Let's talk about Welles

It will make a comeback once Wince blows his knee again this season, or if Lillies blow their playoff hopes again come September.

is this peak contrarianism?

Of course he loved him, they're both showmen. Read deal old school entertainers.

Attached: DDB3EDA3-8FAA-48F7-97BB-3F178825C0C5.gif (320x210, 836K)

Kek

Attached: 63453F8B-03AA-4189-A92F-05306C6FF69D.gif (480x270, 2.07M)

t. MIck

...he doesn't do anything?

"MWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"
- The French

OW: I believe that there is no law, and should be no law under the heavens that tells an artist what he ought to be. But my point of view, my idea of art—which I do not propose to be universal—is that it must be affirmative.

HJ: Really?

OW: Life-affirming. I reject everything that is negative. You know, I just don’t like Dostoevsky. Tolstoy is my writer. Gogol is my writer. I’m not a Joyce guy, though I see that he’s one of the great writers of this century.

HJ: God knows, he’s not affirmative.

OW: No, and that’s why I don’t like him.

HJ: But, wait a minute, Orson, what are you talking about? This is a stupid conversation. Touch of Evil is not affirmative.

OW: Listen, none of my reactions about art have anything to do with what I do. I’m the exception!

HJ: Oh, my God.

OW: It doesn’t bother me, because it comes out of me. I’m dark as hell. My films are as black as the black hole. Ambersons. Oh, boy, was that dark. I break all my rules.

>OW: I don’t want to know about the hang-ups of the writers or movie people, either. I’m not interested in the artist; I’m interested in his work. And the more he reveals, the less I like it. Proust holds me by his enormous skill. But the subject matter is not that interesting. He wants us—It’s not—he’s being— I don’t know how to explain it. Here’s a way to put it: I do not mind seeing the artist naked, but I hate to see him undressing. Show me your cock. That’s all right with me. But don’t striptease.

>two years ago was four years ago
'old me, bros

Attached: 1551317456409.jpg (1350x508, 294K)

I haven't watched Citizen Kane yet. Is it really the best movie of all time? As in best writing ever, most memorable characters, the important shit and not just gimmicks?

Attached: Daenerys.jpg (600x600, 41K)

Man of the Year

I hate that zoomers have to bring up the wine commercial whenever he's mentioned now. His films were great and if you watch some of the interviews with him, he was an intelligent, witty man who led an incredible life.

It's impossible to say that any one movie is the best of all time, but if there had to be one, that and two or three other Welles films would be strong candidates.

Of course, but if you're watching it expecting "the best movie of all time" you can only be disappointed. It won't change your life or anything. It's just a particularly great movie.

Its not the best its just the Citizen Kane of movies

>It won't change your life or anything. It's just a particularly great movie.
But the greatest movies do change our lives, user. Why are you sidelining aesthetic experience?

It is probably one of the most influential movies of all time in terms of how it is shot and the way by which Charles Foster Kane's is portrayed on film

based

Attached: image.gif (320x240, 1.05M)

Is Citizen Kane just an innovative movie with filmmaking techniques? Because even if it did invent every filmmaking trick being the first won't mean you're the best. I'm sure Michael Jordan is better than the guy/s who invented basketball. Being the first to do something won't necessarily mean that thing is the be all end all, just influential.

What's most important is writing. Does Citizen Kane have the best story and characters in film history?

>What's most important is writing. Does Citizen Kane have the best story and characters in film history?
It's entirely a matter of opinion, but yes, the story is very meaningful and well told. The dialogue is really witty, and Orson Welles' acting is incredible.

It's been a while since I watched it but it didn't feel particularly modern, technically. The writing was another level though.

It was intelligent by the standards of a time when screenwriting was immeasurably more intelligent than it is now. The "best" is impossible to define, but it's about as good as you'll get, yes.

Citizen Kane also had the added benefit 4x Oscar winner Robert "motherfucking" Wise editing the bitch. I mean it's very well is the best edited film of all time.

compare it with what came right before and it is day and night
even casablanca doesn't hold a candle to it

youtube.com/watch?v=-r0b_XeRkG4

>literally the first scene
>1941
>not being "modern"

nigga wut

Orson Welles?
More like Orson Whales.

Attached: 21648f137d4fc2a239b83afe6986d181.jpg (300x403, 22K)

i'd like him a lot more if his nose was bigger

Attached: 1557838004636.png (320x311, 156K)

Welles has acknowledged that Rules of the Game did everything he wanted a few years earlier, but in terms of accomplishing in film what no other art form can do, Citizen Kane is considered the representative standard.

Someone please post the quote about slavs having short necks

>did everything he wanted a few years earlier,
He achieved more, whether he wanted to admit it or not.

well he brought kino to the US hollywood audience, obviously going to have a greater impact.

I agree, he was weirdly self deflating that way, and probably how he managed to keep honest. But this was also to answer user with the fact a much more innovative film in every way had been made earlier in time.

>AAAAAAHHHHHH the french.... champagne