It's rough to go from the '95 one to this one. The '95 gets the emotions so right, you get lost in the story, it stayed with me for days. This one is strictly a work of cinema in my view, one to admire but keeps at distance. I am losing interest in Welles filmmaking bravado in general, his lightning mind, camera wizardry, and effortless staging. With age I see more value in a Kazan or Wyler. For Welles magic tricks, the true magic trick of cinema is the invisible craft. That is not to take away from all that is happening on screen, as a virtuoso and dazzling work, the father of the auteurs... a great creativity, unreal for its time. Ultimately I do not find him convincing as a dramatist, but more as an entertainer. He will do the big things like the eyes, the dramatic moments, but can't be arsed to give the rest much attention as a performer. Welles goes to these great lengths to tell these important stories but yet he never seems to fully give them over. They are like toys to him.
The irreverence rubs wrong, against the sanctity of the plays, as if the actual Shakespeare is just getting in the way of his fun. I sense that these plays are requiring older directors with more life experience to have lived his lines instead of admired them. I don't think Welles took life very seriously, either from a gigantic narcissistic ego, or from a depression that he uses these big works of art to hide in, rather than to reveal in the human condition. It makes these nuanced plays come off as shallow, or silly.
Still at the end of the day you can't reject his works without rejecting the idea of cinema, they are going with the medium itself. In terms of the symbolic meaning of an independent artist pursuing his craft outside the studio system, it is without a doubt a five star film. But as Shakespeare, it didn't exactly seem like Welles could be bothered.
The irreverence rubs wrong, against the sanctity of the plays, as if the actual Shakespeare is just getting in the way of his fun. I sense that these plays are requiring older directors with more life experience to have lived his lines instead of admired them. I don't think Welles took life very seriously, either from a gigantic narcissistic ego, or from a depression that he uses these big works of art to hide in, rather than to reveal in the human condition. It makes these nuanced plays come off as shallow, or silly.
Still at the end of the day you can't reject his works without rejecting the idea of cinema, they are going with the medium itself. In terms of the symbolic meaning of an independent artist pursuing his craft outside the studio system, it is without a doubt a five star film. But as Shakespeare, it didn't exactly seem like Welles could be bothered.