The great Orson Welles in one of his finest roles as the amoral Renaissance prince Cesare Borgia, in the 1949 film Prince of Foxes, in a scene about the power of seduction and the seductions of power.
Orson Welles was such a fantastic director that one forgets how often his acting was of the first magnitude. To my mind he's underrated as an actor and belongs in the top 15 or so of greatest male film actors. I was 17 when I first saw "Citizen Kane" and did not realize that Kane at age 70 was the 25-year-old Welles. What a talent!
I think his acting was often better in other people's films than in his own, though he always seemed quick to denigrate such jobs as journeyman's work to raise funds for his own films.
no matter what role Orson is playing, I soon forget it is Orson and become wholly convinced the character he's playing is more real than the actor behind the role
One of my all time favourite films. I still watch this around once a month, thank goodness I finally found a region 4 copy on dvd for Australians. Welles is unforgettable as the manically cold hearted Cesare Borgia ❤
@@Idjitz Watching the potential candidates swell and shrink with a mixture of emotions during his "Who but a man as quick at deceit as a fox" speech is as entertaining as the speech itself. The camera framing and zooming in on the men's faces as they panic throughout the captivating yet calmly delivered speech is brilliant. I love the contrast of his iconic stentorian voice booming "THEN GO!" when he demands that they all leave except for Andrea Orsini.
I like how Andrea not only picks up Cesare's cup instead of his own, but has the wits to not even drink from THAT one either, just putting it back down as soon as Cesare turns his back.
Welles was the best actor writer director and producer but never received the credit due for just one of these superlatives. The greatest performing artist of all time ...so far
Great performance of Welles. Living in Rome, we recognize the Castello San Angelo's main room with frescoes of Hadrian and San Angelo. What a great film set!
Except some of the frescoes seen were painted after Cesare was already deceased. Still, one could hardly tear down a masterful work of art for the sake of a scene in a movie. And it worked. (btw, later in the film you see the "fictional" city of Cittia del Monti...which was actually the non-fictional mini-nation of Andorra...which still exists.)
Probably not more so than Marlon Brando. And I'm not sure that Wells could have successfully pulled off Vito's accent. Generally whenever he would put on accents he'd often wind up sounding a bit too thespian, a bit to over-dramatic and not entirely realistic/true-to-life. But he just might have had the look down... Idk, it certainly would have been interesting to see Welles at least read for the part.
@@dildonius Welles spoke perfect Italian and spent decades on radio disguising his voice and playing multiple roles in the same show, seamlessly and unrecognizably. He'd have been a far better Godfather than Brando, who had none of Welles' vocal or intellectual discipline.
@@ardalire651 OK? I'm basing my opinion on performances Welles gave in which he portrayed actual Italians. Everything I wrote is still 100% factual. Orson Welles' voice was too iconic and tended to always shine through, especially in his later years. Also by the time _The Godfather_ was produced Welles had already become full-on morbidly obese and was firmly in that era of his life as an actor wherein he would only ever play bit parts to give films star power...and would have the screenwriters always contrive an excuse for him to do the whole scene while sitting in a chair or on a couch. And yet he'd often still sound winded as his heavy breathing was always very audible between lines. And then there's Welles' domineering nature on set and his tendency to unintentionally begin usurping the actual director despite only being hired as an actor. You had better believe that Orson Welles and Francis Ford Coppola would have clashed HARD. At the end of the day, Marlon Brando was born to play Vito Corleone, and Vito Corleone was created to be played by Marlon Brando. It was fate. Simple as that. *COULD* Welles have played Vito? Sure. *SHOULD* Welles have played Vito? Almost certainly not. I don't think there is any alternative version of _The Godfather_ that could ever possibly be better than or even as good as the version that was ultimately produced and released in our reality.
@@dildonius Literally everything you just said is false or based on misinformation about both Welles and Brando. Welles was a fully trained voice actor and frequently disguised his voice to the point where it was unrecognizable--he was very good at it, and I'd bet money there are multiple examples of his work that you've heard and didn't know were him speaking. As I said, he was perfectly capable of toning down his "iconic" recognizability. British stage actors called him a genius for his ability to inhabit different voices. You're also maliciously mischaracterizing his professionalism. If you read accounts from anyone who actually worked with him on set, he NEVER "usurped" power from directors or was "difficult" when he was acting in films. (STage was different--there he had more reason to be demanding, but people worked with him again and again because they lvoed him.) UNLIKE BRANDO he was always on time, always under budget, and regardless of who he was working with he knew his lines and adored other actors. (People base a lot of false myths on that stupid frozen peas commercial that's become a meme, but that's much later, and frankly, Welles was RIGHT that it was badly written ad copy. I'd have walked out, too.) And in the early 70s (when the Godfather was shot) Welles was still healthy enough to be doing elaborate magic tricks on film and other physical roles. Two years before the Godfather he did Catch 22 and was in perfect form. There's simply no truth to your characterization. Essentially, you're basing your opinions on myths and misinformation about Welles that you've culled from quickie internet memes, and you're over-inflating Brando's talents. People forget how unprofessional and worthless Brando was because he was lucky to get directed well in some big pictures. BRANDO, not Welles, was the "difficult" and hard-to-work with diva whom everyone hated on set. From day one he was a total jerk, and it's well documented. Also BRANDO was not physically or mentally able to do most of his roles by the 70s and expected others to carry him, up to and including having his lines written on props so he wouldn't have to memorize them. Just because Brando pulled it off and yes, Godfather is a great film, doesn't mean Welles wouldn't have been miles better. Welles humbly stated he would have loved to have played the role of the Godfather but waited until after it was released and never complained about it or criticized the film. He ALSO publicly said he liked Coppola and repeatedly said in interviews that he enjoyed deferring to directors when he was hired for acting gigs. You can love Brando, but don't make up b.s. about Welles. He was objectively ten times the artist Brando was, and far better to work with on set. There's no question that the Godfather would have been an equally or more interesting film if he'd been in it.
There are those who say that Welles probably did have a hand in the direction of this film, as many of the show-offy, low-angle shots in Prince of Foxes are pretty Wellesian. Not to detract from Henry King's fine direction in this instance, however. Some critics still say that The Third Man was more Welles than Carol Reed in its direction, even to this day.
Thanks for sharing this. Whenever I see a still of Mr. Welles from this film, for some inexplicable reason, I get it confused with "The Black Rose". Of course, he looks entirely different in the two films, but it's some kind of mental glitch with me. What this scene reminds me of is--I have a feeling you've noticed this too--even in films not directed by Orson Welles (at least as far as credits are concerned) and in this case, Henry King was the director, his sequences have that unmistakable Wellesian touch to them. Some of that can be attributed by his mere, magnificent presence, but the rest--I have a feeling they gave him the reins, and of course, his sequences in these films were always the highlights, hands down. We need another Orson Welles in film today--that is, if they'll have him.
Well, he did star with Tyrone Power in both films, so that may be part of the connection. They were really quite good together. And Welles playing the amoral warlord type in both films was of course magnificent.
Idjitz You certainly must possesses a degree or two in "Movie Buff Psychiatry"! You hit it right on the nose and yet all this time, the answer to my dilemma eluded me entirely. Tyrone Power and Orson Welles--thanks--I think I have that straightened out now!
Guess I wasn't the only one caught onto this scene's signficance. It's SO obvious that scene's ORSON'S. Power was wise enough an artist to know when his "less" was "more."
He expertly knows how to make full use of his environment on the set and all the props available to him, whereas lesser actors from this era who featured in films like this would generally stand in one place and rattle off their lines like they're reciting for a pop quiz, saying all their lines but DOING nothing, unsure of what to do with their hands which all results in a stiff & awkward performance. Meanwhile, Welles knew that in order to keep the audience engaged throughout long scenes like this, one needs to always keep their hands busy and never stay in one section of the environment for too long (generally speaking of course, there ARE occasional exceptions).
@Idjitz I had The Black Rose on pre-recorded vhs although I had to break the whole movie into three parts and three different videos I hope soon that I can get the whole movie on dvd soon!
Wonderful... a good example of how fine Welles the actor could be; although one can only imagine how visually superior the scene would have been had Welles also directed it! Failing that, there are the films he did direct, esp. Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil and Chimes at Midnight, which contain great and fully-realized Welles performances in the context of his own vastly imaginative directorial vision... which this film does not remotely approach.
Idjitz, re "The Third Man," I agree with that. Check out the chase through the sewers in "Third Man," then look at the walking chase through the canals near the end of "Touch of Evil." Both show the same directorial hand. I don't see much sign of Welles the director in the scene posted here, but perhaps elsewhere in the film. Welles' style is only partly a matter of camera placement; his dynamic editing, pitting action against action, is central, I think, and appears designed into his shooting.
@dishwasherman83 : And let us not forget, after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, they had the Ottomans for neighbours. And as main trade partners, so they had to be very- shall we say, diplomatic. One had to support The Mother Church, of course, but not to the point of getting too enthusiastic for any crusading against the Moslems.
1:11 "we will walk into ferrara through a bedroom" 1:40 "who? who but a man as quick in deceit as a fox, he must have the grace of dancer ,a wrist of a shushi master , he must have little regard for good faith, yet by his abstutenes be able to confused men's mind yet that confidence in himself yet let not permit that confidence to render him incautious .he must charm as a snake charms a bird yet he must make no friends except those that can be of use to him & for the same reason although we make use of love ,he must not love."
