these things i mentioned are right there on the screen, it's not imagination. some of the books on film crit i've studied teach you not to be a passive viewer. too often today all we have to do is pay admition, sit in theater and enjoy arnold schwartznegger destroying the mall. this is fine for modern films, no brain needed, it's all handed to you. but it would be a mistake to think that the same 'no thought' process can be applied to films by welles, hitch, von sternberg, von stroheim, etc. there is so much beneath the surface to be enjoyed, that to sit through a fim like KANE, or REAR WINDOW, without applying tought paterns, without identifying symatec clusters of meaning, infered meanings, casting theories, you rob yourself of a lot of film watching enjoyment. yes, film watching, if you steer away from eddie murphy type films, could be a rewarding, and intellectual experience.
and i don't expect everyone to agree with my findings. schollars to this day still quibble about what shakespeare meant, and intended. it's largely a matter of opinion.
the few who have read my book were totally surprised by it, and i've heard on more than a few occassions that reading my book taught them a different way to look at films. this is great. that was my intention. the books i read taught me a new way to watch and enjoy films. i'm just trying to pass the enjoyment on to others. and that it's as much fun finding this stuff as it is cataloging it to the written page with text, captures, and circles and arrows. i'm not trying to smear welles, like some blindfolded screaming ninis have said.
but the blindfolded screaming ninis have given me some pleasure, and reasurance that i'm headed in the right direction. maybo some close minded critics will see it, blast it in their columns, and i'll make sales.
no jelousy. if the stuff was good i would embrace it because i love everything welles did. another knowledgable schollar's take on welles is always welcomed, and treasured.
haven't you noticed that carringer never assigns credit to welles for anything? haven't you noticed that in his writing, it's always some one else's idea, it's never welles. according to carringer, in the wellesian topics he chose to write about, welles is not the resident genius, every one else is. this is what i dislike, and disstrust about works by higham, and kael. carringer just hides his contempt for welles a bit better than higham, and kael. i guess this comes from reading what is below the surface as well as what he puts up front for you too see.
this is my opinion on it. i don't expect any one to read this and change their opinion, but next time you read carringer on welles, maybe a little bit of this info will be in the back of your head and some of this might come to light.
dan, what do you think about carringer putting the blame on the unravelling of ambersons on the oedipuss complex? he wrapped up his essay by offering up, "where is hamlet in the welles canon?" as if this answered everything. and i paid $30 for that book.
rosenbaum feels the same way about carringer. either we are both jelous of him, or we have seen something that maybe others havent yet. who knows, it's a crap shoot when it comes to opinions.