Comments on: Bea negative

By: dcairns

dcairns — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:41:04 +0000

Thanks for the correction — duly noted.

I’m not sure the Canby review would convert anybody unconvinced by the film. While noting the oddness of the movie, Canby doesn’t really explain it, other than simply asserting that the fragmented editing “works”. I’d like to read something that explains the film’s aesthetic as more than the result of the unusual and difficult filming conditions…

By: Jeff Brooks

Jeff Brooks — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:48:41 +0000

Welles did not divorce Beatrice’s mother. He remained legally married to Paola until his death.

I have to disagree with Elver re: “Othello.” It’s dazzling. Anyone interested should read Vincent Canby’s rave review in the NYTimes in 1992. He correctly says the film is on par with Kane and Ambersons.

And while I prefer the un-restored version, which Criterion put out on laserdisc in 1995, the differences are pretty subtle.

By: dcairns

dcairns — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:50:03 +0000

Far from being an attempt to make money, Othello was the first film Welles made when he broke free from the studio system. And it took him years to make it, often with his own money. So it was definitely made for love. As for how successful it is — I struggle with Welles’ vision at times, and at other times I love it. Either it’s a patchy, compromised work, or I just haven’t “got it” yet.

The opening sequence is amazing.

One problem with the new music was that it has that ultra-crisp quality of modern recording, so it sort of sits on top of the rest of the sound. That seemed to me an even bigger problem in Touch of Evil, where the new music and effects appear only intermittently and always leapt out at the cinema screening — the problem is muted somewhat by the inadequacy of my TV.

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:47:08 +0000

Read Michael MacLaimmoire’s Put Money in Thy Purse for all the skinny on it’s making, and see Filming Othello — Welles’ last work.

Beatrice played the music too loud. Otherwise a great bizarre movie.

By: Elver

Elver — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:01:30 +0000

I saw the restored Othello quite recently and… It was bad. Even Welles’ acting was downright crappy compared to his best. I was almost bored.

Seeing it made me think about why Welles made the movie in the first place. Was it for someone else? To sell it and make some easy money? Because there’s really no artistic vision that’s being communicated here. At least none that I could detect.

By: dcairns

dcairns — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:15:35 +0000

Bea wouldn’t make anything from restored films except Othello, which is the only one she owns (Welles may not have left her lots of money but he left her a film.) She should make more money out of that by releasing the UN restored version alongside the modified one.

By: m

Wed, 07 May 2008 21:06:50 +0000

Bugger couldn#t Beatrice MAKE money out of the restored films ? thinking of DVD sales etc…

In Scotland you cannot disinhert your children or spouce by law. However of course lawyers fees etc for contesting wills tends to use up the estate rapidly.

I’m a huge fan of A TOUCH OF EVIL thanks to Authorship in the Cinema Stirling Uni course