Orson Welles' Seven Best Movies -- and Why He's Great 

what a great bar! thank you.

I was fortunate to see it for the first time in a theater, when it was being re-released after the work that was supervised by Walter Murch.

it's great even in the worst copy of the film, which I have on DVD. If anybody knows of a high quality HD copy, please send me a link to it!

The Trial is essentially a perfect film. Way before David Lynch made dream logic films cool, Orson Welles made this masterpiece. Mr. Welles is the most influential filmmaker in the history of cinema. The visual style of Citizen Kane as well as the nonlinear, multiperspective approach to storytelling was created by him. Before mockumentary or found footage was conceived by anyone else, Orson Welles created The Other Side of the Wind, which is a highly misunderstood masterpiece. No Mt. Rushmore of filmmakers should be without Orson Welles. He was a creator of masterpieces. Citizen Kane, the lost version of The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil (1998 Reconstructed version, which is the closest we have to his version), The Trial, Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight), The Other Side of the Wind, all masterpieces.

@@LearningaboutMoviesI’m assuming you bought the recent criterion release?! Lol

​I am assuming that by this point you have purchased Criterion's 4K UHD release of the film.

we'll get there. he is not popular on youtube, which is generally true of everything in film before 1970. this channel is attempting to rectify that.

The rest is silence.

why are you surprised?

It is. Pple are getting dumber.

thank you.

Flawed as it might be, The Magnified Ambersons remains one of my favorite films ever.

Everyone is entitled to watch what they want, but IMO refusing to watch Ambersons at all is silly. If you really want to be respectful to Welles, watch it up until a second major character dies; that's the exact moment Welles says in interviews, "It becomes another picture, it became their picture." People exaggerate HOW much RKO really changed. Up until 2/3 in, minor nips and tucks and deleted scenes aside (which all films have), it is Welles' vision. Even the final 1/3 has real Welles footage, just put in the wrong spots and intercut with one or two other scenes by other people. Also, how do you even know it could have been a masterpiece and "an honor and a pleasure" if you have not even seen the butchered version? You may not even like the story or Welles' more languid filmmaking style compared to the energy of Kane or Chimes at Midnight. Plenty of people (not me!) genuinely hate Tim Holt's character and performance in the first half of the film, which is accurate to Welles' intentions. I want the full cut back as much as anyone. I genuinely love what Welles was doing and think his version would have been miles better, miles and miles, but I feel like some people are more interested in the idea of this lost Orson Welles holy grail than they are actually interested in seeing Welles' original, not from Tarkington conclusion to Eugene Morgan and Fanny Minafer. By not watching it, all you are doing is depriving yourself from seeing the existing footage Welles did shot, which I think are among the best of his career. For you, it becomes a fully lost film instead of a partially lost one. EDIT: Misspelled Minafer.

@@ericjohnson9623 It's not Welles' film because of the cut ballroom scene. The ballroom scene was originally one full reel, with no cuts. That herculean effort, consider just the rehearsal time and precise crane time-management, was erased by cutting the reel, and it's heartbreaking. That's in the first third, so you can't say Welles' version was untouched.

hey, go for it. try to edit the page!

thank you. The Trial did come out in a really nice Bluray from Criterion a few months ago.

Othello is a fascinating looking movie

you're welcome.

@@LearningaboutMovies - of course I like the restored version (from 1998) of 'touch of evil' which was recut according the Welles wishes "(quote)A new version, running 111 minutes, has been restored by Universal and debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in September 1998. This version has been re-edited according to Orson Welles' original vision, as outlined in a 58-page memo that the director wrote to Universal studio head Edward Muhl in 1957, after Muhl took editing out of Welles' hands. The new version has been prepared by editor by Walter Murch, sound recordists Bill Varney, Peter Reale and Murch, and picture restorer Bob O'Neil under the supervision of Rick Schmidlin and film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum. One difference between the two versions is that the famous opening tracking shot is now devoid of credits and Henry Mancini's music, featuring only sound effects." www.imdb.com/title/tt0052311/alternateversions

didn't know that. interesting.

aback

a strong chance. Welles was a student of the masters before him. Perhaps the mirror shot in Kane even comes from that.

Touch of Evil had so many wonderful staring and supporting actors too. Marlene Dietrich just blew me away!

@@michaelmichniak127starring

you're welcome. I've never seen Journey into Fear -- will have to track that down.

@@LearningaboutMovies YES. Journey into Fear in general is hard to find. And i'm happy that you appreciate my ranking. 😊😊👍👍

It is "The Stranger", singular.

thank you.

yes!

thank you. Wow, is that HD version the one on Amazon that says "Region B Import -- France"? That's the only one I found. $33 is not terribly unreasonable, but perhaps it is dubbed in French? It's better than my terrible DVD copy, which you see in the video.

​@@LearningaboutMovies Yes, that's the one! I've seen clips of this restoration and it's in English, so I think that even if there is a French dub it's just an option. You'd just have to get a region-free player to watch it.

Mubi has a pretty decent version of it on their platform that's how I watched it

me too! One of these summers, I'll sit down to watch all of Hitchcock again, a 3-week deep-dive. Usually it takes me a lot of time to make these director videos. Hawks is possible as well. thank you for the request.

@@LearningaboutMovies in my opinion rear window its his best its so ahead of its time !!!!

Because there are at least a couple dozens aspects of reality - the psychological, the aesthetic, the mathematical, and so on -- and morals/ethics is just one aspect of many. If a film emphasizes one over the others, it's a parable perhaps, useful, though usually not as complex as much of the other great art of its period (the 20th century). I look for a film to have a strong moral aspect plus as many others as it can get. I don't know what I said about CK's moralism; I just find it to be somewhat judgmental and heavy-handed about how the Hearst-figure, and other tycoon-like figures, lived their lives. That's okay, but if you study the period of time in which it came out, it's affirming its own zeitgeist, which is not particularly courageous or unique.

Yes. His Macbeth was wonderfully imagined and superbly staged, as was his Othello . People going on and on about his money problems is usually just gossip. Do they want him to fail so they can feel better about themselves ?

@@michaelmcdonagh5104That is the tragedy of geniuses. The envious and mediocre want to pull them down. But in so doing they pull themselves down.

excellent! he will be portrayed again soon in the new movie "Mank."

The Third Man is a bit cheating now isn't it.

you're welcome. I appreciate you watching -- many thanks.

I don't remember what I said in the video. Welles didn't have final cut and the movie was released drastically altered, iirc. I bet the answer is easily searchable.

@@LearningaboutMovies That is true, because it got a second release in 1950 with changes made to the audio track and cutting. But the original cut has been restored since 1980 with its original audiotrack and longer Version. I have a bluray copy of the Film, where you can both watch the original longer 1948 cut and the truncated changed 1950 cut. That is why I was so confused of you saying that xD

worth mentioning. thank you for bringing it up!

Porno movie. pity for welles

see, I think everything is mediated in Kane, whether Welles was aware or not. Print and radio and giant signs tell you who people are. People can be turned into words; thus the actual people (e.g., Kane) are mysteries. When you have the storytellers, obviously each of them tells their piece about Kane. Is it possible to say that the storyteller, or mediator, skews the story? I think so! Because the movie clearly demonstrates that that's the case with other media, such as newspapers. Was Welles a postmodernist, on the verge of it, or does Kane allow us to put all the pieces together into one puzzle? Your mention of Welles believing the last is interesting, but he could be read the other ways, perhaps.

Movies are entertainment. Welles may have downplayed his wriiting/acting prowess, but he fooled me and millions of others. He was photographic, played his lines well and will remain unforgettable when I am long gone...

thank you.

videos 6 and 7? not sure which you are referring to. are you talking about links in the video, in the description, or somewhere else.

@@LearningaboutMovies Iam referring to the fact that videos 6and 7 in yor list of great directors jhave been set to private. I amniot bashing you. It is just I cannot unerstand why someone would create a an putatively interesting video, and thn set it to "private", so no -one else can watch it.

reasonable. "F for Fake" is fresher, in terms of editing, than just about anything ever.

Welles did not direct The Third Man though.

@@LearningaboutMovies that's right he didn't my mistake thank you my friend

somebody did Orson in Mank, on Netflix - he was Ok, but that's a behemoth ask to play Orson, young or old !

I have questions about whether this is a Welles or a Welles/Bogdonovich/other movie.

thank you. see what you think with later Welles, arguably better than younger Welles.

Its unfortunate but its highly unlikely the 40 minute third act Welles wanted was butchered and largely lost

@@franjes9999 Turner Classic Movies has sent some people to Brazil on some hope of finding a print. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

@@richardsiciliano7117 i hope it turns up i couldn't imagine losing 40 minutes out of Kubrick or Tarantino or Scorceses masterpieces it's agregious what Hollywood did to Welles

@@franjes9999 Welles was simply on a different level than so many of the important people of Hollywood. They were in awe and jealous of his gifts and that led to outright hatred. But then again, Welles could definitely ruffle feathers.

no it does not. It's still relevant and fresh, imo.

great call, still ahead of its time 80+ years later

Thank you

this is a great question. And it extends to every aspect of a film, because none of us are privy to what could've been shot/what was shot and left out. So directing, acting, etc.

good list. F for Fake is a movie that deserves a lecture or two perhaps before you watch it, lectures that might enhance your viewing experience. It's not for everybody as a naked watch. But it is spot on about many aspects of the nature of video, and it predicts pretty much everything you hear today about fake news and media narratives.

@@LearningaboutMovies I can see its pro's and why people would love it, I was totally in to it the first 30min, but mannn, if I hear someone say Elmyr one more time I'm gonna get on a plane, fly back in time and slap Welles in the face. I would have to give it a 7/10 where it could have been an 8/10.

F for Fake is an interesting discussion, I just watched it recently as well, and yes it is looking more prescient about fake narratives as history rolls on (although there was plenty fake then too). however it has some fairly cheesy sequences and on 'naked' viewing is quite disjointed, and fairly uneven overall. yet in its appearance of slapdash the pace is rapid and one is constantly reevaluating what is going on and where the story is leading, so the viewer is challenged in that way. in the last third there are a few quiet philosophical moments questioning and inspecting the nature of reality and authenticity. and it goes meta in the sense of a movie about deception that in its own story at times deceives the viewer, etc. certainly quite a bit to chew on, in any case