In Search of the Third Man (2000)
I said I would comment on my recent reading, so there!
If you’re looking for an extensive account of the production of the 20th Century’s greatest British film, Charles Drazin’s effort is well worth it. In Search of The Third Man (2000) can’t be faulted in terms of research and detail.
However… I think I saw question marks over the bits where Drazin got into more subjective areas—for instance, the pointless comparisons of director Carol Reed with Hitchcock, providing a rather meaningless and impertinent excuse to be critical of Hitch (for repeating himself endlessly and never taking chances, etc.). It’s true that Hitch had formulae, just as it’s true that Reed really didn’t… he didn’t make any two films alike, nor did he have a particular way of doing things that attracts special viewer recognition… but I don’t believe this can be made into a virtue any more convincingly than it could be seen as a failing. Hitch catches some heat for no good reason.
As does Orson Welles. Taking no chances is a bad thing in this book, but being a maverick with a healthy, independent ego is also apparently a bad thing! Welles is surely the anti-Hitch, though they both have in common the tragic flaw of not being Carol Reed. Welles acolytes have occasionally tried to suggest that OW practically directed and wrote The Third Man himself, but this is a senseless claim. The highly relevant fact that Welles personally made no such claim is dismissed by Drazin as false modesty! I mean, what was Orson to say to make the author happy? Highly puzzling.
Read More »In Search of the Third Man (2000)
