I never have seen The Third Man before and always overlooked its place on the IMDB Top 250 films. And let me just say that it definitely deserves to be considered a top movie. The musical score was amazing. The guitar notes and picking were such an eerie yet ironic addition to the overall makeup of this crazy film. But the thing that intrigued me most was Orson Welles.
Welles performance as Harry Lime was a very interesting one. Welles was barely on screen for a third of the film. But still his presence was always known due to the dialogue and the whole plot surrounding him. What fascinated me is the viewer is left waiting with anticipation for Welles to appear at some point in the film. The twist is kind of ruined for the discovery of the "third man" actually being Lime, but what can you expect when you put Orson Welles name in the opening credits and leave your audience wondering where he is?
Welles is an anti-hero. In the article comparing The Third Man to the stories of vampires and Dracula, I couldn't believe the similarities. You, as the viewer, almost root for this mysterious person/thing to come out of the dark shadows. Not because you necessarily want to see them do bad but because of the pedestal they have been put up on by the plots and dialogue amongst the other characters in the films. And Mr. Welles was definitely raised high with huge expectations.
In class we discussed why we all loved Welles as the anti-hero. I began to wonder if Lime wasn't portrayed by Welles, but rather by some B list actor, would I still feel the same way about the character? Is it just because of the anticipation for Welles persona on the screen that drove me to like him, or was it truly just the film and the character of Lime itself? Lime was a bad man who was doing a very bad thing, and showed no remorse for it. But yet, you can't help but become so intrigued by his performance that you kind of like him. If it was played by lets say, Joe Schmo, I probably wouldn't of cared as much about Lime and would of been very happy to see Holly kill him in the end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you pose a really good question here--to what extent does our sympathy for Lime, and hence our interpretation of the movie, depend on Welles's presence? I'd have liked to see you use your technical expertise to expand this very good question, and discuss how light, shadows, angles and editing may also have influenced our perceptions. I'd have liked to see a tie-in to the reading too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the Orson Welles star quality - he does steal the show a bit just because we know him as Citizen Kane. Off the top of my head I can think of instances were actors weren't cited in opening credits (since back then the entire credits were usually shown before the film started, not after) just because directors wanted to keep a bit of mystery. In Frankenstein's opening credits they cite 'The Monster - ???' and don't mention Boris Karloff. Maybe if they did this for The Third Man we wouldn't be so fixated on Welles's appearance! =) Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff. I can see the casting of Welles as Lime adding to our tendency to root for Lime. I just have a feeling that another actor could've achieved a similar effect - if he were even nearly as talented as Welles. I honestly haven't watched a lot of films featuring Welles, so his face was not that recognizable to me. Even after seeing Citizen Kane, his persona - as a younger man - was different enough in The Third Man that I barely ever made a conscious connection to the Welles I saw playing Kane. Point being, I was still tricked into rooting for the devious Harry Lime without having dire expectations for Welles. I do agree that his placement in the opening credits upped my anticipation for him, and when he did finally appear, I was pretty darn thrilled. Even as someone who didn't really recognize his face, the film played his appearance up in a way that let me know it was no doubt Welles lurking in the shadows.
ReplyDelete