Reviews Aug 10 2008 @ 07:00 am
REVIEW: The Lady from Shanghai
Directed By: Orson Welles
Written By: Orson Welles, from the book by Sherwood King
Starring: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloan
Running Time: 87 minutes
Not Rated
I’m not so deep into film criticism that I’m ready to say that film noir would never have existed without Citizen Kane, but I think it’s safe to say that if it did, it would have shown up later, and would have been fairly different. It was with that quintessential and oft-heralded piece of American filmmaking that Orson Welles imported the lighting and camera angles of European cinema (particularly German Expressionism) and established them as American techniques, effectively ending the Hollywood tyranny of overhead lighting, establishing shots and close-ups, and general uniformity. Though there were admittedly numerous other influences (hardboiled detective fiction and an onslaught of new technology, to name a couple), Kane undoubtedly paved the way for the movement in theory, if not directly.
With this in mind, it makes sense that Welles became a minor figure the world of noir, directing films such as The Stranger (which sadly, we’re skipping over this month) and starring in an iconic role in The Third Man. In between those two, however, he made one of his most noted contributions to the movement: a mystery entitled The Lady from Shanghai.
The Lady, Rita Hayworth
Shanghai opens with voice-over narration by Welles, who, in addition to directing, also wrote the screenplay and starred. Using an unfortunate Irish accent that sort of comes and goes, he introduces himself, but actually reveals very little. His name is Michael O’Hara, and he’s an able-bodied seaman…with a shady past. Walking on the streets of New York City, he makes the acquaintance of a young lady named Rosalie (played by Rita Hayworth, who divorced Welles during production) when he saves her from some would-be muggers. Shortly thereafter, she tells him that she’s the wife of famed criminal attorney Arthur Bannister, who’s looking for men to work on his yacht. Warily, he accepts—and once aboard, he meets Arthur’s business partner George Grisby (Glenn Anders)—who wants to hire him to pose as his murderer.
To use an old, clichéd phrase: to tell any more would spoil it. From there, the plot takes twist after turn, until it’s hard to tell what’s really going on. Not that that really makes a difference to Welles, of course—the man was always a style-over-substance sort of director (even Kane is proof of this), and, to put it mildly, The Lady from Shanghai has style in spades. Visually, he travels from the prim and proper sidewalks of New York City, to the freedom of the open sea, to the oppression of a San Francisco prison and courtroom, to the chaos of a carnival funhouse—effectively conveying his characters’ decent into madness (which is appropriate enough, given the confounding plot), and transitioning gradually from what could be a “golden age” production into a harrowing noir, gradually sinking his teeth into the audience. The film, of course, finishes with the now-iconic climatic scene that takes place in a hall of mirrors—a scene that is nothing short of stunning visually, and that has been copied and parodied too many times to count.
The bleak, barren landscape of San Francisco
Almost as interesting as the film is the story behind it: In 1946, Welles was directing a stage play based on Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days, when his producer pulled out, and he realized he needed $55,000 to finish the production. Welles called up Columbia Pictures president Harry Cohn, for whom he offered to direct a film if Cohn advanced him the money. Cohn asked him what the film would be about; Welles told him it would be based on Sherwood King’s novel If I Die Before I Wake. Welles had never read the book; he simply saw someone reading it near the payphone from which he was calling.
Cohn agreed to the terms, and Welles finished his play, and then returned to Hollywood, where he shot The Lady from Shanghai, based on King’s book. Upon completion, it was shown to Cohn, who hated it and offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could explain the plot to him. When even Welles himself failed to do so satisfactorily, Cohn had a whole hour cut from the running time before it was released. When it was released to theaters, Shanghai was a commercial bomb—primarily, it’s theorized, because Welles made Hayworth cut and dye her iconic red hair. (See? People were shallow in the 1940s, too.) This failure, combined with previous failures (Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons), effectively banished Welles from Hollywood. He would languish in Europe, making low-budget Shakespeare films for a decade, before finally returning in 1958 with one final noir, Touch of Evil.
The final, iconic scene
All that being said, The Lady from Shanghai really is a brilliant film that, like much of Welles’ work, was simply ahead of its time. It’s worth seeing for two scenes alone: the climactic shootout, and a beautifully backlit tryst that takes place in a public aquarium. While we’ll probably never know what the original cut was like, the one we have is a fun, breezy thriller that never takes itself overly seriously. If The Big Sleep can be loved despite its nonsensical plot, so can—and should—The Lady from Shanghai.
on Aug 10 2008 @ 7:34 am 1. Phillip Johnston said …
If anyone can make a stage adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days actually work, it would be Orson Welles.
on Aug 10 2008 @ 10:28 am 2. G said …
Oh come on Luke, a “minor” figure in film noir? Not only do you argue that he kind of invented the genre, you also note that he made this film, The Stranger, Touch of Evil, and starred in The Third Man. Add in the fact that the Third Man’s cinematography was Wellesian, that Mr. Arkadin is a noir masterpiece, and that Journey Into Fear (which Welles produced and storyboarded) is an above average noir, and I would argue that he’s the most important, at least aesthetically, figure of the noir movement.
So I’d love to start a debate, noir fans (films noir, Sam, et al): Is there any filmmaker who had as much success as Welles with noirs? He’s almost singlehandedly responsible for Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, The Stranger, and Mr. Arkadin, and was a major force in Third Man and Journey Into Fear. Can anyone (Lang? Wilder?) match that?
on Aug 10 2008 @ 11:50 am 3. Sam Juliano said …
Yes, indeed Luke, it is a brilliant film in spite of itself! Nice treatment here!
You make a valid point there G, he may be the top player in the game based on the undeniable references you present there. Lang pushes close enough, but I think you have it nailed there.
You mentioned THE THIRD MAN, which in my humble opinion is the greatest British film of all-time (arguably of course–Powell and Pressburger,David Lean, and even Reed’s own ODD MAN OUT enter into the equation, not to mention a 60’s masterwork KES, by Ken Loach and Kubrick’s own A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and Robert Hamer’s KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS)and a number of others. Who is reviewing THE THIRD MAN? I will challenge the person to an old-fashioned duel if he gives it less than 5 stars! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Aug 10 2008 @ 12:45 pm 4. Luke Harrington said …
Hey Sam, I’m tackling that one. Yes, I gave it five stars. If I could have given it six, I would have.
G, you make a valid point. I guess I used “minor” in the sense that not a lot of people immediately think of Welles when you say noir. Also, he wasn’t extremely prolific within the movement, even if his contributions were indispensable. I concede the point.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 1:21 am 5. Rick Olson said …
Hey, Luke — Fine review. I have a question, though. Would Lang and Siodmak and Wilder, to name three, have used German Expressionist techniques if Citizen Kane hadn’t done so first? How influential was Kane on filmmakers who learned their craft in Europe in the first place? And what does that do to the argument of his towering importance to noir? Just wondering …
Also, I hate that we still have that tired old debate style over substance. And even if we admit that it’s a valid debate, there are other kinds of “substance” than narrative clarity. In fact, I might argue that it may be one of the least important, when compared to theme and motif and subtext and symbol and emotional heft and …
I get tired when lazy critics — I’m not talking about you, here, as I said: fine review — trot out the old style vs substance debate to save them having to shell out any real critical analysis.
I would argue that far from being brilliant films in spite of their lack of narrative clarity, flicks like “The Big Sleep” and “Lady From Shanghai” are great precisely because they subordinate it to other things. So there.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 6:59 am 6. G said …
Rick, I’d like to take your question even further. I will forever be grateful for anyone who can explain to me what, in artistic terms, “substance” is. I feel like a stranger in a strange land, locked out from being able to perceive this magical thing “substance” that other people can perceive.
You mention narrative clarity. Is that substance? Other people seem to think it’s emotional affect, which you also mention, and theme, etc. Are these things not produced by style? Are these things separate from style?
I feel locked out. I can’t see this substance thing that everyone else can see. Please, Rick, or someone else, show it to me, so I can understand why the Coen Brothers and Orson Welles and Christopher Nolan are not as good as I think they are, because they privilege style over substance.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 8:16 am 7. Rick Olson said …
Graham, I think that all five of those things I mentioned are “substance,” that there are many components of it, we just focus on narrative because it’s the most well-defined. Elements that contribute to style, on the other hand, are shot-angle, lighting, composition, camera movement, etc.
I think of style and substance in these terms: substance is what the film is about (i.e, what it says) and style is how it says it. Or another way to put it is form versus meaning. Realist films supposedly subordinate style to substance, expressionist the other way around.
All films, of course, have both style and substance — they are all about something, for instance, they evoke an emotional response, etc. All films say those things in a certain way as well, with a certain lighting style, compositional style, etc.
Of course, many films have no discernable, cohesive style, and that should be fodder for analysis, or they have a style that doesn’t reinforce or support the substance, what the filmmaker is trying to say. On the other hand, a few filmmakers — directors, cinematographers, mostly — have a personal styles that even idiots like me can identify.
All that said, I think the substance versus style debate is way overblown, and used by lazy critics to avoid having to actually engage in film criticism. I cannot think that one is more important than the other, and I don’t think that directors “critics” have derided has being all style and no substance — you mentioned the Coens, whom I adore, and, yes, Welles and I’ll even concede Christopher Nolan, though I would argue that he’s got plenty of substance, he just bludgeons you over the head with it. I’d add Wong Kar Wai to that list, and pertinent to the discussion on another blog, Johnny To.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 8:59 am 8. Luke Harrington said …
First, let me say that when I described Welles as a “style over substance” director, I (obviously) didn’t mean to do so in a pejorative sense, even if the phrase is often used in such a way. My intended meaning was that Welles was generally more interested in the aesthetic qualities of his films more than their narrative or thematic ones. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and judging films negatively based on this fact betrays a distinctly American bias — it’s really only within the Hollywood school of filmmaking that the craft is seen primarily (or even entirely) as a medium for storytelling.
As to your question about Kane, Rick, it’s a difficult one to answer definitively. Prior to Welle’s appearance in Hollywood, there was a fair number of European-born directors working there (Edgar G. Ulmer and James Whale, to name a couple) who were using distinctly European staging and filming techniques, primarily within a horror idiom — so it’s not as though Welles necessarily introduced this visual style. What I would argue is that Kane took these techniques and made them distinctly American. I could go on for a while about how and why (I smell a thesis — although I’m sure it’s already been written by someone else), but suffice it to say that it removed them from the gothic and the supernatural and used them to comment on the concrete and the human…if that makes sense.
I’m not entirely sure I agree about Nolan — as often as not he seems to be more “substance over style” — in other words, he generally has a “message” (as Rick says, a rather blunt one that he beats you with), but fails to mold it into anything cohesive artistically (this is particularly true, I think, of his Batman series, though less so of his earlier work like Memento — blunt though that one may be).
I agree that merely engaging the narrative is a very lazy way to review films.
Other than that, I think I’ll let you boys have at it…I’m enjoying this little discussion.
on Aug 15 2008 @ 8:16 pm 9. films noir said …
I have came too late to this debate, but here goes. Orson Welles was a significant figure in film noir, but only as an equal among others. As for Citizen Kane it was THE seminal film in modern film-making because of it’s sheer audacity and vision. Welles AND his director of photography, Gregg Toland, freed the camera from passivity and the grand Wellian take came into its own. Welles in recognition of the creative contribution of Toland, in the credits for Citizen Kane shared direction credit with him on the same title:
Orson Welles
Director – Production
Greg Toland, ASC
Photography
As for The Lady from Shanghai: a brilliant jigsaw of a film noir, with a femme-fatale to die for, and a script so sharp and witty, you relish every scene. You can watch it again and again, and find something new each time.
“Then the beasts took to eating each other.
In their frenzy…
they ate at themselves.
You could feel the lust of murder like a wind stinging your eyes.
And you could smell the death reeking up out of the sea.
I never saw anything worse…
until this little picnic tonight.
And you know…
there wasn´t one of them sharks in the whole crazy pack that survived.
l´ll be leaving you now.”
on Aug 15 2008 @ 9:13 pm 10. Alexander Coleman said …
films noir, that is one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite films of all time.
I agree that Welles is a very important figure in noir, but as you say one of many others.
on Jan 05 2009 @ 9:08 pm 11. [review]: The Lady from Shanghai « …yet made of stars said …
[...] January 5, 2009 Cross-posted at: MovieZeal [...]