I remember getting off work and sitting at the bar and Touch of evil was on tv on mute. I had never seen it and man it sucked me in. It had so many captivating shots.

@LearningaboutMovies

Жыл бұрын

what a great bar! thank you.

@garrettbays6942

2 ай бұрын

I was fortunate to see it for the first time in a theater, when it was being re-released after the work that was supervised by Walter Murch.

The Trial... blew my mind the first time I saw it. I think Welles once said that he considered it his best film.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

it's great even in the worst copy of the film, which I have on DVD. If anybody knows of a high quality HD copy, please send me a link to it!

@isabeamon1190

Жыл бұрын

The Trial is essentially a perfect film. Way before David Lynch made dream logic films cool, Orson Welles made this masterpiece. Mr. Welles is the most influential filmmaker in the history of cinema. The visual style of Citizen Kane as well as the nonlinear, multiperspective approach to storytelling was created by him. Before mockumentary or found footage was conceived by anyone else, Orson Welles created The Other Side of the Wind, which is a highly misunderstood masterpiece. No Mt. Rushmore of filmmakers should be without Orson Welles. He was a creator of masterpieces. Citizen Kane, the lost version of The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil (1998 Reconstructed version, which is the closest we have to his version), The Trial, Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight), The Other Side of the Wind, all masterpieces.

@eastmanfeatures5412

7 ай бұрын

@@LearningaboutMoviesI’m assuming you bought the recent criterion release?! Lol

@garrettbays6942

2 ай бұрын

​I am assuming that by this point you have purchased Criterion's 4K UHD release of the film.

I 100% agree with you on The Magnificent Ambersons. Some call it a masterpiece and certainly it would have been one of Mr. Welles's masterpieces, but we will forever be denied the honor and pleasure of seeing it due to the fact that some shortsighted thieves from the production company stole, butchered and destroyed Olson's film. I won't even watch the film. If I had a vast fortune, I would give nearly all of it to see The Magnificent Ambersons that the man, the genius, Orson Welles created.

@LearningaboutMovies

Жыл бұрын

thank you.

@anthonyanderson2405

Жыл бұрын

Flawed as it might be, The Magnified Ambersons remains one of my favorite films ever.

@ericjohnson9623

Жыл бұрын

Everyone is entitled to watch what they want, but IMO refusing to watch Ambersons at all is silly. If you really want to be respectful to Welles, watch it up until a second major character dies; that's the exact moment Welles says in interviews, "It becomes another picture, it became their picture." People exaggerate HOW much RKO really changed. Up until 2/3 in, minor nips and tucks and deleted scenes aside (which all films have), it is Welles' vision. Even the final 1/3 has real Welles footage, just put in the wrong spots and intercut with one or two other scenes by other people. Also, how do you even know it could have been a masterpiece and "an honor and a pleasure" if you have not even seen the butchered version? You may not even like the story or Welles' more languid filmmaking style compared to the energy of Kane or Chimes at Midnight. Plenty of people (not me!) genuinely hate Tim Holt's character and performance in the first half of the film, which is accurate to Welles' intentions. I want the full cut back as much as anyone. I genuinely love what Welles was doing and think his version would have been miles better, miles and miles, but I feel like some people are more interested in the idea of this lost Orson Welles holy grail than they are actually interested in seeing Welles' original, not from Tarkington conclusion to Eugene Morgan and Fanny Minafer. By not watching it, all you are doing is depriving yourself from seeing the existing footage Welles did shot, which I think are among the best of his career. For you, it becomes a fully lost film instead of a partially lost one. EDIT: Misspelled Minafer.

@annaclarafenyo8185

3 ай бұрын

@@ericjohnson9623 It's not Welles' film because of the cut ballroom scene. The ballroom scene was originally one full reel, with no cuts. That herculean effort, consider just the rehearsal time and precise crane time-management, was erased by cutting the reel, and it's heartbreaking. That's in the first third, so you can't say Welles' version was untouched.

That picture of all the office workers together in one open room should be the page image for "Kafkaesque" on Wikipedia.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

hey, go for it. try to edit the page!

Orson Welles, so few comments. the world is in trouble.

@LearningaboutMovies

4 жыл бұрын

we'll get there. he is not popular on youtube, which is generally true of everything in film before 1970. this channel is attempting to rectify that.

@amb1245

3 жыл бұрын

The rest is silence.

@danmalic6688

Жыл бұрын

why are you surprised?

@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633

4 ай бұрын

It is. Pple are getting dumber.

Best movie version of "The Trial" is Orson Welles version and also most true to the book. I think Kafka would have approved. The ending is different but Welles explains why he changed it as "when Kafka wrote it, Holocaust had not happened". It makes a lot of sense. Also even he did not direct it in the fascinating film noir, "The Third Man" Orson Welles had great influence.

Welles himself considered “Chimes At Midnight” his best work. I agree. But I really enjoyed his “Macbeth” and “Othello,” as well.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

Othello is a fascinating looking movie

1955 Moby Dick, Orson plays Father Mapples. I didn't know who this Father Mapples was played by? I was taken back how good the church scene was. Orson stole the show... I am a fan now.

@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633

4 ай бұрын

aback

I love all of the Welles films I've seen because he put you inside the picture in very imaginative ways. I saw bits and pieces of his version of Kafka's novel The Trial on TV years ago, and it was and remains the only film -- I saw a completely restored version on a special channel on www.youtube.com a year ago? --that really seemed to be a dream because in our dreams something's always happening and we can never figure out what, or where we are. I'm not talking fake dream sequences ala Ingmar Bergman's color coded ones in his Cries and Whispers. And -- my dreams are always produced in "living" color in obsessively used locations, and make no sense. His two black and white Shakespeare films -- Macbeth and Othello --are better than any of the other Shakespeare films I've seen because they put you inside the characters in the story. Everything seems real, and frequently frightening, as in a dream, and even his Citizen Kane plays like that.

Welles was film's best actor. We forget that, because is directing was so stupendous. He played Kane from ages 19-65 without a hitch...when he was 25.....Directing one's self in any medium is extremely difficult, yet Orson did it time and time again, with wonderful results....

After Citizen Kane, on television and in film, you began to see ceilings on sets. Before that, not so much.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

didn't know that. interesting.

Welles is great, thanks for your analysis. For me, the number 1 Welles movie is "Touch of Evil"

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

you're welcome.

@BuzzSuite

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies - of course I like the restored version (from 1998) of 'touch of evil' which was recut according the Welles wishes "(quote)A new version, running 111 minutes, has been restored by Universal and debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in September 1998. This version has been re-edited according to Orson Welles' original vision, as outlined in a 58-page memo that the director wrote to Universal studio head Edward Muhl in 1957, after Muhl took editing out of Welles' hands. The new version has been prepared by editor by Walter Murch, sound recordists Bill Varney, Peter Reale and Murch, and picture restorer Bob O'Neil under the supervision of Rick Schmidlin and film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum. One difference between the two versions is that the famous opening tracking shot is now devoid of credits and Henry Mancini's music, featuring only sound effects." www.imdb.com/title/tt0052311/alternateversions

As an actor, I really liked Welles in The Third Man, Kane, and Touch of Evil.

Yay F for Fake! 😄😄 F for Fake and The Stranger are my two favorites! I also really liked The Other Side of the Wind. I look forward to watching The Trial, Touch of Evil, and searching for Mr Arkadin the Criterion edit! Thank you for uploading your great insightful videos. I sure hope they make a 4K restoration of The Trial! It's so interesting that it's hard to find the right cuts or versions of some of his movies

@LearningaboutMovies

5 ай бұрын

thank you. The Trial did come out in a really nice Bluray from Criterion a few months ago.

I watched Charlie Chapins - The Circus last night. Was suprised to see a mirror sequence in that and wondered if it was a big influence for Welle's scene in the Lady from Shanghai!

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

a strong chance. Welles was a student of the masters before him. Perhaps the mirror shot in Kane even comes from that.

The two perfect movies 1a> Touch of Evil (reconstructed criterion edit) 1b> Chimes at Midnight. 3) Trial 4) Arkadin 5) citizen kane... I view Welles as an an editor who could cut together the perfect scene, but he was indecisive on how he wanted the overall story to be cut/edited. And some movies he is constantly rearranging, and by indecision, is going over budget, and then virtually inviting the studio to come in and whack their own edit...

@michaelmichniak127

Жыл бұрын

Touch of Evil had so many wonderful staring and supporting actors too. Marlene Dietrich just blew me away!

@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633

4 ай бұрын

@@michaelmichniak127starring

The Trial and The Magnificent Ambersons are my two favorite Orson Welles films, and when Criterion released Studio + Canal's long awaited 4K UHD release of The Trial, I was cheering. It was so exciting to see the film with a clean picture, and clear audio. In regards to The Magnificent Ambersons, I used to think that the film would be better in its original version, but in after listening to the new commentary for the lovely Criterion release of the film, I honestly couldn't say it would be better. However, I definitely agree that Orson's original, more somber ending was more appropriate for the film, and I definitely could have done without Roy Webb's music to the re-shot scenes, especially the ending (though I do love a lot of Roy Webb's scores for films when he was the primary composer, and find him to be very underappreciated). The two other films that I love from Welles are F for Fake and Mr. Arkadin.

I watched the trial today and was blown away by it, granted I couldn't really tell what was happening but Anthony perkins was fabulous and I loved it magnificent film

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

yes!

This is a superb analysis.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

thank you.

Thank you Dr. Josh. As a huge fan of Orson Welles' work since childhood this is one of my favourite video that you made. So Here's My Ranking on Welles' films with a rating that i gave them. 1. Citizen Kane (1941) 9.7/10 (Pure Cinematic Landmark) 2. The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) 9.4/10 3. Chimes at Midnight (1965) 9.2/10 4. F for Fake (1973) 9.1/10 5. Touch of Evil (1958) 9.0/10 6. The Lady of Shanghai (1947) 8.8/10 7. The Trial (1962) 8.7/10 8. Macbeth (1948) 8.5/10 9. Mr. Ardkin (1955) 8.4/10 10. The Other Side of the Wind (2018) 8.4/10 11. The Strangers (1946) 8.2/10 12. The Immortal Story (1968) 7.8/10 13. Othello (1951) 7.1/10 14. Journey Into Fear (1943) 6.8/10

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

you're welcome. I've never seen Journey into Fear -- will have to track that down.

@kevzsabz8253

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies YES. Journey into Fear in general is hard to find. And i'm happy that you appreciate my ranking. 😊😊👍👍

@georgelaing2578

Жыл бұрын

It is "The Stranger", singular.

someone on youtube did a critical narration watching Ambersons describing the story of how the movie was butchered, which parts were likely changed (most of the 2nd half) and talking about the brilliant instances of film-making (most in the first). the narration is a bit uneven but is an interesting exercise in detailing all that was lost, some historicity, and many anecdotes and speculation on what occurred.

I would love a video like this for Alfred Hitchcock or Howard Hawks

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

me too! One of these summers, I'll sit down to watch all of Hitchcock again, a 3-week deep-dive. Usually it takes me a lot of time to make these director videos. Hawks is possible as well. thank you for the request.

@t__a246

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies in my opinion rear window its his best its so ahead of its time !!!!

An HQ version of The Trial exists, but it's only available on a really rare region 2 disc! StudioCanal really needs to get around to a rerelease. Great video btw!

@LearningaboutMovies

4 жыл бұрын

thank you. Wow, is that HD version the one on Amazon that says "Region B Import -- France"? That's the only one I found. $33 is not terribly unreasonable, but perhaps it is dubbed in French? It's better than my terrible DVD copy, which you see in the video.

@anons_anonymous

4 жыл бұрын

​@@LearningaboutMovies Yes, that's the one! I've seen clips of this restoration and it's in English, so I think that even if there is a French dub it's just an option. You'd just have to get a region-free player to watch it.

@franjes9999

3 жыл бұрын

Mubi has a pretty decent version of it on their platform that's how I watched it

I really loved Chimes at Midnight - For Independant/Furtive Film Making.

Gregg Toland was a great photographer, and Robert Wise was a great film editor for Welles, at least for Kane. Welles was a neophyte during production of Citizen Kane and was very honest about it. I actually love his Macbeth the best. Great content here!

@michaelmcdonagh5104

Жыл бұрын

Yes. His Macbeth was wonderfully imagined and superbly staged, as was his Othello . People going on and on about his money problems is usually just gossip. Do they want him to fail so they can feel better about themselves ?

@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633

4 ай бұрын

@@michaelmcdonagh5104That is the tragedy of geniuses. The envious and mediocre want to pull them down. But in so doing they pull themselves down.

My favorite is the stranger, even though welles hated it

Charli Chaplin in his movie the circus there was a chamber of multimirrors scene in 1928 that is before lady from shanghigh .if any credit it goes to Charli Chaplin

Thank you! - Mary

@LearningaboutMovies

Жыл бұрын

you're welcome. I appreciate you watching -- many thanks.

Great video! I think Welles's stories would be stronger with the more painstaking approach to screen writing that became more common in the late 60s and 70s, with more even less condensed pacing. Touch of Evil is great, but far too condensed. That's a 3 hour plot cut nearly in half.

1. Citizen Kane 2. Macbeth 3. Jane Eyre (that kiss!!!) 4. The Third Man Great talent!! Sorely missed.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

excellent! he will be portrayed again soon in the new movie "Mank."

@cfbilly70

3 жыл бұрын

The Third Man is a bit cheating now isn't it.

I like the movie that Welles said was his least favorite, which is The Stranger. I wanted to like Mr. Arkadin so much, because I love movies like this set in Europe such as Carol Reed's The Third Man, and The Man Between. But it just seemed a bit inferior to what I was expecting. Othello is super cool but the dubbing in post really kind of detracted from it. I am so looking forward to the Criterion release of The Trial. I will absolutely purchase that one!

Thanks for an informative and entertaining video. But how can a film be too moralistic? If it's giving a lesson that is true, what's the problem? I don't find CK to be moralistic anyway. It's more about lost innocence....that the guy was taken from an idyllic childhood, and spent the rest of his life suffering for it, despite all his wealth and "success". It's a psychological study.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

Because there are at least a couple dozens aspects of reality - the psychological, the aesthetic, the mathematical, and so on -- and morals/ethics is just one aspect of many. If a film emphasizes one over the others, it's a parable perhaps, useful, though usually not as complex as much of the other great art of its period (the 20th century). I look for a film to have a strong moral aspect plus as many others as it can get. I don't know what I said about CK's moralism; I just find it to be somewhat judgmental and heavy-handed about how the Hearst-figure, and other tycoon-like figures, lived their lives. That's okay, but if you study the period of time in which it came out, it's affirming its own zeitgeist, which is not particularly courageous or unique.

Welles would agree with the Rashomon comparison, but he would also admit that he didn't manage to pull it off: Kane is really the same person no matter who tells the story. I think it's in "This Is Orson Welles" where he mentions that. He also hated the whole Rosebud hook, he considered it a cheap trick.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

see, I think everything is mediated in Kane, whether Welles was aware or not. Print and radio and giant signs tell you who people are. People can be turned into words; thus the actual people (e.g., Kane) are mysteries. When you have the storytellers, obviously each of them tells their piece about Kane. Is it possible to say that the storyteller, or mediator, skews the story? I think so! Because the movie clearly demonstrates that that's the case with other media, such as newspapers. Was Welles a postmodernist, on the verge of it, or does Kane allow us to put all the pieces together into one puzzle? Your mention of Welles believing the last is interesting, but he could be read the other ways, perhaps.

@moriahjacobs6131

3 жыл бұрын

Movies are entertainment. Welles may have downplayed his wriiting/acting prowess, but he fooled me and millions of others. He was photographic, played his lines well and will remain unforgettable when I am long gone...

But what about The Other Side of the Wind? That movie was inspiring

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

worth mentioning. thank you for bringing it up!

@user-wj8tf3kq4m

Жыл бұрын

Porno movie. pity for welles

How was Macbeth messed with ? Do you mean the Version we have or the tight Budget and 23 days of filming ? Because we got the original audiotrack + longer Version, which I recently watched and I thought was amazing. I Think how it looks really captures the Theater feel and makes it one of the more authentic Shakespeare adaptation out there ^^

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

I don't remember what I said in the video. Welles didn't have final cut and the movie was released drastically altered, iirc. I bet the answer is easily searchable.

@Fejrus887

2 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies That is true, because it got a second release in 1950 with changes made to the audio track and cutting. But the original cut has been restored since 1980 with its original audiotrack and longer Version. I have a bluray copy of the Film, where you can both watch the original longer 1948 cut and the truncated changed 1950 cut. That is why I was so confused of you saying that xD

Mr Arkadin is wonderful. Reminds me of a student film made by a master if that makes any sense. It has a herky jerky slapdash feeling that a student might make. The Lady From Shanghai was butchered by the studio but still has a lot going for it. In the beginning you said all his movies after Kane were later recut and changed by studios but I think Touch Of Evil (one of my 13 all time favorite films) was only changed very slightly and Welles was pleased when he saw the recut version the first time. Ambersons was completely butchered by the studio. If only we could have seen the cut Welles intended---possibly it could have equaled Kane in its magnificence. Chines is wonderful too. The battle scenes on a low budget are spectacular.

@LearningaboutMovies

Жыл бұрын

thank you.

Leo DiCaprio should play Orson Welles that would be fantastic. And by the way The Third man should be on the list

@LearningaboutMovies

Жыл бұрын

Welles did not direct The Third Man though.

@Nighthawk-8050

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies that's right he didn't my mistake thank you my friend

@clumsydad7158

Жыл бұрын

somebody did Orson in Mank, on Netflix - he was Ok, but that's a behemoth ask to play Orson, young or old !

my favourite welles movie is the other side of the wind

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

I have questions about whether this is a Welles or a Welles/Bogdonovich/other movie.

this may be an unpopular opinion but I'm a huge fan of Welles' style in his late films like F for Fake or The Other Side of the Wind. I guess they aren't liked as much, as people when watching Welles, expect artistry defined by exquisite craftsmanship but I have nothing against Welles experimenting with the medium.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

reasonable. "F for Fake" is fresher, in terms of editing, than just about anything ever.

I finally citzen kane in cinema The movie never felt dated for second

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

no it does not. It's still relevant and fresh, imo.

@clumsydad7158

Жыл бұрын

great call, still ahead of its time 80+ years later

One question.Why are videos 6 and 7 missing.?

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

videos 6 and 7? not sure which you are referring to. are you talking about links in the video, in the description, or somewhere else.

@JHarder1000

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies Iam referring to the fact that videos 6and 7 in yor list of great directors jhave been set to private. I amniot bashing you. It is just I cannot unerstand why someone would create a an putatively interesting video, and thn set it to "private", so no -one else can watch it.

Really well done. For me, my top 3 Welles are.... Ambersons Touch of Evil Citizen Kane Still haven't seen The Trial or Chimes, looking forward to it someday. Ambersons was butchered, but take away the last 10 minutes, and it's still a pretty magical film. Hopefully someday we get to see what Orson wanted us to see.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

thank you. see what you think with later Welles, arguably better than younger Welles.

@franjes9999

3 жыл бұрын

Its unfortunate but its highly unlikely the 40 minute third act Welles wanted was butchered and largely lost

@richardsiciliano7117

3 жыл бұрын

@@franjes9999 Turner Classic Movies has sent some people to Brazil on some hope of finding a print. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

@franjes9999

3 жыл бұрын

@@richardsiciliano7117 i hope it turns up i couldn't imagine losing 40 minutes out of Kubrick or Tarantino or Scorceses masterpieces it's agregious what Hollywood did to Welles

@richardsiciliano7117

3 жыл бұрын

@@franjes9999 Welles was simply on a different level than so many of the important people of Hollywood. They were in awe and jealous of his gifts and that led to outright hatred. But then again, Welles could definitely ruffle feathers.

. . . "The Stranger" is not included? Belongs in his top five films. (...to me.) -- Neil K

The Magnificent Ambersons is easily my favorite. I completely understand and agree with your points. I want the original version as much as anyone; I own Robert Carringer's book of the cutting continuity and the full Bernard Herrmann soundtrack is my favorite Herrmann score after Vertigo, its best piece (Second Letter Scene) not even in the final film. Nevertheless, even in its bastardized, butchered form, I find it more hypnotic and engaging than any other film on this list, even Kane. There is something magical about the premise and the characters that shines through. Welles himself said the film is more or less still his picture up until Major Amberson dies, and even then there is still Welles shot footage all over the place, just jumbled and rearranged and intercut with non Welles footage. While I would never say what happened was good, I also think there is something tragically funny about a film that is all about the loss of a golden age just out of reach being a film whose perfected form is just out of reach too. You can juuuuust enough get an idea what Welles wanted to do, but despite seeing the lobby photos, reading the script and cutting continuity, listening to the soundtrack and Welles talk about the film, we will never REALLY know what it is like. There is a painful, bittersweet nostalgia to a past that'll never come back in both the story of Ambersons and the story of making it. Is the final film a better put together film than Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, Chimes at Midnight? No. But RKO imposed flaws and all, it's the one I would turn on if I want to watch a Welles film.

totally agree about Magnificent Ambersons not being on this list. though I would give mention about Third Man, no, true he did not direct it, but often it is consdiered more of a Orson Welles moive than is Carol Reed. NOt that Reed and others are not the true creators of this film. But jmost certainly I think it is his second most famous film taht he was in, after Citizen Kane. Was suprised that Arkadian was at 7. I would have had Othello ahead of it. I feel that when we discover Mr. Arkadian, what happens, and what often happens, the film goes a bit down. I like the film, Also I think one error is made by the gentleman who is presenting this. He says that WElles got Carte Blanche to make what he wanted by RKO. Not true I would say. What he did get, was creative control of the film that they allowed him to make. He first watned to make that Joseph Conrad story, tJOurneyu Insto Darness, which later was the basis of Applocalypse NOW. Also he was supposed to make a thriler, SMILER WITH A KNIFE, but the studio did not belive that Lucille Ball was a big enough star.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 ай бұрын

Thank you

I'd say Citizen Kane,The Stranger,F for Fake and Transformers the Movie as Unicron.

Othello, I felt was his best movie.

Can you say someone was a great editor if you do not know what they left out?

@LearningaboutMovies

8 ай бұрын

this is a great question. And it extends to every aspect of a film, because none of us are privy to what could've been shot/what was shot and left out. So directing, acting, etc.

Haha. You were talking about the Donald. But he has no Marion Davies to love him.

1. Citizen Kane 2. Touch of Evil 3. Magnificent Ambersons 4. The Lady from Shanghai 5. F for Fake I just watched F for Fake, it was a confusing and slightly annoying experience. It was something different, it is unique and it is most surely not bad, but man, it really wasnt an enjoyable film. My least favorite Welles film so far.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

good list. F for Fake is a movie that deserves a lecture or two perhaps before you watch it, lectures that might enhance your viewing experience. It's not for everybody as a naked watch. But it is spot on about many aspects of the nature of video, and it predicts pretty much everything you hear today about fake news and media narratives.

@cfbilly70

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies I can see its pro's and why people would love it, I was totally in to it the first 30min, but mannn, if I hear someone say Elmyr one more time I'm gonna get on a plane, fly back in time and slap Welles in the face. I would have to give it a 7/10 where it could have been an 8/10.

@clumsydad7158

Жыл бұрын

F for Fake is an interesting discussion, I just watched it recently as well, and yes it is looking more prescient about fake narratives as history rolls on (although there was plenty fake then too). however it has some fairly cheesy sequences and on 'naked' viewing is quite disjointed, and fairly uneven overall. yet in its appearance of slapdash the pace is rapid and one is constantly reevaluating what is going on and where the story is leading, so the viewer is challenged in that way. in the last third there are a few quiet philosophical moments questioning and inspecting the nature of reality and authenticity. and it goes meta in the sense of a movie about deception that in its own story at times deceives the viewer, etc. certainly quite a bit to chew on, in any case