08/30/2002 Entry:
"The Lady From Shanghai - Orson Welles (1948)"

This is the third Welles I've seen (after Kane, Othello, and Touch Of Evil) and the second one I've totally lost my shit over. Touch Of Evil is the other one I really love. I think I had the same problem with Kane that many who see it for the first time do, its been built up so much that there is no way for it to ever live up. I only saw it for the first time a couple years ago (after I had already seen Othello and Touch Of Evil) and while I understood that it was a triumph of filmmaking, and it made me uderstand some Simpsons jokes that had previously flown over my head, it just didn't resonate with me. It doesn't help that I had seen most of the film in other contexts anyways. Lady From Shanghai came out of nowhere for me, so it makes sense that it would have more of an impact.

I'm surprised you don't hear Lady From Shanghai referenced more often as one of Welles' great films. It fails in some story areas, and I found Welles' accent kind of irritating throughout, but the filmmaking is all truly amazing. Even outside the hall of mirrors sequence, there are so many great little shots in this. There is a scene where Welles is staring out at the sea, lost in thought, and he's out of focus. Someone walks up and calls his name, and he slowly walks towards them, gradually moving back into the plane of focus as he is drawn out of his reverie. That was so great it almost took my breath away. Such a subtle little use of filmmaking to convey mindset. There's the floating overhead shot of ayworth laid out on the boat. When Welles is in jail, there's a perfect simple shot of Hayworth talking to him, with the bars sloping away into the distance.

There were a couple places where Welles and Hayworth are stuck down in a corner of a frame, with whatever scenery happens to be around them filling up the rest of the scene. One of these was on the boat, I can't remember where the other way. I couldn't figure out the purpose of this framing, it really served to distance you from them, and I don't know what purpose that would serve. As I recall, the scenery being shown was nothing special, so its not like they were trying to bring their surroundings in. Those were just kind of weird offputting shots.

Which leads us into the courtroom sequence, certainly the weirdest part of the whole film. All those overhead shots looking down at the figures as they wrangle, again I wasn't sure what purpose this served relative to the story sometimes, but it was interesting. The whole thing with the jury box lady coughing to interrupt the prosecutor was just plain weird, and then Bannister interviewing himself. The whole sequence was overall pretty surreal. Trying to put forth how the court battle itself is pointless because nobody i there for the reason stated? Highlighting its ridiculousness? It was cool to watch regardless. One thing I noticed while watching this sequence is that there are several closeups of Welles and Hayworth against almost no background, totally out of context. I later discovered that the studio insisted that these be added to bring the whole sequence into a little more normality. Also, from what I read, Hayworth's song on the boat was added at the studio's insistence, although I admit I really liked that sequnce a lot.

nd of course there is the hall of mirrors sequence, one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. I was watching this wide mouthed, the mirrors reflecting the multiple sides each character has shown throughout the proceedings. So great, unlike some other parts of the film where there was cool shots which don't make any sense, everything here was integrated so perfectly. Its not just the hall of mirrors either, all the stuff in the funhouse leadaing up to it weas prefectly executed as well. That whole sense of being off-balance, lost and confused as he stumbles through.

Much of the credit must go to cinematographer Charles Lawton Jr. who gives this whole movie a rich deep pallette just as Gregg Toland did in Kane. Everything is lit exquisitely. I had recently seen a print of Out Of The Past on TCM which was flat and muddy, but their copy of Lady From Shanghai is very nice. ALl the rich deep blacks and sparkling whites you would expect from a film like this. This is a film I will definitely have to give another look to sometime soon.

Replies: 3 comments

Just curious--did you see KANE on video or on film (in a theater)? I first saw it on video when I was about 18 and was distinctly underwhelmed; a few years later, I saw it in a theater and was completely blown away. (The exact same thing happened with THE THIRD MAN as well.) I always think of KANE as the movie that opened my eyes to the differences between TV/video and film. (and sometimes, though, the differences don't really matter; TOUCH OF EVIL, for me, was only slightly better on film than on video, which is to say, fantastic.) (btw, a full reply to your last email is forthcoming!) Kent Posted by Kent M. Beeson @ 08/30/2002 01:10 PM CST

I saw Kane on video, and you're probably right, it would hold up better on a good print. Ironically, I've had many opportunities to see it on film, not the least of which was in a film class in college where it was the only film they showed which I missed. Of course, I somehow made it to Meet Me In St. Louis. Touch Of Evil however I saw in on film in a huge theatre during the run of its last restoration, and that was awesome. I have seen Third Man also since you mentioned it, but I didn't mention it since it wasn't really a Welles film (even though it feels like one.) That too I've only seen on video. Personally the big film that opened my eyes about the difference between video and film was 2001. I always liked it on video, but on film it is awe-inspiring. Posted by gdd @ 08/30/2002 01:38 PM CST

You know, I saw the re-release of 2001 a couple months after seeing it on the revamped Kubrick DVD...and I got distracted by the grain of the film! Isn't that nuts? I guess it can work both ways... Posted by Kent M. Beeson @ 08/30/2002 01:45 PM CST