thomasjerome
Based
Posts: 3,132
Likes: 2,753
Member is Online
|
Post by thomasjerome on Dec 1, 2020 13:14:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 1, 2020 14:42:01 GMT
Orson Welles scholar Joseph McBride weighs in on the film, and is highly critical of its portrayal of Welles, pointing out distortions and instances of dramatic license in the script. He also gives an overview of the history of negative portrayals of Welles onscreen, which is interesting. An excerpt: Give me a fucking break
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Dec 1, 2020 22:52:36 GMT
I was just lucky enough to see this on the big screen at my local indie cinema. Glad I was able to support them before they have to close down yet again on Friday.
This is at its best when focusing on Mankiewicz’s radicalisation throughout the 30s and especially the scenes regarding the 1934 California gubernatorial election. Whenever it concentrates on the actual writing of Citizen Kane, it loses its way. This is especially felt during the final 40 minutes (ish) when it just drags to a sorry finish. Oldman is servicable. He plays drunk quite well, but there isn’t much more to his portrayal. Amanda Seyfried is just luminous whenever she’s on screen and steals the film for me. I’d support a Best Supporting Actress win despite the fact she doesn’t have a whole lot to do at all. I doubt this wins anything other than a handful of (well-deserved) technical awards.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 2, 2020 4:32:00 GMT
Orson Welles scholar Joseph McBride weighs in on the film, and is highly critical of its portrayal of Welles, pointing out distortions and instances of dramatic license in the script. He also gives an overview of the history of negative portrayals of Welles onscreen, which is interesting. An excerpt: There definitely sounds like there's going to be a lot of revisionism here, which is disappointing. Ultimately Welles kept what he wanted from his own drafts and used what he wanted from Mankiewicz's and also arranged the scenes in the order they are in, which is obviously really important given the non-linear structure. He made all the dramatic choices, plus had 300 pages of notes that all the drafts of the script were based on that he wrote before Mankiewicz even got involved. I've never heard anyone with first hand knowledge of the situation dispute this. The dispute between Welles and Mankiewicz was that he claimed he'd written about 70-80 percent of the finished scenes and dialogue in the film, and thus deserved writing credit whereas Welles said it was more like 50-50. I think they both have a point as to whether or not Mankiewicz deserved to be a full credited writer. People don't realize that a lot of people might work on a screenplay and not receive a full "written by" credit. That usually goes to the person/people who actually arranged the finished screenplay even if they didn't personally write a lot of the movie. Also, Fincher's jabs at Welles are just lame. I like Fincher, but he sure as hell ain't Welles, who is one of the singular directors and visual stylists ever in the medium. Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Eisenstein, and Lynch might be the few people I'd consider peers with him. It's like Wynton Marsalis taking shots at Miles Davis in the 80's, it just makes him look dumb. One is a talented craftsman, the other revolutionized the medium you both use and is one of the defining artists of the 20th century, show some respect.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 3, 2020 5:33:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 3, 2020 18:03:18 GMT
Fincher is fucking delusional. Again, Welles conceived of the movie and wrote 300 pages of notes before Mankiewicz ever came on board, which is what Mankiewicz was basing his drafts on. Welles assembled the finished screenplay alone based on drafts they both wrote. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Mankiewicz deserved sole writing credit. It's debatable whether Mankiewicz deserved a screenwriting credit at all although if Welles drew as big a percentage of the final script from his drafts as he claimed I can understand why he'd be pissed about being left off. This is starting to sound like it's going to be a full on work of fiction. The only reason someone would fall for this "OMG, Welles didn't actually write Citizen Kane!!" contrarianism is if you have no idea how the screenwriting process works.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 3, 2020 18:33:07 GMT
So, is that a main plot of the movie also or just Fincher's personal opinion?
Because if it's only him, I don't think it will be a good awards strategy to say such controversial things about Citizen Kane.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 3, 2020 22:14:02 GMT
This is starting to sound like it's going to be a full on work of fiction. Fincher pulling an Oliver Stone...
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 15, 2021 1:45:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 15, 2021 8:06:13 GMT
Great quote from Fincher in that interview: "Directing movies is a little like painting a watercolor from three blocks away through a telescope with a walkie-talkie and 90 people holding the brush." This part also made me laugh:
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Aug 27, 2021 2:58:52 GMT
|
|