Wellesian Crash

      Orson Welles is the master of the non-linear narrative, and
manages to craft tales that transcend time, and manipulate audiences
for the full dramatic effect. A film that is Wellesian in this sense
is the 2004 film “Crash,” a story told from varied perspectives to
show how small actions impact people in everyday situations. This
film shows how one action can have a ripple effect, damaging or
healing those in the process. Much like in Citizen Kane where the
story of Kane is told from many perspectives, and peers that had a
huge impact in Kane's life, the story is incomplete without the views
and actions of other people. In Crash each character has their own
lives to live and interact with others in, and racial stereotypes and
bigotry change the trajectory of everyday people. This film is told
in a non-linear manner, and this is illustrated clearly in the
trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=durNwe9pL0E
    

    This film is unique in the sense that it begins at the ending, much
like Citizen Kane where the undercover detective's brother is found
dead in a car under mysterious circumstances, leaving the audience to
piece together what has occurred over the course of the film. In one
memorable scene, Daniel Ruiz, a local Latino handyman is hired to fix
a shopkeeper's door that is chronically forced open by gang-bangers in
the neighborhood. Ruiz mentions that he cannot fix the door without
the proper parts, and will have to come back the following day. An
undercover detective's (Don Cheadle) brother runs with a rough crowd
and ransacks the shopkeeper's storefront, gutting the insides of all
valuables. The shopkeeper, Farhad takes the address of Ruiz's home
and goes to confront him, as his inability to repair the door causes
Farhad to lose his business. Farhad goes to shoot Ruiz with a handgun
(he purchased to protect his shop), until Ruiz's daughter jumps in the
way to protect her father. The audience assumes that Ruiz's daughter
has died, until we are relieved to discover Farhad had blanks in the
gun. This tense scene is Wellesian in two ways: 1) The actions of
many people have tragic and (nearly) unfortunate circumstances, that
all tie up in the ending sequences of the film. 2) The film
manipulates the audience's expectations and uses the (near) death of
an innocent girl for the utmost dramatic effect. This film is
gripping on many levels, and when viewing this film through a
Wellesian lens, we can see how modern films are still influenced by
this great director's style.

Welles and Nolan

Welles as a director is well known for his use of mise-en-scene’s low-key lighting in Touch of Evil and the diegetic time sequence consisting of flashbacks and flash forwards in Citizen Kane. He creates complex storylines which are slowly unraveled, but not fully until the end. Similarly, modern day director Christopher Nolan can be seen using some of these same concepts in movies like Memento.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vS0E9bBSL0

In this trailer of Memento, Nolan’s use of two parallel storylines which intersect at the end, one in black and white and the other in color, is similar to what Welles did years ago. Citizen Kane’s storyline is told mainly to Thompson the reporter through the use of flashbacks told by people who previously knew Kane. In Memento, the film’s story is pieced together by the main character Leonard who suffers from short term memory loss condition known as anterograde amnesia. In both movies, characters discover the storyline simultaneously along with the audience. The black and white shots can also be compared to Welles’s in Touch of Evil.

Touch of Evil features low-key lighting which creates stark contrasts between black and white. This use of mise-en-scene can also be found in Memento’s black and white shots making certain characters faces dark in concurrence with the character’s actions and the unfolding storyline. Touch of Evil can be viewed as James Naremore puts it, “Touch of Evil begins shifting back and forth between the legal plot and the sexual plot, between Vargas’s idealistic concern for justice and Suzy’s gradual descent into the Los Robles underworld.” Similarly, Memento has one chronological storyline shown in black and white and another storyline moving in reverse order shown in color. In both films, there is a scene towards the end which ties the parallel storylines together.

While not as complex as the story of Memento, Welles used this style of parallelism in his films to create dramatic thrillers years before Nolan was even born. Nowadays, many directors employ this use of multiple stories wrapped under a single overarching plot. Welles found ways in which the camera could add to a character’s persona such as through low-key lighting. The stark contrast between light and dark is used in Touch of Evil to amplify the evil in characters like Quinlan and Grandi and the good of Susie for example. If anything has become evident to me about Welles this semester, it is that he was a pioneer director who’s techniques and style have had a profound effect on the industry for years and will for the foreseeable future.

Welles vs Rosenburg

While watching Citizen Kane, the element that stands out to me the most is the cinematography and the lighting. Reading how Welles achieved some shots, such as cutting holes in the floor, is simply inspiring to me. Here is a clip that visually explains what I am talking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9KPd_HgoQw&feature=related... (the audio itself is dubbed, so you can just mute it while watching it). You can truly see how his technical skills and vision are able to intensify what is being shown on screen. Welles also was a master of lighting. Without the use of his knowledge of low-key lighting, Citizen Kane would not be as well known as it is. Just like his use of cinematography, he is able to increases the visual appeal of each shot, just by placing a single light in the correct spot. Take the scene in which Kane fires Jedediah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeqAXas-oA&feature=related... Notice the one light that focuses the audience's attention on Jedediah, but not to much to take away from Kane's ominous presence in the corner. Welles was both a master of cinematography and light, and truly opened the door for creativity in the film world.

The one director I think about when comparing Welles vs. another director is Stuart Rosenburg. If you do not know who that is, it is the director of Cool Hand Luke. I believe a lot of people's initial reaction to this comparison is that Welles and Rosenburg have nothing in common. Stylistically, Citizen Kane and Cool Hand Luke are exact opposites. However, I believe that each director shares one important quality, and that is creativity. Both of these directors came out into the film industry, and did things no one would ever think of. Rosenburg's main area of creativity came from his lighting. Take this video for example, around the 4:20 mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z8HqqCyO9E&feature=player_embedded#at=138... Rosenburg's use of over exposure is something no director would ever dare attempt. Despite that, his use of exposure amplified the audience's connection with the character. Rosenburg's use of obscure angles was also another sign of his creativity. I can not find a video of it, but anyone who has seen the film will know what I am talking about. There is a scene in Cool Hand Luke that reminds me of the shot from Citizen Kane of the broken snow globe reflecting the doorway. The scene is of the reflection of the glasses worn by "the man".

Both Welles and Rosenburg have one thing in common. Their knowledge of cinematography and lighting truly amplify the themes and moods the wish to express through their films.

Orson Welles and David Fincher

Even if your opinion of Orson Welles is less that complimentary, it is hard to say that he wasn’t a man of talent and vision. His still is unique and he is not one to be perfectly copied but he has left his mark in cinema history. This is a mark that many directors pick up on and try to mirror. I find David Fincher to be one of those directors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgFWXLN-ug

This is a link to the trail for Fight Club. Both Fincher and Welles took popular books and turned them into movies. If you’ve never seen Fight Club, the trailer sums up the premise. This is a man living a dull life and one day something extraordinary happens to him. New people come into his life and soon it becomes chaotic and confused. Most of all, it becomes dangerous and deadly. This is the same basic premise for The Trial, just under varying circumstances. Welles and Fincher have not only adapted these books onto the big screen but they have also put their own spin on it.

First off, both movies are against something common in society. In The Trial, it is the way the law works and how no matter how much one tries, it is hard to get around it. In Fight Club, the problem is society buying into corporate standards for clothes, cars and even coffee. The move hits on those who sell out to make money and attacks them. Both of these movies show a true passion for what the message of the book was. It plays just as well on screen as it does throughout the novels.

Fincher and Welles both changed pivotal scenes in their movies for courtesy to those watching. Naremore says that Welles changed the ending of the Trial from the brutal stabbing to the explosion because it was so close to the end of the Holocaust and Kafka, though not practicing, was Jewish. In Fight Club, there is a scene where Brad Pitt’s character and Edward Norton’s character are taking about homemade recipes on making a bomb. In the book, Cuck Palahnuik writes the real recipe out for readers. Fincher decided, as an element of public safety, to cut that out and put in a fictitious recipe. Both directors, without ruining the integrity of both scenes, made changes to the story out of common courtesy. Watching the movies, you would never know the difference. Both scenes are just powerful as the way they play out in the books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ8imPmQ0js

This is another clip that I found interesting. It’s long, it contains some spoilers, but it shows how twisted Fight Club can get. Much like the scene in The Trial with the young girls eyes staring through the slates of wood. The character of Hastler and Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden play the same role in both of these movies. I have no proof that Fincher finds inspiration in Welles but the characters are portrayed in a similar light. In the movie, they are the voice of reason. They tell the main characters how it is or how it should be. Hastler, in the end, reveals the parable of the Law and K. becomes fed up, just like Edward Norton’s character does in the later scenes of Fight Club.

Lastly, a lot of the scenes in both of these movies are mind blowing. The confusion and paranoia resonates off of the screen when you view both of these films. When K. leaves Titorelli’s home and finds that it is connected to the law offices, it is not only mind blowing but so confusing and unreal. Near the end of Fight Club, there is a scene between Pitt and Norton that is so chaotic it’s hard to grasp what is really going on. I don’t want to give anything away just in case, but look it up. It’s fantastic. And I get the same feeling from that scene that I get from the scene from The Trial.

Orson Welles vs. Quentin Tarantino

Orson Welles changed the way the general public thought about film and cinematography. He had a unique way of filming that made him stand out on his own. Like Welles, Quentin Tarantino has made a name for himself among the film community.

Welles had several signature ideas that made a movie feel as if it were his. He like extreme long takes, would often frame a character in a window or door, and he is often thought of as inventing the ceiling in motion picture. Tarantino has taken some of these elements and infused them within his own style. Often times Tarantino will follow one character in his movies with a long take. Typically this character is of importance or has an important story line. Like Welles, he can also make the viewer feel uncomfortable at times due to the space he chooses to do a scene or the camera angles he uses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd4VSkj0Wks

This scene from Pulp Fiction shows some of the style Tarantino likes to use. The beginning is done with an upshot following Ringo across the table. Welles was often knows for his use of upshots which show the ceiling of the space he’s working in. Almost all of the shots of Yolanda are upshots and show the ceiling as well. It makes for a cramped space which Welles was a fan of. In the clip at around 3:34, Tarantino shows Jules, Ringo, and Yolanda all in the same frame. One is in the foreground, middle, and background. Often in Welles’s movies he lined his characters up where there was one in every area of the frame, like as he did in Macbeth when MacDuff finds out his family has been murdered.

Welles also used a variety of sets, either on location or on a sound stage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-czwy-aVbbU&feature=related

The trailer of Kill Bill shows the various sets Tarantino used. This movie transports the viewer to a world that almost doesn’t seem real. Kill Bill 2 features almost dream-like sequences that are shot in black and white. Like Welles’s version of The Trial, the viewer is taken on a rollercoaster that keeps them guessing as what will come next. Some scenes of Kill Bill make the viewer think Tarantino doesn’t mind if they know it wasn’t shot on location, also like Welles’s, Macbeth, which clearly demonstrates it was shot on a sound stage.

Both Welles and Tarantino have a very unique style that has transformed the world of film. A movie can now feel “Wellesian” or when speaking about a film people might say a director “Tarantino’d it.” Both directors were and are talented in their field. I believe Welles inspired Tarantino, much in the way Tarantino will then inspire a new director.

Orson Welles vs. Francis Ford Coppola

Orson Welles was definitely one of his own. He had his own traits and styles that made his movies incredibly unique, paving the road for following directors. He not only directed, but played multiple roles in the movie making process. Welles made a revolutionary impact that changed parts of film forever. I chose to compare him to Francis Ford Coppola for similar reasons. He too changed film in ways that revolutionized movie making as a whole. Like Welles, he had many successful films and received numerous nominations, as well as some awards. I also like to think that they each contributed a breakthrough film, with Citizen Kane for Welles and The Godfather for Coppola. Each brought their own style and creativity to the table, making them two incredibly unique individuals, whether working on a film or in their everyday life. Both film makers were some of the biggest influences in Hollywood during their time.

Welles not only made significant strides in storylines, but he also made significant advances in filming, itself. He introduced different techniques of camera angles, close ups, long shots, creating the illusion of small spaces, like we’ve discussed in class. These techniques are used in pretty much every since Orson’s time. Coppola may not have been as significant when it comes to the actual filming, but his work on screenplays was just as influential. His movie The Godfather created a whole new take on the gangster genre of movie making, giving Coppola universal acknowledgement and accreditation, jumpstarting his already promising career.

The influence of Welles has appeared in hundreds of films since his time. His style techniques of filming have become almost second nature in films. The effect of ceilings has basically become standard, and his use of long shots created a foundation for following filmmakers to expand one, having entire scenes done it just one shot. The way he used close ups for a type of dramatic effect has become incredibly prominent in drama films. They captivate the emotion just the way he intended.

I chose The Godfather clip because it captures a few different styles of Coppola. It was also a scene that was a huge part of the movie, showcasing his incredibly screenwriting talent. I also thought it was so cool the way he incorporated the sound of the train right before the gunshot. It added an extra suspense. When watching this clip, I definitely have a sense of the intensity that Orson Welles brought to his movies, which Coppola also had a unique way of doing.

Blog Topic 2

I will be at a conference, so there will be NO CLASS on Weds 3/9. As such, you will be having your class online through the blog ...

The primary post of at least 400 words is due by Friday 3/11, Noon
Secondary posts are due by 3/13, Midnight


Throughout the first half of this term, we examined Orson Welles and his directorial style. Consider another filmmaker that appeared post-Welles that feels influenced by the visual and narrative style of Welles’ work.

Locate a clip or trailer online and include it in your primary blog post. Using some of the ideas established in Naremore and/or other readings from class, where can you see influence of Welles in the history of cinema? Be sure to get specific in your analysis.