322 The Complete Mr. Arkadin

[GringoTex]

He may very well be the greatest director of all time, but he didn't have a clue how to put a movie together.

I don't understand how this sentence (or senario) can exist.

I meant putting a film as a production together.

[Ste]

I haven't gotten around to watching the comprehensive version yet, but, for me, this is Welles's worst film. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no matter which way you cut it. It is not fair, however, to say that Welles didn't know how to put a picture together. Clearly, he knew what he was doing, even here. The worst you can say about the technical aspects of the film is that the post-synching is pretty dodgy at times.

Mr. Arkadin is usually (and unfavourably) compared with Citizen Kane, but to see it in context, one should really view it in the same terms as The Lady From Shanghai. In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

Welles obviously had a hankering to create a huge, sprawling, international mystery, but for whatever reason (time, money), he wasn't able to realise a true vision for either Arkadin or Lady before the cameras started rolling. He therefore spent the majority of his time rewriting on the fly and trying to make the best of what he had to work with. Hence the dodgy kitchen synch-job on Arkadin.

Once Welles realised that he was never going to regain the kind of creative freedom he was allowed on Kane, he settled down to making smaller, more lucid pictures.

Touch of Evil, although butchered in the editing room, attempts much the same thing as Arkadin and Lady, but with more satisfying results. Why? Because Welles had a decent script beforehand and didn't try to over-stretch the film's international angle. (A small border town suited his purposes rather conveniently.)

Without wanting to labour the point any more than is necessary, it is also worth pointing out that The Stranger works in much the same way as Touch of Evil i.e. a potentially sprawling, international mystery is instead 'focused' on a small, rural town. The effect, again, is a much more lucid picture. So much so, in fact, that many Welles fans decry The Stranger as being too formulaic! Welles couldn't win either way.

[denti alligator]

In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

The plot seemed pretty clear to me. Only two things were sloppy or unclear (SPOILERS): 1) did Arkadin really think he could frame Van Straten for all those murders? Seems highly unlikely. 2) Why exactly did Arkadin want to talk to his daughter before Van Straten at the end? I mean, how was this to pre-empt the story (truth) that Van Straten was to tell her? (This, I'm sure, someone can explain.) Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

[Gigi M.]

Touch of Evil, although butchered in the editing room, attempts much the same thing as Arkadin and Lady, but with more satisfying results. Why? Because Welles had a decent script beforehand and didn't try to over-stretch the film's international angle. (A small border town suited his purposes rather conveniently.)

Very true. However, I believe is Welles's fault that Mr. Arkadin is a hard to follow / very bad acted picture. After watching every version on set (left the "comprehensive" version for last), I was very disappointed with each version. I though there was still some hope after the first two versions, but unfortunately there wasn't. The main problem with Arkadin is the script. It carries two much for a 100 minutes picture and rushes through the very interesting parts. The acting is terrible, especially Welles's Arkadin. I know Welles didn't have the same financial support he had on his earlier years, but still, is hard to believe this was the same man who directed the great Citizen Kane.

Anyway, Criterion awesome edition is one of the best overall packages I've ever seen.

[tryavna]

In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

The plot seemed pretty clear to me. Only two things were sloppy or unclear (SPOILERS): 1) did Arkadin really think he could frame Van Straten for all those murders? Seems highly unlikely. 2) Why exactly did Arkadin want to talk to his daughter before Van Straten at the end? I mean, how was this to pre-empt the story (truth) that Van Straten was to tell her? (This, I'm sure, someone can explain.) Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

Denti, I'm with you. I've never found Arkadin to be "unfathomable." Complicated? Yes, but in much the same way as many film noir mysteries. I mean, The Big Sleep is much harder to keep track of than Arkadin, but it's still a brilliant film.

[denti alligator]

In both cases the plot is completely unfathomable. Don't even try! Better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

The plot seemed pretty clear to me. Only two things were sloppy or unclear (SPOILERS): 1) did Arkadin really think he could frame Van Straten for all those murders? Seems highly unlikely. 2) Why exactly did Arkadin want to talk to his daughter before Van Straten at the end? I mean, how was this to pre-empt the story (truth) that Van Straten was to tell her? (This, I'm sure, someone can explain.) Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

Denti, I'm with you. I've never found Arkadin to be "unfathomable." Complicated? Yes, but in much the same way as many film noir mysteries. I mean, The Big Sleep is much harder to keep track of than Arkadin, but it's still a brilliant film.

"much harder to keep track of"?? The Big Sleep --the film, without the book as a fall-back structure -- is, indeed, "completely unfathomable." It's also fucking awesome! (I mean that in the technical, film-theory, sense.)

[kinjitsu]

Otherwise, how is the plot "completely unfathomable"?

The plot is hardly unfathomable.

I couldn't help but be reminded after watching Mr. Arkadin again last night how it bears a more than just a passing thematic resemblance to Eric Ambler's A Coffin for Dimitrios. In fact, I have always thought Welles stitched together Arkadin with the same thematic threads as Ambler's story (if not entirely ripping it off), the result, however, is typically Wellesian.

Weak performances and plot holes aside, I still think the film a visually stunning (if at times overly baroque) dazzler. And while it may not be one of Welles' best, we should be grateful to Criterion and everyone involved in this production for this extraordinary package, and very likely one of this year's best.

[Ste]

The basic plot is fairly simple. Welles wasn't a fool. But once you start to break it down, there are innumerable holes in the narrative. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute the problems to time and money issues, but problems they remain.

My issues with the picture seem to be different to yours. And therein lays the main problem. No one can seem to agree what exactly is wrong with Mr. Arkadin, but most agree that something is awry.

As you, yourself, denti, said in an earlier post:

The narrative re-sequencing didn't seem to me to add clarity to one version or the other ...

(SPOILERS AHOY!)

Your point about the murders/framing is a fair one, in logical terms, but we all know that the rich and famous are capable of getting away with these things.

Similarly, why does it matter who gets in first with their story to the daughter? Logically, she should be able to weigh the pros and cons of the situation and make her own mind up. But anyone who has siblings has done this very thing when they were a kid. Getting to your parents first, with your version of events, gives you the home-field advantage, so to speak. It doesn't always result in a win, but you are increasing your chances nonetheless.

One of the problems I have with Arkadin is the whole love angle. Admittedly, this is a standard device in most pictures of the time, but Welles was no ordinary director, so why should we judge him in ordinary terms?

The way Van Stratten's allegiance changes from his existing partner to Arkadin's daughter is mind-boggling. Why doesn't he just stick to the plan? He's only known her for a couple of days and already he's in love with her. Likewise, the daughter's falling for Van Stratten is equally unbelievable. The whole thing is as ludicrous as when Joseph Cotten declares his love for Alida Valli in The Third Man. But in that film Valli shoots old Joe down with the not-unreasonable "you don't even know me" line.

In fact, the daughter doesn't show any real reciprocal feelings for Van Stratten until very late in the picture, by which time she's prepared to kill her own father for him! Why? Because he stole some gold 30 years earlier … not a very convincing reason, IMO.

There are more examples, but I don't have time to delineate them all. Suffice to say, my interest in the plot usually diminishes around the point where Van Stratten is rushing around Europe, getting snippets of information from various people on the street.

The frenetic editing is in no small way responsible for all this. If you are going to edit a picture in this style, you'd better be damn sure you have a rock-solid script beforehand.

[kinjitsu]

Better to suspend disbelief & throw logic out the window with this one, plus, overanalyzing the plot (sans spoiler tags) risks killing the film's little surprises for others...

[Ste]

Exactly! Which is why I said it's better just to lose yourself in the visual bravura of Welles's mise-en-scene.

[justeleblanc]

First,

SpoilerShow

I loved the character of Zouk in just how frustrating and annoying he was. To me he wasn't a comical character but someone I wanted to kill, and Van Stratten's having to deal with him and Zouk's complete lack of reality reminded me of the sick and twisted humor found in a Polanski film. In fact I say that while the script is a bit more predictable than say Touch of Evil, the nightmarish tone of the entire movie is really where it stands out for me.

Second,

SpoilerShow

I don't buy that Arkadin was trying to frame Van Stratten, I assumed he was going to kill him as well -- although it's not entirely clear. Yes, the race to the daughter at the end wasn't all that suspenseful. But, since the whole movie seems to hinge around pretending not to know something, it's nice how he's finally killed by someone who instead pretends to know something.

And also,

SpoilerShow

I do like how scary Arkadin's character was and I honestly believed that he had no idea that Sophie didn't want to kill him, so when he's told that she was letting him live I thought that made his character even more interesting. Was it just me or does the volitile behavior of Welles remind you of Cassavetes. Maybe it's just me.

Again, I only watched the Comprehensive Version. With its flaws, I do still rank this up there with his best work.

[Donald Trampoline]

SpoilerShow

(SPOILER-ISH, LINES FROM FILM)

"Here's to crime!"

- "I didn't know she was in any danger."
- "That should have been obvious."

Thought those were real keepers. (Well, second one doesn't sound as good on paper without the incredible line reading!)

[oldsheperd]

I enjoyed the acting. It seems everyone took their role very tongue-in-cheek.

*Spoiler*
I do think that the covering up your past to maintain your daughter's ideal of yourself thingy was very weak though.

[zedz]

I haven't looked at the new set yet (it's on its way), but in past encounters with the film I've been impressed by Welles' resourcefulness under the production circumstances - and a big part of that is his use of montage and mise en scene to cover up deficiencies and budgetary short-cuts. At the same time, the film's content (story and performances) hasn't done much for me.

The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.

[Toshiro De Niro]

it was so cool to see the outtakes of Orson Welles! I liked the 1st version,disliked the Confidential Report (because of the editing mostly).

[ByMarkClark.com]

Last week, I plowed through THE COMPLETE MR. ARKADIN set, watching the new Comprehensive Version, sampling the other 2 versions and watching all of the supplements. I've always liked ARKADIN, even its previous versions, but I think the new Comprehensive Version is the closest thing to a definitive cut we'll ever see. It preserves Welles' intended flashback stucture, but has greater narrative clarity than the early working version (the "Corinth" version) with the same structure.

I suspect that a couple of scenes in the Comprehensive version would have been jettisoned by Welles (do we really need the graveyard story AND the frog-and-the-scorpion story?), but I understand that leaving them in helps make the Comprehensive version, well, comprehensive! Also, there are certain elements I like in CONFIDENTIAL REPORT, even though Welles rejected them. (Particularly, I like the idea that the dying man is out for revenge -- a much more understandable motivation than what the Welles-dubbed version provides.) Nevertheless, the Comprehensive remains the best option, imho. Among other reasons: It brings out more clearly than any other version the idea that Guy is a mirror for Arkadin -- just as, or nearly as, scheming and ruthless as Arkadin himself (albeit not as worldy or charming). And of course, Criterion's meticulous restoration looks fantastic.

While not a top-tier Welles film, ANY Welles film remains worth seeing, and Criertion's new boxed set is the ultimate ARKADIN experience. Whatever its faults -- and certainly it has its share -- I find this gloriously eccentric, pulpy picture more enjoyable and more fascinating than the better-respected, Welles-approved F FOR FAKE. Although I'm delighted both are now part of the CC.

I sincerely hope there are Criterion versions of THE TRIAL, THE STRANGER and/or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT in our collective future.

[ByMarkClark.com]

>>The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.<<

Strangely enough, after watching ARKADIN, I decided to revisit THE TRIAL! That one's a masterpiece, imho.

[ellipsis7]

I was just removing my old bfi/connoisseur tape of CONFIDENTIAL REPORT from the shelf, to replace with the new box set... Noticed it records R/T of 100 mins approx (equivalent to 104 mins approx taking into account PAL speedup)... Whereas the CC CONFIDENTIAL REPORT runs only 98 mins... Wonder what therefore is on the VHS version - another mutation?

BTW CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS in the boxset pales alongside both the Corinth and the Comprehensive versions, in my book... Fascinating package altogether...

[arsonfilms]

Running times can be funny things sometimes. While it is typically standard practice to start counting at the first frame the first logos appear and end at the last frame you can still see credits or hear music, I've encountered plenty of filmmakers, theaters and distributors that count from the first frame of the movie proper, and end after the picture fades out before the credits. You can easily lop off or add 7 or 8 minutes of running time, depending on how exactly you're counting everything.

Add to that the PAL NTSC differential (which is further complicated depending on how the film was initially transfered) and just basic human error, and there's really no way of knowing for sure what the difference is between two running times. Odds are though, when you're talking about cross format versions of older films, a difference of just a few minutes is easy to get lost in the shuffle.

[nredding2]

Those of you who would like to hear more of Orson Welles radio programs may be interested to know that they are available inexpensively in MP3 format from http://www.otrcat.com/orsonwelles.htm.

[kschell]

Just watched this for the first time, and jesus ache cristo, what a bad movie. Thank gawd Welles never realized his dream of consistent creative freedom. He obviously needed tight control, whether it be Toland, a tight screenwriter, Shakespeare, or a Hollywood studio breathing down his neck. He may very well be the greatest director of all time, but he didn't have a clue how to put a movie together.

Ouch!

I have to admit, there's quite a bit of truth there. I feel like I've plunked down my hard-earned bux for three versions of a really bad movie.

[kschell]

The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.

A good point. The Trial has the advantage of being filmed after Welles' experiments in "Theater of the Absurd" directing plays by Ionesco if I recall. It can be read as Welles' staging of Kafka as re-written by Samuel Beckett.

This film didn't seem experimental or stylish; merely slapdash.

Has anyone seen the Orson Welles short on the Kino "Avant Garde Short" set? It's similarly slapdash.

[skuhn8]

The Trial is similarly scattershot and scrappy, but for me it's a tour de force, and maybe the best example of how Welles operating in this kind of extremely compromised production mode can wrest brilliance from the least promising circumstances.

A good point. The Trial has the advantage of being filmed after Welles' experiments in "Theater of the Absurd" directing plays by Ionesco if I recall. It can be read as Welles' staging of Kafka as re-written by Samuel Beckett.

This film didn't seem experimental or stylish; merely slapdash.

Has anyone seen the Orson Welles short on the Kino "Avant Garde Short" set? It's similarly slapdash.

Yeah, slapdash may not be far off. But there's a lot more to it. I confess that I was a little bewildered--that is: disappointed--after a first viewing. That was the Corinth version. Then watched the commentary, and I have to confess I let the a comment associating Arkadin with the French New Wave have an influence over my subsequent viewing of Confidential Report. It helped. There's a frenetic pace not unlike Breathless. Also helps to get over what-s-his-face's shit acting/miscasting (for which we can only blame Welles obviously) much the same as The River turns into a masterpiece when you get over the acting. And Michael Redgrave, I think that piece of work is more rewarding with each viewing, not to mention Tamiroff. All in all I like the film alot. It's no masterpiece but definitly worth 30-odd bucks. I still like the Stranger much more and would love to take another look at The Trial: haven't seen that in 15 years.

[Scharphedin2]

For my money, this release is simply spectacular! I watched the comprehensive version of the film, time has not permitted me to go through the entire set yet, but what a treasure for Criterion to bestow on the film community. Here is everything collected that one could possibly hope to have access to with respect to MR. ARKADIN. As several of the posts on this thread attest to, before this set becoming available, being able to even view this film (let alone three different versions of it) could easily have taken decades of effort to accomplish. Add to that the commentary, copious extras, and even the book! This kind of comprehensive gathering of material on a single film is truly what the DVD medium, and Criterion in particular, is so great for.

As for the film ARKADIN, and its relative size and stature within the Welles canon:

I do not think that I am a hard line auteurist, but with Welles each film that he created does appear like a little piece in the mosaic of a life's work. Some of the pieces have brighter colors and figure more prominently in the greater picture, but it is the over-all image that materializes which is so daunting, and brings such pleasure to viewing each individual work. (In this mosaic, I would tend to include the radio work, and to a certain extent Welles's appearance in other director's films, and even in some instances his appearances as interviewee).

KANE and AMBERSONS were some of the first films that I saw as a young teenager that truly opened my eyes to the richness and diversity and inexhaustible world of film. These were also some of the first films that made me understand the role of the director as the leader of the creative/artistic achievement of a film. They were also the first to make me understand the great collaborative nature of the medium. Surely there would have been no KANE or AMBERSONS without Welles, but just as surely, there would have been no KANE or AMBERSONS, as we know it, without Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, Tim Holt, Anne Baxter, Dolores Costello, Richard Bennett, or, Bernard Herrmann, Greg Tolland, Stanley Cortez, Mark-Lee Kirk or even Robert Wise and Herman Mankiewicz. Together with a huge group of fellow artists, Welles created a world, and so, each new Welles film that I saw over the years was like glimpsing another corner of this fascinating world.

It is a world permeated simultaneously by a great lust for life and vitality, and a great sense of foreboding and world weariness. The characters are etched in high relief, they are often larger than life, and then of a sudden they wax into moments of the greatest tenderness. It would be easy to fill pages with examples… is there in the collective works of any other director a greater ensemble of characters (in this sense I almost think Welles is the cinematic equivalent of Dickens)?

So, possibly my views are uninteresting in the discussion of the merits of MR. ARKADIN, as it is difficult for me to view it merely as one film in the sea of motion pictures. I think the character of Arkadin is vintage Welles, as only he could have envisioned and acted a character – to me it works completely, and I love the anecdotes of the graveyard and the frog and the scorpion. This endless stream of strange anecdotes and aphorisms dug up from a life of reading and traveling, and inserted into the mouths of the characters in his films (often those portrayed by Welles himself). There is the impressive roster of characters again, almost thrown away at times in the onward rush of the story (already mentioned in another entry above). There is the central set piece of the derelict building in which Stratten finds Zouk – the falling snow amplifying the sense of loneliness and having come to the end of the road, and the band playing hopeless Christmas ballads in the background, and the snow falling still, as Stratten enters the building and finds himself in the narrow inner courtyard of the building. Such a great setting and mood that reverberates throughout the entire film.

Finally, I think Welles created a great portrait of the collective amnesia and sense of fall and loss that pervaded in Europe in the decades immediately following the Second World War. Look at all these characters in the film, all of them nostalgic for a past that has been shattered by war and violence. People, entire communities, have been torn away from each other and flung to the winds by circumstances out of their control, and no one is really sure what has become of anyone. Partners in crime, friends, lovers, all separated with little or no knowledge of the whereabouts of each other. So, it is a fractured and splintered world that Welles depicts in this film, just as the central story is about a fragmented/amnesiac mind, and I think that a lot of the pacing and editing concerns that one could raise against the film, could just as well be noted down on the credit side of the balance sheet as a means to capture in form the qualities of the world that is being depicted.

I would recommend anyone new to Welles to begin at the beginning with KANE and AMBERSONS, or, alternatively to begin with probably any other film than ARKADIN, but I would definitely recommend this film to anyone with an inkling of interest in Welles. It may not be a masterpiece (whatever that is), but it is a small miracle of filmmaking all to itself, and a wonderful place to visit in the world of Welles.

[tryavna]

David, I agree that the two-man commentary is fantastic. Their comments about the indirect references the film makes to the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain (all those Polish characters) made me "get" that deeper level in a way I never had before. They've led me to agree with Scharphedin's views that the film really is about "collective amnesia" and the will to foget unpleasant details of one's own past.

I do recommend viewing the Comprehensive version before long -- before you forget any of the details of the Corinth, at any rate. In my opinion, the Comprehensive version may run a little too long. It just feels padded in a way that I doubt Welles would have left -- he almost certainly would have trimmed it to create a slightly faster rhythm. Nevertheless, there are some truly amusing details that are present here that I hope Welles would have kept, particularly the scene where all of Arkadin's spies are carrying suitcases in their hurry to keep up with Arden.