Today I'll be covering three movies that barely feature Orson Welles at all. One of them is basically a cameo while the other two are actual (small) roles, but nonetheless Welles appears in these movies early-ish and that's the extent of his involvement. I did not know this would be the case when I chose these movies, because both movies have Orson Welles higher in the credits than his involvement would suggest.
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
In my Orson Welles introduction, I mistakenly said I had only seen one of his films. I was wrong. I have in fact seen A Man for All Seasons before. I don't actually remember when or where, but since it's a Catholic's wet dream of a movie, I'd have to guess I watched it when I was in grade school.
Orson Welles, or rather the reason I am watching this movie, plays Cardinal Wolsey, who complains to Thomas More that he's the only one who opposed the attempt for the king to obtain an annulment of his marriage to his first of six wives.
Orson Welles is well cast. Watching Welles here, you can scarcely believe that he lived another 20 years. He looks as big as I've ever seen him. In the context of the movie, Cardinal Wolsey died soon after this meeting (and I believe in real life). With little screentime, you get the gist of what Cardinal Woolsey represents: a man who has sacrificed his faith for an easier life.
And that variation - a compromised man demands More change his position - is basically the entire movie. I know it's more complicated than that, but by the 100 minute mark, I was pretty bored. Maybe it's because I've seen it before, maybe it's because I knew the outcome, but after the 10th conversation where one person wants More to change, More refuses, it got boring.
It doesn't really help that director Fred Zinneman is very methodical with his approach. He takes his time. Sometimes this is a good thing in a movie. Here, I'm not so sure. This is a movie that begs to be 90 minutes. There's just not much there. Man is unwilling to compromise his principles for anything for 120 minutes while everyone tries to get him to change. He doesn't. He dies.
One thing that would possibly have justified the length would be if they portrayed the dark side of Thomas More, you know the person who tortured and killed Protestants. Yeah he was that kind of Catholic. I'm reminded of the George Carlin standup routine where he mentions that the more religious you are, the more flexible you are on if killing is wrong.
Anyway, they ignore that aspect of him completely, which is only a problem insofar as that he did those things during the events of the movie. It's set from 1529-1535, which was also a period of time where he was Chancellor and six people were burned at the stake for basically being Protestant.
What immensely helps this movie is Paul Scofield, who plays Thomas More. I'll be honest. If I met his version of More in real life, and I suspect if I met the real More, I would not like him at all. He is so careful with his words, and if you slip up once, he admonishes you for what you're saying. This is a version that completely aligns with the real life guy who would kill Protestants. That's how well he plays him.
Also good is Robert Shaw, who plays Henry VIII pretty gregariously and slightly overenthusiastic, but apparently he was extremely charismatic in real life, so he conveys that well. A very young John Hurt plays Richard Rich, and here's one of the times where I think the movie strays from reality. Richard Rich is about 10 years older than he's portrayed in this movie, which makes me think none of his scenes are tethered to reality, except for his betrayal.
Anyway, good acting, pretty boring.
Waterloo
I would have watched A Man for All Seasons anyway if I had known Welles was barely in it. He was in enough of it and Zinneman is a fairly acclaimed director in his own right. I would not have watched Waterloo had I been aware of Welles cameo. For starters, he's in maybe five minutes of this movie, which is a little different than someone dying at the 30 minute mark after having been in most of the movie. And the director is not nearly as acclaimed.
This is another pretty boring movie. The main reasons to see this movie are basically just to see the acting by Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer. Plummer, most recently seen in Knives Out, fares better. He seems to be written to be an out of touch, posh general, but Plummer makes him more than what he could have been. Like this part could have easily gone wrong.
Steiger on the other hand, well he's extremely over the top. I guess he's playing Napoleon Bonaparte, so it warrants that, but he's too much. I wasn't a fan of the portrayal.
The reason I think it's well-regarded is because of the battle scenes, which I don't believe have aged that well. In terms of scale, it's impressive. 17,000 actual Russian soldiers are extras in this movie. But in practice, what ends up happening is 40 minutes of the same thing happening over and over.
Random explosions, people running, people dying. There's no sense of where anything is happening, so it all just seems to be random to me. They intercut the battle scenes with the two generals dictating what would happen and I think if you switched around the battle scenes, it would make little difference, that's how similar they all looked to me and how little they connected to what else was happening.
Catch 22 (1970)
I'm just mentioning that I watched this movie, but I don't actually have any thoughts on it. I fell asleep a little more than halfway in and finished the movie when I woke up, which is not a commentary on the movie, but just an explanation for why I feel not all that compelled to analyze it at all. Hopefully I'll watch it with more awake eyes next time. In any case, Orson Welles was in 5 minutes of the movie so I don't really feel badly for the purposes of this marathon for Catch 22 not getting a fair shake. It's probably the best movie of the three though.
No comments:
Post a Comment