Orson Welles Almanac in the New York Post

[ToddBaesen]

After reading the post of Orson Welles first Almanac column, I re-read chapter 13 (Actor Turns Columnist) in Simon Callow's second volume on Welles and was struck by what I can only regard as some of Callow's very odd deductions.

Firstly, after he quotes the beginning of Welles's column at some length, he declares: "The big success of the column, of course, is his eye-witness account of the inauguration, which he wrote, as it happens, three days before the event."

Now, where he got and why he should believe this bit of information is to me, highly suspect. We know that Welles was a great supporter of FDR, and would have clearly been invited to the inauguration party. Perhaps he didn't actually go, but I don't think Welles would have to make up this "eyewitness account." But even if he did, Welles was clearly making a very valid comparison between a third or fourth wedding, and the only American President who has ever had a third and a fourth inauguration!

Now, the question is, where - to quote Callow about Welles's writing - does Mr. Callow get "his first-hand information about" Welles! It appears that Callow based it on the TIME magazine report, which he also quotes (by an unnamed writer), whom Callow says, "Casually revealed that Welles's account of Roosevelt's inauguration had been pure invention."

Now, as I admit, it's quite possible Welles's account was pure invention, but it is so generic and unspecific about the inauguration, I don't see how anybody without first hand knowledge of Welles actually whereabouts on that day could possibly question it. It's quite clear Welles is writing his own subjective opinion about what he observed at the inauguration. But Callow goes on to reiterate the point that he wasn't there several times, thereby cleverly raising doubts in a casual readers mind about the veracity of all of Welles's subsequent columns.

Now, as far as I can tell, Callow based his assumption on the evidence of one unnamed reporter from TIME magazine, whom Callow candidly admits was probably out to get Welles for "muscling in on their patch." So once again, the question becomes, how would the TIME writer in 1945, or Mr. Callow, over 50 years later, possibly know that Welles wrote his piece three days before the inauguration? Maybe, like Welles they can lay claim to the gift of prophecy!

What is ironic, is that Callow appears to be quite as guilty, as he assumes Orson Welles is, of fabricating the events he's reporting on!

Here's the complete text of the TIME magazine article from January 29, 1945 that appears to be Callow's source:
___________

ACTOR TURNS COLUMNIST

Orson Welles, 29, precocious master of a number of trades—and jack of several more—apprenticed himself to a new one: newspaper columning. This week his first effort appeared in eleven papers (The New York Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Detroit News, etc.), all of whom bought him sight unseen. What they got were 1) excerpts from Welles's favorite reading, the Farmer's Almanac; 2) handy hints about cooking; 3) cocksure remarks about foreign affairs; 4) personal chitchat.

The first day Welles committed the high journalistic sin of describing an event before it happened. His column, written three days before the Term IV inaugural but published two days after it, told how Franklin Roosevelt "played his part in the ritual like a veteran bridegroom. I was there. . . ." In his second try, Wonderboy Welles professed accurate knowledge of what Stalin had told his Big Three partners—at Teheran, Churchill and Roosevelt had wanted to refer a matter to their experts; Stalin rejoined: "Can't we three decide anything?"

One big problem faced the New York Post Syndicate, which signed Welles to a three-year contract: would the column hold Welles's interest, as well as the reader's? Welles, who has taken a Hollywood highbrow's vocal interest in the world since 1940, was reassuring. "Right now I'm much more interested in politics and foreign affairs than I am in the theater," said he. "I have set up my life in such a way that I can spend more than occasional time on these interests."

[Alan Brody]

Much thanks to Peter for bringing Orson Welles's Almanac columns to Wellesnet. I enjoyed the first one and look forward to reading the rest. And thanks Todd, for reprinting the Time magazine article. How quickly Luce and Co. turned against Welles after helping save Citizen Kane from destruction a mere four years earlier.

The first column could have been written for the most part before Roosevelt's fourth inaugural, and it hardly seems like much of an eye-witness account of the event anyway, but more like a brief history of presidential inaugurations.

In Hello Americans, Callow's research does seem a little sloppy at times, and his acceptance of Time's account verbatim could have been the result of burn-out, but given the incredible multitude of facts about Welles's career at this time, and the massive scope of Callow's undertaking and the superb quality of his writing overall, these minor flaws can be excused. It's still one of the best and most valuable books on Welles ever written, IMO.

[ToddBaesen]

Here is the text of FDR's very short and simple inauguration address that Welles reported on in his first column. If Welles did write his report three days before he heard it, he indeed must have the gift of prophecy, since his description is absolutely right on the mark!



January 20, 1945 - Washington D. C.

Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends:

You will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief.

We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage —of our resolve—of our wisdom—of our essential democracy.

If we meet that test—successfully and honorably—we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and children will honor throughout all time.

As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen—in the presence of our God—I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail.

In the days and the years that are to come, we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war.

We can and we will achieve such a peace.

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately-but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes—but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of 'heart or abandonment of moral principle.

I remember that my old schoolmaster, Dr. Peabody, said-in days that seemed to us then to be secure and untroubled, "Things in life will not always run smoothly. Sometimes we will be rising toward the heights—then all will seem to reverse itself and start downward. The great fact to remember is that the trend of civilization itself is forever upward; that a line drawn through the middle of the peaks and the valleys of the centuries always has an upward trend."

Our Constitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument; it is not perfect yet. But it provided a firm base upon which all manner of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.

Today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons-at a fearful cost—and we shall profit by them.

We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other Nations, far away. We have learned that we must live as men and not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.

We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.

We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that, "The only way to have a friend is to be one."

We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust—or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding and the confidence and the courage which flow from conviction.

The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world.

So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men—and to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.

[ToddBaesen]

I've found that the Lilly Library has recently updated their on-line site with a much more detailed index to all of their massive holdings about Orson Welles.

There are many things that will catch your eye, but this little item, seemed especially interesting in light of Welles provocative comments about C. B. DeMille in one of his Almanac columns:

Folder 43: "In Reply to Cecil B. DeMille" (Mar. 31, 1945). Script

Now what exactly is this script? It was apparently prepared for a radio show, but was it ever used? Presumably, DeMille read Welles blistering remarks below, and took great exception to them, then wrote him a long letter telling him off for "making up a story claiming that I invented a fascist salute..."

****

Little Known Fact Department: The fascist salute was invented by the Hollywood film director, Mr. C. B. DeMille. There is no record that any of the Caesars were hailed by the now famous stiff-armed gesture. It first appeared in a silent movie, “the Eternal City.” As a matter of fact, a great part of the pomp and pageantry of Fascist spectacles is just so much Cecil B. DeMillinery.

[Glenn Anders]

Well, Todd, the idea that C.B. invented the Nazi salute does sound a bit much. How did Romans "Hail Caesar" without taking their hands from beneath their togas. Maybe, they saluted with both hands, to remove any suspicion of inattentiveness to The Leader's words.

As for that column by Welles on FDR's Fourth Inaugural, my judgment would be that, because Welles had worked on his campaign, the President would have seen that he received an advance copy of the speech, if he wanted one. He might possibly have been asked to comment surreptitiously on the text. Welles was well known in that time, but the average person probably did not think of him as a writer for the President, which he was occasionally, either directly, or through Henry Wallace to whom Welles was closer yet.

It was a short speech, delivered quickly on a snowy day, in about five minutes, due to FDR's health and the fact that the Nation was in the final struggles of World War II.

FDR's critics, and those of Welles, would have probably taken any opportunity they decently could, on January 20, 1945, under the circumstances, to tear the two men down.

But we need make no more of the controversy than was made at the time.

In those days before the 24 hour (repetitive) News Cycle, in an obviously just cause, at the end of a brilliantly conducted war (if such can be), the Public and most of the press were not going to make a big thing of this.

We used to concentrate on the really important matters.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn:

Thanks for your interesting comments! Presumably we'll discuss them when we see Mr. French at the Ha-rah club next Wed!

Actually, I don't think there was any real controversy at the time about Welles comments. It's only that many years later, Mr. Callow in his biography HELLO AMERICANS seized on that report by the nameless TIME magazine reporter and suggested Welles had written his debut column before he had been to the inauguration. But, frankly, even if Welles wasn't there, and had only seen a copy of FDR's speech, I think he could have written the exact same report, whether it was before or after the event. To my mind, the point is, it's a wonderful piece of writing about what FDR said that day.

But getting back to Mr. Callow, I agree with Alan Brody that his book is quite invaluable, and generally quite good, but having read all the recent N Y POST columns, I'd have to disagree with his bankrupt comments in chapter 13 of his book on "Welles as a Columnist."

Callow seem to snipe at every little thing that Welles had to say in his columns. He never seems to be able to admit that ANYTHING in them was any good! But what is even worse, he selectively quotes the text of the Almanac's to underline the negative points that HE seems to want to make against Welles.

Clearly, Callow never thought that the columns might become accessible to contradict his somewhat biased views. Now we can all decide for ourselves. Maybe some of them are fakes or downright bad. But at least we can judge for ourselves. It's like someone saying that Tod Browing's LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is really quite a terrible mess of a film. Now, that's all well and good, but given that it's a lost film, who could possibly argue against that opinion, without seeing it?

[Glenn Anders]

Fair enough, Todd.

I think we can agree that Simon Callow has not quite overcome the fierce bias against Welles that he established in The Road to Xanadu. In his favor, I think it fair to say that the political research Callow did for Hello Americans has tempered his view of Orson Welles.

No longer does he see Welles, at least during these seven Hollywood years, as some kind of purely narcissistic egomaniac. After all, Welles might have done the wise thing; sold out to Hollywood, economically, artistically and politically. Callow recognizes that he did not. He simply faults him for remaining, in Callow's opinion, naive in his political judgments while being rather admirably idealistic and loyal about his interests and causes.

That's progress.

Yes, we may see Mr. French at The Ha-ra Club on Wednesday night, if he has not been lured down the cellar stairs, once too often, by Cruel Carl and his Merry Satanists.

BTW, last night, I came across the companion book to TCM's MAN IN THE SHADOWS, about Val Lewton. It has a nice chapter concerning the influence of Welles on Lewton's career, and RKO's reaction to it. One of the things that the authors state is that Welles' grandmother was a Satanist, and devoted to Aleister Crowley!

I wonder if Carl knows?

We may hope that Mr. French has received his wellesnet summer bonus cheque from Jeff Wilson, so we can really delve into this evidence, perhaps letting a true authority like Carl fill us in. I don't know about you, Todd, but my various economic stimuli cheques went pretty fast.

Until then . . . .

Glenn

[Glenn Anders]

My apologies, keats. I should have cited a source for this assertion. I came across the statement, as often is the case, while looking for something else [William Archer's The Green Goddess]. The source, which I should have bookmarked, took me a lot of detective work to find again. Actually, the book is Fearing the Dark: The Val Lewton Career, by Edmund G. Bansak, with a foreward by Robert Wise. The author delves into the influences that shaped the life and work of Val Lewton, including, en passant, parallels and contrasts with Orson Welles.

In Chapter Four, "Out of Left Field: The Orson Welles Connection," beginning on page 70, Bansak follows up from the previous chapter, where he had established, the last project Lewton dealt with for David Selznick before moving to RKO was working on a production design for JANE EYRE. He suggests, the vacuum created by his departure was filled by Orson Welles (whose later departure from RKO would create a similar vacuum for Lewton to fill). He then provides a succinct rundown of Welles' life and career, noting briefly here and there the influence of Welles' style, mood, and themes on Lewton subsequent projects (i.e., mis en scene of Voodoo and black people in the Harlem Macbeth, etc, upon pictures like I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, 1942).

On page 72, Bansak deals with the pivotal event in Welles' life, the death of his young mother. He explains that Welles believed that his parents marriage had been cursed by his paternal grandmother, Mary Head Welles, "a self-avowed witch with an interest in Aleister Crowley."

Chapter Four is only partially quoted at Amazon, but the early part contains the above identification.

[The exact URL citation has been taken down at the request of Management because it stretches page view unduly. A little clever browsing around the Amazon site will bring it up, however.]

I trust the above will put you on track.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Looking at three different Welles biographies that discuss the Orson Welles' Almanac columns, it's fascinating to note how little Welles was making for them, so they were truly labors of love.

According to James Naremore, Welles was only paid $42.50. a week.

By the time Frank Brady wrote his Welles bio, Welles was making $200. a week for the columns.

By the time Simon Callow wrote his latest Welles volume, he pegs Welles weekly take at $300.

I guess over the years, his salary has been adjusted for inflation.

[Glenn Anders]

Thanks, Peter. As I say, I only came across the reference while looking for other information.

Making a copy of the entire chapter might be useful. Todd Baesen is on my back, suggesting that having a chapter on Orson Welles in a book about Val Lewton is, as he might put it, "bizarre!"

The chapter reveals the parallels of interests and influences Welles and Lewton shared, and how they co-mingled at RKO, in 1942. And I gather, scattered through the book's 581 pages, there are a number of other such references.

Thank you for the tip.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Searching the link Vidmonte provided for the Torino, Italy site, brought up some more great pictures of people in politics. Several of them seem to mirror who Welles was speaking about in his 1945 Almanac columns, such as:

Adolf Hitler; Benito Mussolini

and Winston Churchill


There are also great pictures of:


David Ben Gurion; Golda Meir;

Egyptian President Nasser

Mahatma Gandhi; Pandit Nehru

Mao Tse Tung;

The young Dalai-Lama

and

Ernesto Che Guevara

Here's the link:

http://www.comune.torino.it/archiviosto ... ello5.html

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn & Tony:

Since I have gotten advance copies of some of Welles NY Post Almanac's I thought it would be instructive to post this short excerpt on Welles's theory, that if had lived, Hamlet could have returned to England and have turned into Falstaff.


From Orson Welles February 6, 1945 column:

"Not long beforehe was killed, the Prince of Denmark visited England. I have a theory that if he stayed there and avoided the ghosts and graveyards (he didn't like them, anyway), Hamlet would have lived to be old and fat. Indeed, I think that's just what happened.

Shakespeare's great people, in their great moments, are transported with a high and passionate revulsion at the wickedness of the world. All except Hamlet..."