johnstonjames
i only gave this nine stars because i didn't know what to make of this. it is basically a film of a unfinished film. and as much as i applaud the effort by the (documentary? was this a doc? dunno.)filmmakers, it's really sad that these stunning looking films were never completed. what a tragedy for cinema.still, if this is the only way to see this footage, than by all means don't hesitate to check this out if you are a film fan. the existing footage is beautiful and stunning to look at and beautifully restored by the film makers. i mean these films looked so great it was frustrating not to see the whole movies.i especially liked, and wanted to see more of, the 'Little Bonito' film. i liked the fact that it was about a ritual in Mexico with the church blessing all the animals of the little children and villagers. it was so adorable you just wanted to eat it up. i didn't know Orson Welles had a cuddly side. it was the cutest, sweetest stuff i've ever seen in my whole life. it sickens me to think of a world where little babies won't get a chance to view this darling film. it looked even better than 'The Yearling' it looked so damn cute.babies and gooey stuff aside, the rest of the film was just lovely, and even though it's just a bunch of uncompleted footage, i could watch this film again and again. it really is a masterpiece about a masterpiece(or pieces).um. did anyone believe that story Welles told about the witch doctor's curse? i dunno. something cursed these projects. but i'm not sure i believe that story. look, this is the same prankster that scared everybody with that wicked Martian invasion hoax. i'm not sure i'd believe a word he says. it's all true. yeah sure. watta liar!
Narrator_Jack_dot_com
From "This Is Orson Welles" by Bogdanovich On the film: "I've never seen any of what we shot, not a foot. Nobody ever saw the rushes." On filming in South America: "I didn't even like it particularly. I liked samba, but I didn't want to go down and live in South America--it's my least favorite part of the world." On filming: "I had this enormous crew sent down--I didn't want them, but they gave me two camera crews. So I'd sent a crew out there and said, 'Shoot 'em marching up and down.' I had to keep them busy; they were always saying, 'We want to get home--we're trapped here.'...So there must have been an awful lot of junk shot, because I wasn't even there."
MisterWhiplash
The history behind Orson Welles' planned third feature, after his debut (which we all know the name of) and during his troubled post-production on Magnificent Ambersons and role in Journey into Fear, is as fascinating and miraculous as the footage still salvaged. Welles was sent down to make a "good-will" doc on a carnival in Rio. When he got there, he was over-whelmed with the "humanity" of the people, and got pieces of footage whenever he was awake during the time of the carnival. He also filmed footage on a sound-stage (one of his few times to work with color) of the people in their celebration. But as he focused a crucial part of his documentary on a story he read on Time, about four impoverished, immensely courageous fishermen wanting to see their government and sailing hundreds of miles over two months on a raft to do so, the plug was pulled on the film. Apparently the studio, which switched hands (hence, the Ambersons situation), didn't like what Welles' was showing them, which was a bunch of dailies without the essential musical element. So, Welles, not fazed by the rumors that he was partying the whole time with the Brazilian brethren, did what any creative genius would do- he went from being a wunderkind in Hollywood to a Guerilla filmmaker along the high seas.It's All True, the original title of the scrapped-by-the-studios project, is put into two parts, and while it resonates with the kind of movie-doc exposition of Lost in La Mancha in the first part, the second part is simply put, Wellesian. Richard Wilson (once Welles' assistant), Bill Krohn, and Myron Meisel, gather up interviews with the real locals from the time, or relatives, and put together a sort of video history on the tale of the Jangadeiros, and Welles's impact on the people (many of whom never saw a movie before). First, there are wonderful, if all-too-brief, clips of an unfinished part of the documentary called "My Friend Bonito". Then, we get to see an inside look at how the (un-true) rumors of Welles' debauchery that supposedly ruined the project, ironically, forced Welles' to cut corners to get his vision done - which becomes more intense after the original leader of the fishermen, Jacare, dies in a drowning accident. There are interesting interviews as well with Welles and his collaborators. Some of this is rather adulatory, but it's also enthralling as a trip into a time capsule, and into a director's process (i.e. using an extremely limited budget to finish the film).And the second part of the film is, aside from the part on the film's checkered history, is a unique example of history itself. "Four Men on a Raft", Welles' silent-film dramatization of the events as detailed in the Time article, is for me one of the greatest silent films never seen. Like in Citizen Kane, he uses some of his trademarks, like inventive low-angles and deep focus, but as well he implements such a heavy documentary style (some have said it's "Eisenstein-like", which I can see since it concerns a story of the working people against the fascist-types), it's no less than one of Welles' most daring feats as a director. Although this version has no audible dialog (people talk, no voices), and unlike many other silent-films there are no inter-titles explaining what they say. On top of that, there is a musical score provided by Jorge Arrigada that is rousing and pretty appropriate for the tones and sections of the film, but is arguably not what Welles' might have used. What is extraordinary about this kind of dramatized (and I say dramatized because there is an added love story in the mix, not based on truth) film is that it's the precursor to neo-realism that barely saw the light of day. It's amazing that by himself, Welles' managed to form together his own sort of storytelling style in what remains of his film, that is very simplistic and completely with non-actors, and makes it work as a remarkable piece of art. The camera just watches things happen, and how it watches is all the more special in how Welles, with his cinematographer George Fanto, uses as much expressionism as naturalism in the compositions. Bottom line, this one part of the film is as courageous as the people who inspired it, and as a piece of film history, It's All True successfully provides insight and enjoyment. After all, what better way to showcase Orson's passion for life and film with a Samba!
Charles Herold (cherold)
This is certainly not the movie Welles would have made. Welles would have made something far more interesting; even his worst films have a certain fascinating quality but this is really pretty dull. They've taken his footage, strung it together in order attached a bland score that adds nothing to it and put a dull little documentary in front so you would understand what you were seeing. It's an interesting curio for film buffs, and there are some striking images, but don't kid yourself; this isn't even remotely what Welles would have created. This is a workmanlike construct using some tools created by Welles, that's all. This is not like rediscovering a Bach concerto, it's more like a piece of music written based on a description of a Bach concerto by someone who doesn't quite remember how it goes.
