. I had my heart set on the Comprehensive Version, but now I am rethinking.
tryavna, were you to recommend the best version, for a singular screening, would it be the Conrith version?
tryavna, were you to recommend the best version, for a singular screening, would it be the Conrith version?
- tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
My normal recommendation would be to start with Confidential Report and then move "up" (in terms of cinematic quality) to the Corinth version. But if you only have enough time to watch one version, then it definitely ought to be the Corinth version. As David has pointed out, it comes closest to Welles' stated intentions (especially the editing of those first 10 or so minutes).daniel p wrote:I just got this, and trying to decide which cut to watch - with the intention of only watching one for now, and perhaps revisiting in a few months. I had my heart set on the Comprehensive Version, but now I am rethinking.
tryavna, were you to recommend the best version, for a singular screening, would it be the Conrith version?
One thing to keep in mind: Even though the Corinth version is cinematically better, Confidential Report boasts better A/V quality. It's not a significant difference, but it's noticeable (I think so anyway).
- daniel p
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Interesting factoid: I'm at a new media conference and was at an event sponsored by Apple. They've got a "sizzle reel" for Final Cut Studio that features Criterion and Arkadin. I'm assuming that Criterion used Final Cut to assemble the comprehensive version or maybe they just use it for editing all of their features and stuff.
Okay, so not that interesting, but someone out there would want to know, I'm sure.
Okay, so not that interesting, but someone out there would want to know, I'm sure.
- The Fanciful Norwegian
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
- Location: Teegeeack
There's a Studio Daily article (which I think has been mentioned here before) that goes into a bit more detail on it. It's a pretty interesting if you're at all interested the technology behind this work.
Well, if their mission statement is to make money from gullible collectors, then they have succeeded admirably.
I thought ARKADIN was a fascinating failure, but if they dedicate this much energy and space to a third-rate film like this, they damn well better rerelease ANDREI RUBLEV in a similar multi-disc manner.
I thought ARKADIN was a fascinating failure, but if they dedicate this much energy and space to a third-rate film like this, they damn well better rerelease ANDREI RUBLEV in a similar multi-disc manner.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
- arsonfilms
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:53 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Amen.DrewReiber wrote:Well, all I can say is that I'm sure glad Criterion isn't interested in either of your opinions.
Aside from Arkadin's influence on world cinema (particularly on the likes of Godard and Truffaut) and it's importance within the mystery and story of Welles life and work...
...I happen to think that Arkadin is an incredibly entertaining flick.
-
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 am
- Location: Florie-dah
And brilliantly directed, given the circumstances. It's simply a gothic, baroque delight and trascends even it's own apparent limitations (Welles' marvelously phony disguise, for example, which to be fair is no worse than Joseph Cotton's makeup in Kane).arsonfilms wrote:...I happen to think that Arkadin is an incredibly entertaining flick.
- daniel p
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
I was pleasantly surprised, after reading negative view points on the film.
I thought it lagged a little in places, and is no masterpiece, but was highly entertaining, and beautiful to watch - great camerawork.
I watched the Conrith version, and look forward to reading the booklet, and delving into the other versions (something I am now interested in after seeing the film).
I thought it lagged a little in places, and is no masterpiece, but was highly entertaining, and beautiful to watch - great camerawork.
I watched the Conrith version, and look forward to reading the booklet, and delving into the other versions (something I am now interested in after seeing the film).
The next time you watch Mr. Arkadin, keep in mind the following list from a poll conducted of the editorial staff of Cahiers du Cinema some time in the late 1950's. There were some well-known names on that staff in those days (e.g., Bazin, Godard, Rivette, Rohmer, Truffault). The editors picked the top directors of all time, then picked the best film of those directors. Below is their list.
1. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
2. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
3. Journey to Italy (Rossellini, 1953)
4. Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein, 1945/1958)
5. Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915)
6. Confidential Report/ Mr. Arkadin (Welles, 1956)
7. Ordet (Dreyer, 1955)
8. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
9. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
10. The Wedding March (Stroheim, 1927)
11. Under Capricorn (Hitchcock, 1949)
12. Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
1. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
2. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
3. Journey to Italy (Rossellini, 1953)
4. Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein, 1945/1958)
5. Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915)
6. Confidential Report/ Mr. Arkadin (Welles, 1956)
7. Ordet (Dreyer, 1955)
8. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
9. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
10. The Wedding March (Stroheim, 1927)
11. Under Capricorn (Hitchcock, 1949)
12. Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
Yes, but you're omitting the most important postscript to that poll. As I'm sure you all know, Andre Bazin was the "godfather" of those Cahiers critics. He supported them, nurtured them, and advised them. They based much of the auteur theory (especially its evaluative baseline) off of his theoretical writings. But Bazin was never very completely comfortable with the auteur theory. He was gentle in his objections to its ...until les enfants terribles decided to declare what Bazin considered a very problematic film to be Welles' grand masterpiece. That's when Bazin took off the gloves and spanked them hard for being such wrong-assed little brats. And shortly thereafter, it was revealed that the cut of the film the Cahiers critics saw was an abomination of Welles' original intentions. Needless to say, they abruptly ceased their championing of the film.EMalatesta wrote:The next time you watch Mr. Arkadin, keep in mind the following list from a poll conducted of the editorial staff of Cahiers du Cinema some time in the late 1950's. There were some well-known names on that staff in those days (e.g., Bazin, Godard, Rivette, Rohmer, Truffault). The editors picked the top directors of all time, then picked the best film of those directors. Below is their list.
The taste of the Cahiers critics was not wrong very often (regardless of what you think of their theorizing), but Confidential Report was the exception that proved the rule. (This also applies to their ridiculous evaluation of Capricorn as Hitchcock's best film, which is hilariously undermined in Truffaut's feeble attempts to defend the film against Hitchcock himself in their interview book.)
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
I think you'd find that even in those days many many directors & cineastes would have laughed at #'s 6, 11 & 12.EMalatesta wrote:The next time you watch Mr. Arkadin, keep in mind the following list from a poll conducted of the editorial staff of Cahiers du Cinema some time in the late 1950's. There were some well-known names on that staff in those days (e.g., Bazin, Godard, Rivette, Rohmer, Truffault). The editors picked the top directors of all time, then picked the best film of those directors. Below is their list.
1. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)
2. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)
3. Journey to Italy (Rossellini, 1953)
4. Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein, 1945/1958)
5. Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915)
6. Confidential Report/ Mr. Arkadin (Welles, 1956)
7. Ordet (Dreyer, 1955)
8. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
9. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
10. The Wedding March (Stroheim, 1927)
11. Under Capricorn (Hitchcock, 1949)
12. Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
I agree that they had every theoretical and polemical reason to prop Capricorn up when they did. But still, it's a shocking lapse in taste. Like I said, they were so uncannily right so much of the time about who the great Hollywood directors really were. These were the guys who sainted Aldrich as an all-time great after only seeing four of his genre films, which to me may be the single greatest feat of film criticism of all time. I would love to give them Capricorn, but I got to call them out.davidhare wrote:Langlois, Im merely trying to balance what you say about the early cahierists - while Truffaut (and Chabrol's) estimation of Under Capricorn may seem ludicrous to some, it does, at least, reveal the specific insights of French critics in responding to expressive mise-en-scene, something that was almost entirely ignored by American critics, and still is. At least in this respect (and for others I would argue) Capricorn is an extremely notable Hitchcock - two four minute plus takes etc, lengthy expository plans-sequences, etc and is far more successful artistically than, say Rope.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- justeleblanc
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
- Location: Connecticut
- Brian Oblivious
- Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:38 pm
- Location: 'Frisco
- Contact:
Probably here.justeleblanc wrote:Where did you find this?domino harvey wrote:Godard listed Confidential Report as the best film of the year it was released.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
it's listed in his best of, reprinted from Cahiers in Godard on GodardBrian Oblivious wrote:Probably here.justeleblanc wrote:Where did you find this?domino harvey wrote:Godard listed Confidential Report as the best film of the year it was released.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
that website has a fatal flaw in that it lists the American titles for some of those features, ignoring that in Godard's original list, he's talking about the European releases for these films, which in the case of Confidential Report amounts to a large difference.
anyone with a passing interest in Godard or film crit should pick up Godard on Godard, some of his essays are dizzying in their confusing but infectious enthusiasm.
anyone with a passing interest in Godard or film crit should pick up Godard on Godard, some of his essays are dizzying in their confusing but infectious enthusiasm.
- arsonfilms
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:53 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
To be fair to Arden though, Welles not only re-dubbed but re-wrote a large part of the film after it had been shot. I suspect it's more noticable with Arden because his character is one of the few that wasn't dubbed by Welles himself. In fact, I believe that Arden is one of only two or three actors in the film who got to use their own voice.davidhare wrote:Denti's right. If you keep looking the voice of Robert Arden in particular is out of whack in all three versions. (That's what you get for using radio actors.)