Posted by: Iain Fisher
« on: June 03, 2008, 11:46:26 AM »Ken has started writing for the Tuesday issue of The Times rather than Thursday's issue. I have taken the opportunity to open a new thread. But comments on this one are still welcome.
Land of the Blind is available for streaming on Youtube in eleven 10 minute parts. It's a straight to video film in every aspect but a bit more original than the current big budget blockbusters. Though its theme can be interpreted as anti-American, it's still an American movie: that means it's not enough clever for me – too simple and calculable. Acting is average, sometimes quite bad. Some of the imagery is very "russellish", so I understand why the maestro found it interesting. It could have been a much better film if it were English and had been shot by Ken...
I've always thought that Welles was a much better actor than director. He is purely brilliant even in small but important roles (like in the nowdays little known, though very effective and moving Stuart Rosenberg-drama, Voyage Of The Damned). Citizane Kane has never succeded to win me over. I accept that from a technical point of view it's a groundbreaking effort, but the story is too simple and boring. I've found his obscure adaptation of Shakespeare's Othello a lot more interesting in every aspect. It's a film I can truly recommend to everyone who loves "uneven" movies.
In The Times of 6 Mar 2008 Ken writes about "The genius who started at the top and worked down"- Orson Welles.
There is a new film about Welles, Fade to Black about which Ken says "go and see Fade to Black, made for peanuts and a lot of love". Made for peanuts must appeal to Ken. Ken talks of Citizen Kane "his one and only masterpiece"- a harsh judgemet but maybe correct. I love lots of Welles films, and they show genius, but also fall short. His Macbeth is an example, at times so good but other times worthy but missing something. And it is sad to see Welles acting in really bad films.
Iain