la ricotta (1963)

pier paolo pasolini's short film may last only 35 minutes, but it fits into it as many ideas, social comments and stylistic devices as any of his other films.

orson welles plays a director attempting to make a version of the story of 'the passion', and the resulting chaos that ensues provides the bulk of the film. style wise the film marks a rapid departure from the work immediately prior to this film, with the combination of the neo-realism mise-en-scene contrasting wildly with the technicolor of the scenes from welles' film intercut. the combination of the two styles is representative of the two different era's of pasolini's work collidin, likewise the scene with the talking dog and the one with the speeded up running are hugely different to the subtle nature of his earlier work and indicative of the work he would later go onto do in films such as "salo".

the religious nature of the film is but a small indication of the huge nature of the importance of religion as a theme in pasolini's work. in my opinion the fact that the film was banned upon initial release says more about the contradictory nature of the governing bodies at the time than the intention of pasolini. i honestly believe that pasolini's announcement/disclaimer of intent at the begining of the film is sincere, and that the offence caused, presumably in the scenes of the players acting around whilst waiting to film their scenes, was more of a comment than an act of genuine disdain. the comments would be more aptly applied to politics rather religion, with the character of stacci being an obvious analogy for christ.

f for fake (1974)

f for fake truly is an oddity. prior to seeing the film i had often wondered what it actually was. given what i knew about orson welles, and the way his work was heading towards the mid 70's i was expecting a video essay of sorts, something along the lines of jean-luc godard's ''l'histoires du cinema" (1989), and while i wasnt exactly correct in my assumptions, i wasnt exactly wrong either. welles' himself, both in the press for the film and the picture itself, proclaims f for fake to be "a new kind of movie".

the "film" tells the story of elmyr de hory, the famous hungarian art forger, and uses de hory's story as a means to explore the idea of the truth. in doing so the film explores the myth of howard hughes, the author clifford irving (whose questionable autobiographies connect both de hory and hughes) and welles himself, when the famous 'war of the worlds' period is examined.

f for fake is considered to be welles final complete film, despite being released 11 years before his death. the film was recieved terribly in the united states, perhaps due to the ambiguous nature of the film when looked at from the outside, but great appreciation was recieved from europe, which by this point had become welles' spiritual home artistically.

viewed initially as a look at avante-garde and unique editing (an area of exploration for myself at the moment) i found the film to be a great success. thirty years on it may not be as unique as the day it was originally released, but it remains a charming and interesting film, and one that stays in the mind long after the credits have rolled (a cliche exclamation no doubt, but for a film as unique as f for fake i have no qualms in using it).

the magnicent ambersons (1942)

the magnificent ambersons, orson welles' follow-up to citizen kane (1941) came just a year after its predessor. with kane failing to light up the world of film, welles was left with a comparitive failure, and as such lost most of the creative control that he was given upon his arrival to hollywood. as legend tells it, as with most of his post-kane work welles lost the right to final cut of the film, with rko themselves taking over the final film and delivering to audiences a far different picture from the one intended. its a considerable injustice, as the magnificent ambersons starts out so well. the opening narration (read by welles himself) leads the viewer to believe that we are on the verge of a story as wide scoped and epic, as magnificent if you will, as the title itself suggests. instead we are left with an often charming, yet fairly flat cinematic experience. hollywood-lore suggests that somewhere exists a directors cut of the film, that will one day emerge from the shadows, as if to save us all, although a more realistic theory is that the original negatives of the removed footage were destroyed to clear space in the vaults of the fledgling studio. although in 2002 a version was made for tv that was shot to the specs of the welles script and released in the edit that welles aimed for.

the character of george minafer is one of the cinema's great bastards. hes manipulative and sly and possibly responsible for the old adage that the children of rich folk are spoilt brats. it would have been great to see welles tackle this role himself, its not clear exactly why he didnt, but to see welles take on such a role would have been a real treat. there are echoes of macbeth in the character, yet minus the heroics.

the casting of agnes moorehead in the role of aunt fanny is just about the worst this viewer has ever seen. all scenes utilising her skills bring the film down to a level of amateur dramatics or soap opera. this is among the worst example of the theatrical stylings of 1940's over-acting. thank god for the method.