What a great discussion...I can't really put in my 2 cents on Illusion vs. Kane since I haven't seen Renoir's films for years and I would probably now look at it with different eyes.
But I would like to note that this discussion of Kane's merits has been going on for sometime, despite it's relatively secure status as the greatest film ever made. Pauline Kael, in her analysis of the movie (which, incidentally, shifted a great deal of credit from Welles to screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz) called it "a shallow masterpiece," and meant that as praise.
I think the key to understanding Kane lies in appreciating the way in which it does and does not fit into the classical Hollywood style. On the one hand, it seems to break all the rules; on the other hand, it still maintains a place within the mainstream of both American and narrative cinema. It breaks all the small rules in order to obey the larger ones more brilliantly, if that makes any sense. Yes, it looks and acts different than any Hollywood film up to that time but in terms of its storytelling, its overall feel, and its "depth" of characterization and theme (I put the word in quotes because I want to use it carefully) it is very much of a piece with prewar (and much of postwar) American cinema.
That said, it is arguably extremely conscious of its own Hollywood style, and indeed the breaking of all the little rules are almost like subtle winks at the audience; Welles saying to us, "I know I'm using a popular art to tell a story of great depth and complexity, and yes in the process perhaps making it a bit more shallow, but all the same there's more here than meets the eye." At least that's how I read it. I think it invites us to look beyond its surface, both the stylistically innovative surface that Welles provides, and the charmingly artificial surface that Hollywood invariably supplies (and to a certain extent, all of narrative cinema does). There's certainly much to discover if we do.
Grand Illusion enacts much less of a barrier between its message, story, and characters, and the audience, if I remember correctly. In other words Renoir is not using irony, subterfuge, and trickery as much as Welles, which is why his film is considered more humanist and more beloved by certain film enthusiastes. Personally, I am probably drawn more towards Welles' vision, simply because I am thoroughly enamored of the tricks he plays with form as well as content, and intrigued by his love for popular art as a vehicle for what fine art is supposed to deliver (remember, Shakespeare in his time was a popular artist as well).
OK, sorry for prattling on, but that's my excited take on the matter. Anyone agree/disagree? I know this board's been up for a while but the longer we can keep this argument going and the further we can extend its perameters, the better, in my opinion.
reply
share