It's no doubt a good thing that Welles didn't appear in the film until the last 40 minutes or so. His performance was forced and cringe-worthy, and his scripted lines horrible. Is this travesty the fault of the script, Welles, or both?
I can't say I share your view of Welles' performance, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and considering that most of Welles' closing argument was from Darrow's original (so I read), it's probably Welles' "fault".
shareThe trivia section mentions Welles tax troubles and storming out during production.This would probably explain his preoccupation, and poor performance.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I disagree. Welles is great in it. He and Stockwell are the best parts of the movie. Hammy? Maybe but I think it suits the material. His reading of Darrow's final summation is brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrjbL4eedkQ
"awful?" "melodrama?" "forced adn cringe-worthy?" You appapently have NO knowledge of acting or a right to comment on ot, and then to also attack the writing when the very words of the great Clarence dattow are used shows that you also are not in a postion to comment on that sspect either. Orson Welles was a magnificent actor who never sank to melodrama or overacting, He was a genius at his skill as an actor. The whole script was deftly handled and the actors superb in their dedication to their craft. So what now? Are you going to call "Citizen Kane" an embarrasing home movie?
You are wrong on all accounts. This is a fabulous piece of movie making!
Orson Welles was a magnificent actor who never sank to melodrama or overacting
He was a genius at his skill as an actor.
To computersaysno_cough:
"Awful melodrama?" "Forced?" "Cringe-worthy?" "Horrible?" There is no travesty or fault save your inability to recognize a great performance.