The Lady from Shanghai (Orson Welles, 1947)

"Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die trying." 

Introduction

Two years after Citizen Kane, the genius Orson Welles married Rita Hayworth. This was her second marriage lasting three years before they separated – but not before a brief rekindling of their romance on the set of The Lady from Shanghai. It didn't last long and they divorced in 1948. In that regard, Hayworth and Welles relationship is an important factor to consider when analysing this strange mess of a film. Detailed by James Steffen and Rob Nixon on Turner Classic Movies, a rough cut of the film was 155 minutes long and was chopped down by editor Viola Lawrence to a mere 87 minutes - David Benedict, introducing the film at the BFI Retrospective, was under no illusion about the distorted and clunky "short" film we were yet to watch. This is not Orson Welles at 100% - indeed, he is barely at 50% - but amongst the awkward accents, cold (but dull) characters and gossip-fuelled production there lies something brutal and beautiful about filmmaking and art - and the mysterious question raised as to whether Art reveals the Artist; whether intentional or not...

Scene Hopping Story

Orson Welles is Michael O'Hara - or "Black Irish" to his fellow shipmates - a seaman who assists on-board a yacht owned by sneaky lawyer Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) and his wife Elsa (Rita Hayworth). Elsa falls for Black Irish, but Arthur doesn't intervene highlighting the dangerous game the two are playing - we wonder whether foul-play is at hand. The two lovers slowly realise an opportunity to escape together, but all is not what it seems as friends of the Bannisters become deceitful - whilst even Elsa and O'Hara become distrusting of each other. Can they ever live a life together? Or are they simply not meant to be?

The characterisation is immediately unbalanced, as you try and find your grasp of the narrative out at sea. Orson Welles is putting on an Irish accent as he attempts to woo this upper-class rich woman - a woman who, opposed to the ravishing red-head Rita Hayworth defines, is a short-cut, platinum-blonde. The latter was a choice Welles made without consulting Harry Cohn and consequently added another reason for studios to despise him. The story sporadically jumps from a yacht (owned by Errol Flynn) to a courtroom, before leaping to an empty fairground making you dizzy as you desperately reach for some sort of solid foundation that The Lady from Shanghai simply doesn't have. As if recalling a dream, you question what happened - were we within a Chinese Theatre? Or were we within San Francisco? (We were within both)

The finale is a shoot-out in a room of mirrors and, though the characters look desperately to see what is a mirror and what is not, we realise that the confusing and surrealist edge that is successfully shown here does not reflect the film as a whole - and simply reminds us how confusing the story is. Both holding mirror shoot-out final sequences and Chinese themes, Guy Hamilton's The Man with the Golden Gun clearly realised how effective the finale was by using mirrors and guns within the opening action-sequence too or the maligned 007 adventure. In the repeated-reflections of the mirrored-maze, Welles even nods to The Great Train Robbery as Rita Hayworth shoots to camera.

Controlled Chiaroscuro

Kim Newman writes how The Lady from Shanghai is a "broken mirror of a film, with shards of genius that can never be put together into anything that makes sense", and the mirror truly is shattered into small pieces. Orson Welles frames so many shots in a manner that echoes his incredible film-noir framing in Touch of Evil. A clear use of background and foreground; defined silhouettes of the couple within an aquarium (that has surely inspired every couple-meet-in-aquarium scene ever since); a birds-eye-view shot above the yacht looking down on Hayworth as she sunbathes is geometric in its framing, except for her feminine figure.

But the story itself remains a convoluted confusion. The Irish narration draws our attention to the strange accent Welles is using and, in many instances, voids the entire purpose of narration completely. In the hope that a character explaining the story illuminates elements we're not privy to, instead "Black Irish" seems to ramble on when describing, multiple times, how he won't join the Bannister's on the yacht ... only to be convinced easily enough when he is offered money and Rita Hayworth says she'll "make it worth his while". Why did we even listen to his thoughts in the first instance?

But, there is a reason Woody Allen references The Lady from Shanghai at the end of Manhattan Murder Mystery. A murder within the story and a relationship whereby we are not sure who is playing who. It begs the question between Rita Hayworth and Orson Welles, two stars at the top of their game in 1943 (though Hayworth's Gilda was a couple of years away...), and who may have chosen to be with each other for more financially-motivated purposes. It is a strange beast, but it is unforgettable - and Orson Welles clearly struggling to effectively adapt a novel (Sherwood King's If I Die Before I Wake) is something worth watching unto itself. But this is a Rita Hayworth film - and her refusal to become the cliché vixen that Gilda had sold as her image is fascinating. So calculating and cold, with her wide-eyes become tight and sly, proves how versatile she was. For this, The Lady from Shanghai is a crucial Golden-Age Hollywood viewing necessity.

Originally written for Flickering Myth on 30th June 2013

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)

"I guess Rosebud is just a... piece in a jigsaw puzzle... a missing piece"

Introduction

After analysing every film in the Sight & Sound Top 10, we finish on Citizen Kane. Of course we do. Only now has the film been “dethroned” from the top spot, after residing there for 50 years. Truly, it earned its place. Should it remain untouchable? Surely it shouldn’t remain at the top of the poll forever, should it? I would be happy if it did. If, as all the films swapped and interchanged – many vanishing from the Top 10 completely – I would firmly, indefinitely and concretely ensure Citizen Kane remains. Ground-breaking, profound and personal and created by a genius; I support its immovability. What a shame then, that it moved down a spot in 2012.

Orson Welles

The starting point is always Orson Welles. Akin to Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’, Citizen Kane has become mythic in its status in history partly due to the creator, and the many talents he had. We are fascinated by writer-directors – and we often laugh at the audacity of their self-casting within films like Reservoir Dogs and Signs. Orson Welles chose not-only to write, direct and produce the film; he also took the titular role; portraying a man from his young-twenties through to old-age. This brave decision is the type of choice that oozes genius – supreme confidence and, crucially, the correct casting.

Welles has a cherub-like charm that carries the film on his shoulders alone – and features that remain when he is made-up to look like an old man. The film covers the rise and fall; life and death of Charles Foster Kane; a shrewd businessman; a political force; a paranoid recluse. Partly influenced by the life and times of the media-magnate William Randolph Hearst, it was a film of its time that, through Hearst’s influence, newspaper coverage was slim – and it failed at the box-office. But, a good film doesn’t hide away and positive reviews kept the film known. Bit-by-bit, Citizen Kane became the masterpiece as it is known today. It’s also worth noting that Welles was only 24 years old he made the film – and to think that he achieved all this at such a youthful age adds to his genius status.

Writing, Direction … and Innovation

But Welles was not alone in creating the film. He co-wrote the script, and the story is broken-up, told from the perspective of a reporter investigating the final word Kane stated on his deathbed: “Rosebud”. We are told about Kane through his friends, family and lover – and the different perspectives reveal a different side to him. He was a public figure – a showman. But, socially and personally, he had identity issues – isolating himself from the world in an incomplete fortress - Xanadu. He pines after his childhood, symbolised by his precious sled; the aforementioned “Rosebud”.

Pauline Kael argued that this story is what certifies Citizen Kane as a masterpiece – and, rather than crediting Orson Welles with this, she supported a popular opinion that co-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz is the real master behind the film.

But, the story alone is not what separates this film from the rest of the pack. Technically, the film is almost a how-to use-a-camera tool-kit. Dissecting each scene, you can find numerous techniques that were ahead of their time – everything from the ground-breaking use of deep-focus (though Mizoguchi used it before 1941) through to the continuous shot from behind a gate and, despite the instruction to not trespass, we do, by hovering over and into Xanadu. One shot, revealing a lover of Welles manages to pass through a glass roof and another shot is situated in the ground, looking at such an angle that Welles had to adjust the flooring to get so low. Gregg Toland is attributed to the majority of these techniques – but again, it was Welles that managed to include the young Toland in his production crew.

Bernard Herrman’s score is simply fascinating – changing completely as the scene adapts to suit the different perspective discussed. The casting includes the scene-stealing Joseph Cotton, who would go on to appear in Shadow of a Doubt and The Third Man. The make-up to give the impression that 24-year old Welles would look like an aging man – inspired by Make Way for Tomorrow – is flawless, still standing the test of time today. The list goes on and on.

So much more…

Barry Norman writes how the film “speaks afresh to each succeeding generation” and this truly is Orson Welles crowning achievement. It is no surprise that people compared this to The Social Network (not that it compares that much) – but I’m sure you could find countless biopics and life-stories that owe a debt to Citizen Kane. Indeed, most films owe a debt to Citizen Kane. This is a film that has influenced almost every successful or critically-acclaimed director – Spielberg, Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson … and everyone else. This short analysis is not enough – and indeed, there are many books available to support every different aspect which has established this film amongst the very best. I cannot think of a film amongst the Top 10 that is accessible and yet technically ground-breaking, and also created in such a unique set of circumstances that it could never be remade. It is the film you would use as an argument to prove that films from the 1940’s are incredible. It is a film you would use to convince someone that these lists matter. And it is a film that, despite its shift from the top spot in the poll, will never be truly removed. As it remains the Greatest Film of All-Time in virtually every other poll in the world. And I whole-heartedly agree.

Epilogue: This brings to a close an analysis of every film in the 2012 Top 10 Greatest Films of All-Time. I hope you attempt the same challenge and, when you do, read the previous analysis linked below:

10. 8 1/2 (Fellini, 1963)

9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)

8. Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov, 1929)

7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)

5. Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)

4. La Regle de Jeu (Renoir, 1939)

3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)

2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1956)

Monsieur Verdoux (Charlie Chaplin, 1947)

"What follows is History..."

Introduction

As a Chaplin film, it is interesting to note that within the first minute of Monsieur Verdoux the screen tells you that the film is "based on an idea by Orson Welles". Who would have thought!Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles together! It seems fleeting at best, because it is very-much a Chaplin-film with some technicial 'hints' of Welles. Like The Great Dictator and Modern Times, this film is socially-aware and politically-challenging. Which might be why it got such mixed reviews on its initial release. But then again, so did Citizen Kane. Another 'idea' from Orson Welles.

The Depression As An Excuse

Monsieur Verdoux (Charles Chaplin) worked within a bank as a teller for 30 years before he was made redundant during the depression. He decides to go into the 'business' of becoming a 'bluebeard' - whereby he marries wealthy women and takes all their money. Due to the censors, any scenes which implied characters were sharing any beds or involved in prostitution were taken out, whilst the clear motives for murder and, indeed, setting up the murder was kept in. Sex is bad. Murder is okay! We almost sympathise with the character as he justifies how his small business-motive of murder may be deserving of the death penalty but, hypocritically, senior politicians send soldiers to their death and are not held accountable.

In a similar manner to The Silence of the Lambs, whereby the murderer was based upon Ed Gein, Monsiur Verdoux is influenced on an actual serial killer in France, Henri Désiré Landru. Both Monsieur Verdoux and Landru killed multiple women - 14 for Verdoux, 11 for Landru - and both were sentenced to the guillotine after conviction.

But this is not a film which is rooted in horror or thriller characteristics. Instead, Chaplin manages to portray Verdoux as a character who is likeable. Often, we feel the same desire to kill - desperately waiting for Verdoux to kill off the annoying wives he has 'collected'. The lottery-winner Annabella Bonheur (Martha Raye) whose shrill voice and whiney attitude is set-up to be despised by the audience. Lydia Floray (Margaret Hoffman), the dull and depressed wife who moans about her lonely existence. The social-surroundings of the depression and, towards the final act, World War II, ensures an engaging context. Monsieur Verdoux plays on the women's fear of the depression as an excuse to worry and panic - and trust Verdoux. It brings to mind the recent recession the UK has fallen into again ... and how this inevitably will bring in its own share of cuts and increases: "Well, we are in a recession, so we need the money" says David Cameron. Like the women Verdoux marries, we feel there is no choice - and we must put up with the 'cost' of the political climate.

Hitchcock, Welles and Alec Guinness

As a film, it brings together the strong skills of Hitchcock, Welles and, to some extent, Powell and Pressberger. The story regarding Verdoux and the balance between comedy and thriller feels as if it is from the stories directed by Hitchcock. Consider Suspicion, in 1941, whereby Cary Grant is set-up throughout the film as attempting to kill his own wife, only in the final act to appear as innocent (Not Hitchcock's original intention but the studios claimed that Cary Grant can never portray a murderer!). In a similar manner to Suspicion, there is an ambiguity for a considerable amount of the film whereby you question whether he is murdering these women. Compare the evening meal Monsieur Verdoux has with 'The Girl' (Marilyn Nash), as he contemplates trying to kill her with a poisoned challice of wine  -and Cary Grant, walking up the stairs with a glass of milk in Suspicion. In comparison, I think I would prefer Chaplin's Verdoux offering me red-wine to Cary Grants 'Johnnie' offering me a glass of milk.

Kind Hearts and Coronets, two years after Monsieur Verdoux, cast Alec Guinness in multiple roles of an affluent family. In the opening credits, Chaplin is due to "play"four characters - and I hoped it would be Chaplin in different characters - but alas, he is the same character, going under a different name. The film highlights the 'multiple' characters of Verdoux, and this intrigues the viewer - could Robert Hamer have thought the same thing and took it one step further? Casting Alec Guinness in physically different roles, portraying different characters?

Of course, Orson Welles' connection to the film is not exclusively linked to the story. I would argue the nature of the opening shot of Monsieur Verdoux, whereby we see his grave whilst he narrates on the soundtrack how he 'became a bluebeard' seems to raise lots of questions regarding the film from the very-first shot - who killed him? how did he die? etc. Now consider the opening of Citizen Kane, and the first shot opens: No Trespassing. Again, from the very first shot, we are asking questions. Effectively, by starting the film with his grave, the narrative is also non-linear - much like Citizen Kane happily darting from one perspective to another throughout. And finally, both Kane and Verdoux feature in films that use their name in the title as they are both charismatic and carry a certain conflict with regard to their morals - Verdoux a murderer who justifies his acts in comparison to the Government, Kane as a capitalist, political figurehead who builds up and destroys his empire ... only to desperately seek his childhood. 

You Can't Escape Your Past

At no point are you expected to agree with Verdoux. I think with Kane, we could all poetntially relate to how he slowly lost his grip on humanity as he became more powerful, isolating himself from the world in the final act. Verdoux is likeable and never isolated. He constantly speaks to others - even from beyond the grave, he tells us his story.

In fact, this type of commentary is nothing new: The Immigrant is critical, and so is Modern Times. Monsieur Verdoux is very critical of the government and consequently forced the US to comment further on Chaplins communist sympathies. American critics specifially looked at Chalpin in a new way - commenting on his citizenship and his tax-affairs. The bigger picture is not commended this time and, as noted in the documentary Chaplin Today: Monsieur Verdoux, this was the "start of a very unhappy period" leading to some heavy criticism of Chaplin himself. But one crucial factor highlights his Verdouxs true character: as the film ends, he has the option to escape with 'The Girl', but chooses not to. Instead, he gives himself up and accepts his fate. Only five-years later, the US decided to refuse Chaplins return to the US. In both cases, the punishment doesn't feel like it fits the crime.

This was completely a 'talkie' (opposed to The Great Dictator and Modern Times - which used sound to complement the silent-comedy style); Chaplin comments on society and shortly after, he is silenced. The final shots even hint at the idea that Monsieur Verdoux walks to the guillotine in the same way as The Tramp wanders off at the end of his films. Maybe the happiness that The Tramp achieved in Modern Times was short-lived, wiped out by the depression and war, before The Tramp re-emerged as a bluebeard - assuming the name of  Monsieur Verdoux and foolishly deeming the murder of wives as a 'legitimate business'; taking his inspiration from the 'business' of politics and government. The joke may be here - in the contradictions and hypocrisies of authority.

Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958)

"This isn't the real Mexico. You know that. All border towns bring out the worst in a country"

Introduction

Film Noir is always touted as one of film-lovers favourite genres. The deep shadows and sharp light beams that litter the screen provide a moody and classy atmosphere. Ironically, having written a post recently about having an anti-genre preference, here I will be discussing a 'staple' of the Film Noir film genre. Initially, I watched the film travelling between Birmingham and London - and fell asleep. I blame the night before and not Orson Welles.

The Set-Up

The film begins with a flawless 3-minute sequence as an anonymous bomber plans to destroy a car as it crosses the border from Mexico into American territory. We see Charlton Heston playing a Mexican, with his wife cross-by and walk between the car and the sidewalk for three-minutes and, as someone who had not seen this film before, I found it very difficult to not get twisted in knots. The fact that Heston is almost unrecognizable - looking like Clark Gable - in comparison with the epic roles he has played in Planet of the Apes and Ben-Hur. Put it this way, I didn't recognise him and thought the bomb was meant for him. When we are presented with the catastrophy - this sets up the investigation. Both Vargas (Heston), a Mexican Detective, and Quinlan (Welles), the US detective, both try and find out who the bomber is. This is no simple who-done-it as Quinlan has his own methods of finding the bomber ... and Vargas slowly realises that Quinlan's form of 'justice' isn't the same as his...

Corrupt Justice

Vargas is Mexican cop and Quinlan (Welles) is US detective - and the murder is unclear which 'district' it falls within and so both cops follow the case - until Vargas realises that the primary suspect has had evidence placed on him. By Quinlan. Syd Field wrote about how films are broken into three different parts - broken up by 'plot points' and this film clearly depicts this theory. In the opening act we are watching to see who is responsible for the bomb, but after realising everything is not what it seems, the who-placed-the-bomb question is irrelevant. The question is How-Corrupt-is-Quinlan? He is a racist cop - he clearly has a problem with Mexicans - referring to them to as 'half-breeds'. Vargas is a moral cop and he attempts to find out how bad Quinlan actually is. The rub is whether he will find this out - Quinlan has allies in drug-dealers who equally want to take down Vargas. It shows how, sometimes, you are more on your own when you have strong principles and morals.

Tough To Be Good

In fact, this is exactly the story. If we reflect on Vargas through this story we realise that - not only is he often on his own - but it is his wife who is attacked and his success in taking down a drug-dealer elsewhere has a knock-on effect and is part of the reason he is despised on this case. It is only in the last act that we see Quinlan get his comeuppance... and even then, Quinlan placed the evidence on the right guy as we hear how the suspected bomber admits to his crime.
When reviewing 'classic' films, it is worth considering why they are deemed 'classic' at all. The finale especially is iconic as it shows how expressionistic Welles can be. We know from Citizen Kane that angled camera-shots and sharp lighting are all part of the cinematic experience - and it is no different in Touch of Evil. We see the treacherous landscape Vargas has to stand upon to pick up signal. The world is broken and twisted and this reflects the broken and twisted nature of justice - and the power that can be abused by the police. Firther to this, the corrupt world is reflecting in the outcomes as even the double-cross of 'Pete' (he who always found the planted evidence without realising it was planted) on Quinlan ends in his death - he's a good cop and he is the only reason Quinlan is proved a fraud by Vargas - but he dies for his moral actions.

It is a seedy world, portraying strip clubs, brothels, drug-dens, and a shocking scene as Grandi's 'boys' hint at rape when attacking Vargas' wife. The small line " you get her legs" provides an exceptionally sinister undercurrent to the world portrayed. Small touches add to the envronment - especially in the guise of a 'night' guy within the Mitador Motel - he twitches and looks around wide-eyed. Ironically, this is not the only time Janet Leigh comes across a strange motel character/owner as, only two years later, she would be staying at the Bates Motel in Psycho.

Timeless Talking Points

This is clearly an important and iconic film - noticably in the casting of Charlton Heston and Orson Welles, but additionally in the use of camera and style of filmmaking. What raises this to 'classic' is through a timeless narrative that forces you to consider what is justice and what is not. Quinlan is bad, that is clear, but he seems to be accurate, through years of policework, to highlight the 'type' of person a criminal is as his planting-of-evidence is accurate. My parents tell me how, during the 80's, if they spoke in their thick Irish accents when crossing between England and Ireland, it was almost guaranteed that they would be seached due to the conflicts. They accepted this racial-stereotyping, but we continue to see this as Muslims are searched and checked on a regular basis following 9/11 and 7/7. Quinland planted the evidence, and this is clearly wrong and corrupt - but, his 'feeling' was right and you are expected to question where his ethics come from because he clearly believes in his morals as Vargas believes in his.

A-Z #44: Citizen Kane

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#44 - Citizen Kane 

Why did I buy it?

C'mon - this is The greatest film of all-time. This is according to Sight & Sound, Cahiers du cinéma 100 films, Kinovedcheskie Russia Top 10, Romanian Critics Top 10, Time Out Magazine Greatest Films and Roger Ebert claims it as "the greatest movie ever made". It was also the double-disc edition which I found for £4 in Oxfam - this included an incredible documentary hosted by Barry Norman as to why it is deemed so good.

Why do I still own it?

 

I have watched it multiple times and it truly is a masterpiece. In terms of what is fascinating about watching it now - Orson Welles performance as Kane during multiple different points in his life, the story that is hinged on what the term 'rosebud' means - this 'revelation' is as important (if not moreso) that Luke finding out who his Dad is in The Empire Strikes Back.

 

On top of this, this film combined multiple cinematic elements which, nowadays, is taken for granted. Deep-focus, special effects, impossible zoom-in's and obscure camera-angles all feature in this film. If this was the only film in your collection, you would be content (Obviously, you would really need to visit the shop soon and  buy more DVD's).

Maybe everyone is wrong - and it is crap... therefore it should be sold. What do you think? Do you rate Citizen Kane so high?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 14/02/2010

We are set up at the Curzon Mayfair, but begin just off King Street a little close to where St James Theatre used to be ... we reveal why we are there on the podcast.

We review The Princess and the Frog, Youth in Revolt, Nine and the masterpiece: Citizen Kane. Then, to finish, we tell all about impressive and completely unimpressive romance in movies.

Trailer coverage is on Toy Story, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I Love You Phillip Morris and, the hotly anticipated theatrical trailer of Shyamalan's The Last Airbender.

Music is from Nine and Herrmans magnificent music for Citizen Kane.

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 06/12/09

This week, with the focus firmly on Richard Kelly's third effort The Box on release we discuss Richard Kelly career to date and then onto directorial debuts - every director has one and once they have done it, it represents the coming of a new artist ... but which one, if you were to choose, is the best ...

All will be revealed in Podcast 11 of 'The Simon and Jo Show' - links on the left!

The Third Man (Carol Reed, 1949)

"Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?"

Introduction

I have seen this film a fair few times - and, from what I have read, it has been incredibly influential. Inspiring the tilted camera Spike Lee uses, inspiring the entire film-noir genre, etc. I watched it as a must-see Orson Welles film. I watched Citizen Kane for the first time shortly before I watched this and Welles is simply amazing. Something about his persona and look - the cherubian, sneaky, childish look that is fascinating. Apparently he bmbed later in his career because of a certain element of arrogance on his part ... and that truly is a shame. Nevertheless, The Third Man was released eight years after the masterpiece Citizen Kane. Not that Citizen Kane did brilliantly on its initial release. Either way, Welles became exceptionally established after Kane and, hence, when he decided to take the infamous role of Harry Lime in The Third Man he had many strange requests on set and was required for only a very short while for very few scenes. Personally, Sarah's Dad told her that Joseph Cotton was the real star of Citizen Kane and in this film Cotton was the lead role ... I was in for a treat on that first viewing, but now I have seen it many more times and there are countless reasons for you to watch - and rewatch this film - that ultimately outweigh my initial reason (Cotton and Welles) to watch this film.

What I reckon ...

The entire story is initially based around Harry Lime (Orson Welles)- a recently-deceased friend of Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton) whose death, at the very start of the film, was within 'suspicious circumstances'. When he died, three people assisted and, everyone knows who two of them were - but no one knew who 'The Third Man' was. Carol Reed himself even narrates the introduction to the film, setting the scene in Vienna whereby there are four sides: German, English, Russia and America setting it after World War II, whereby Holly himself, a Westerns writer, arrived. As soon as he finds out about this mysterious 'third man', Holly decides to become detective and look into it himself and, bit by bit, he unravels the mystery to reveal that the third man was in fact Harry Lime himself setting up his own death ... the story shifts and now begins to turn into a strange film whereby Lime's true profession and criminal behaviour is revealed. This entire shift in plot happens over an hour into the film, but the reveal of Harry Lime is not only a brilliant 'twist', but a fantastic sequence utilising every unique aspect of the film to enhance the event. The sequence utilises the up-beat and relaxed music on the zither by Anton Karas (this is a brilliant soundtrack not for its memorable theme but also its effect on the film and, inevitably, the audience - it keeps you calm and makes you not take the film too seriously and enjoy the experience rather then get angry at the possibly-upsetting and dark issues it raises ... drugs, murder, etc) and the camera tilts and reveals deep, dark shadows before panning up as a sharp light, lights up Orson Welles. The man we know is Harry Lime.

It is these silhouettes that make the film fascinating, silhouettes moving in the alleys - chasing and being chased - and these are what became and are such a huge factor to the film noir genre.

As previously stated, Carol Reed himself starts the narration - as if unaware - stating 'oh, and Holly Martins' when introducing the main character. Graham Greene wrote the book and the screenplay and, having watched Brighton Rock you can see these similar themes whereby you have these amazing, complex 'bad guys' (Harry Lime and Pinkie Brown) while there are also innocent characters who are involved without planning to be (Holly Martins/Rose). So, as no doubt most people would and do, these Greene novel adaptations would be brilliant watched together.

A small subplot revolves around Harry's girlfriend Anna (Valli) who assists Holly in the search for 'The Third Man'. Anna constantly refers to Holly as 'Harry'. Holly is clearly interested in and in a timeless finale, through a deep focus, she walks from the back of the shot - in focus - walking straight past Holly who awaits her, rejecting him completely - turning Holly into this romantic victim before the credits roll. Harry's crime of changing and diluting penicillen ruined and, in effect, killed people and even in death he was ruining this part of Holly's life.

The whole film is showing these contrasts of love - love towards a friend, love towards a potential lover and how these things can change incredibly quickly. This links back to the chosen quote above - your actions hit others, repurcussions are inevitable - as inevitable as Harry being found out. The film looks stunning and the depth of each character - I've not even dipped into discussion about Trevor Howard - is fascinating. Harry is so corrupt and sinister it truly is facsinating, balance this with Welles cherubic charm and you have this incredible contrast.

I'm going to stop because I feel that there is so much more to consider and, after a little research, I could do a Part II to the review. But initially these are a fair few points to start on ... and that in itself makes The Third Man a fantastic movie.