welles absolutely put all that stuff in consciously. he was amusing himself. huddling with metty and tamiroff, giggling like school kids, inserting bathroom humor. and he did it within the frame of a picture largely considered a masterpiece. but then you take all this stuff that he intentionally put in, add it up with the subconscious drives and obssessions, and you come up with a new equation.
case and point:
early welles interview, interviewer asks, "in othello, when iago helps othello remove his armor, did you intend to let the viewer know that othello trusts iago." welles replied, "no, i hadn't noticed that." [not verbatim] that was put in as just a place to go and something for the actors to do and be interesting.
years later i hear welles/bogdanovich interview, bogdanovich asks same question, and welles replies, "oh, yes, it's that type of instant metaphor."
so you take all the clues you can gather on reocurring motifs, nuances, motions, the way one actor always leaves, or enter the frame. you collect and isolate these clues, you formulate a theory, and follow them till the end and see if it adds up. and sometimes it pays off.
i noticed that all visits to rancho graande never give us an establishing shot. each interior visit is covered from a different angle, at different times of day, the bar activity representing correct bar activity, making it look like different bars, and having no establishing shot, obscuring our sense of place.
imagine if welles had inserted that beautifull shot of the corridor where we see linnaker and zitaa. wwhy didn't welles use thaat? that would have made it a very comfortable film to watch, and add to the labrythine effect.
i follow this line of theory casting till the end of the film, and i find that vargas' rampaage through rancho grande is covered from many of the same angles that we were given on earrlier visits. i felt like it paid off. that recaping of angles told me that the director was aware of the elliptical landscape the film turned out with.
when i cast the theory that guns in touch of evil are penises, i follow that thread through the film and see how maany clues i can findd to support my theeory. i found tons of clues that aalloed me to make linkss to my theory. the biggest one being, after quinlan's verility is questioned at the whorehouse, when he gets his hands on a younger man's penis/gun, the first place he heads is the whorehouse. then i find welles quote that that gun was every cock in the world the way tamiroff looked at it. again i found the pot of gold.
the guys in the trial having sex with that court room scrub woman, enter scenes in the extreme foreground, and travel towards the camera; the price of having sex with the courtroom scrub woman. maybe welles was aware, maybe not.
i don't know what all this stuff means. i'm not offering any aansweres of judgemeent. i'm just digging up the clues, cataloging, illustrating, let the viewer make up his own mind.
nothing in a movie can be exxcluded from a reading. everything that eends up on the screen comes into plaay.
now that i'm through with tthat raambling answer, i will trash lellaand.
have never liked cotten in anything, though i havbe liked some films he was in. lelland, very gay. school marm. sappy character. that is not to say that all gays are, just jed lellaand.
carringer did some good research, that i have been guiding myself by on the running times of the different cuts, on what was cut out, on what is missing, on wwhat was reshot. he completely cheesed out on the diagrams for the set designs, which is one of the things i was very interested in.
his essays other than what i just mentioned about i found pretty worrtthless.
i saw in houseman book the set welles designed for the stage production of 5 KINGS. it's only a simple diagram, but it shows an engenious design.
i would buy a book analyzing and diagraming the sets for ambersons, trial, 5-kings, faust.
new keyboard, putting in more letter than i need. takes too long to fix.