Orson books to avoid? - or, at least, not taken seriously?

[mteal]

It's a new one that came out this past fall. It's divided into 16 chapters, each one covering a major character or theme that ran throughout Welles' career: Faust, Kurtz, Quixote, Falstaff, etc. Each chapter is like a long jazz riff with Conrad tying all kinds of ideas together within the enormous scope of Welles' artistic world. As Conrad notes in the preface, his book progresses, as Welles did, by digressing- "true to the free-associating mental liberty Welles had learned from Gogol's DEAD SOULS". Conrad cites the excised olive scene from Ambersons as an example of Welles' "marvelous mad digressions". He also notes how "Welles moved to and fro between simultaneous projects and competing identities; he had a multiplicity of lives, which proceeded along parallel tracks". Conrad's book is organized in a way that demonstrates this effectively.

The book is flawed but extremely entertaining and quotable. As much as I hated to mark up a first edition hardcover, I didn't get past the first chapter without realizing that reading a book like this without marking it up is a complete waste of time. So I underlined stuff on pretty much every page. You can buy it at a discount from Amazon.com (using the Wellesnet link, of course). I bought it along with Robert Kaplow's new novel ME AND ORSON WELLES and got free shipping for both of 'em.

[Glenn Anders]

Blunted makes an interesting point about Thomson's writing in Rosebud "like someone with a sexual attraction to Welles." It is a bit like that, and the title reinforces the feeling, at a certain level. I think, however, that the better analogy is that to a disillusioned youthful worshipper. Thomson has stated in numerous essays and interviews that Welles was perhaps the primary influence upon his teenage development. A boy of 15 sees the then largely forgotten CITIZEN KANE, at just the moment (1955) when Welles has become one of the toasts of London Theater. He is lionized by the leading angry young critic, Kenneth Tynan, and he is entertained by Lord and Lady Olivier and the Knights of the British stage. Suddenly, he is everywhere, in the press, on BBC TV and Radio with well-received projects and interviews, and in the process of making or appearing in no less than four new movies, including CONFIDENTIAL REPORT. Thomson must have been absolutely bowled over by Welles, and he has admitted as much. The experience started him on a course to becoming a film critic and scholar.

Then, as the years passed, each one anticipating another CITIZEN KANE, a new inspiration, Welles' failings must have become for Thomson almost like his own. And Thomson has come pretty close to that admission, too. I think that is the context for understanding the style and method of Rosebud.

Thompson is is very personal in his criticism. He involves his personal life in a number of his critical works. For instance, in his Biographical Dictionary of Film he includes an entry, a eulogy really, on a man whom he met one night at the British Film Institute. They became friends through their interest in films, and they spent time together, and corresponded for years, until the fellow died.

I, too, am interested in Conrad's book, which in concept, at least, seems most intriguing.

Glenn

[Sir Bygber Brown]

After reading mteal's comments, i'm seeking out the Conrad book. Sounds fantastic (all except the last line of the blurb - "and ultimately destroyed himself" - heard that theory before. And looking through the index on Amazon, looks like he touches on a fantastic array of items from Welles' life.

[mteal]

He does, and as I've mentioned, the book is not without flaws, as Conrad's attempt to interconnect this fantastic array of items sometimes falls flat. The constant referencing becomes a mixed bag- some of the digressions work, some of them don't, but there are more then enough good things in the book to make it well worthwhile.

Glenn,
That's a good defense of Thomson's book. I agree that he seems like a disillusioned Welles worshipper, but to me his disillusionment becomes a scathing resentment that seems to permeate the whole book. I think the "sexual attraction to Welles" that blunted mentioned applies more to Callow then to Thompson, but Callow's book is redeemed by it's amazingly detailed research. You're right that Thomson's criticism of Welles seems personal- almost like a personal rant at Welles for not having delivered what Thomson wanted. And what was it that he wanted? Probably a more conventional Hollywood career, judging from the Biographical Dictionary of Film that you mentioned (which, to be fair, is a much more impressive book then Rosebud).

[blunted by community]

the conrad book sounds interesting. i have a pile of books i'm going through now but that is going on my MUST GET list.

ON THOMSON:
the other thing i noticed is that there was no original research done for his welles book. all he did was read other books to write his. also, i was shocked when i noticed that ONE person, thomson, wrote that bio dictionary of film. but his opinionated writing was a turn off. i prefer the writer to lay down the facts and let me make up my own mind about the events. an unbias reporter he is not. i didn't buy the damn book, it was a gift.

my office has a bunch of computers, and electronics that are always running, and it gets hot. i have fans blowing out the heat but they cause a back draft and the door sort of remains half way shut. that thomson film bio has been excellent for keeping that door open. other than that, it hasn't gotten much use.

[Christopher]

I have just read this thread with great interest, and many of the comments about David Thomson's ROSEBUD confirm my own reactions. After avoiding Thomson's book for some time, I am finally reading it on the theory that I should read all the bios, even the negative ones. As I find myself grinding my teeth over Thomson's consistently mean-spirited assumptions about OW which have no basis in fact, it is good to know that so many of you on this board gave ROSEBUD a thumbs down. Whatever fresh insights Thomson has to offer -- and to be fair, he does make a valid point here and there -- are overwhelmed by the superfluous negativity that pervades the book, or at least what I have managed to read of it so far.

At the other end of the spectrum. I agree with several Wellesnetters who have singled out the Brady book as the best and most unbiased biography thus far. What I wanted to ask is whether anyone has read Peter Noble's THE FABULOUS ORSON WELLES? Is it worth trying to run down a copy, even though it is now out of print?

[jaime marzol]

you can get noble's book from the public library, i did, and it was not a very interesting read. full of information from newspaper stories of the 30s and 40s, and we know how innacurate they are

[Wilson]

For some reason I can't recall, I have two copies of the Noble book, and it's entertaining enough, though it isn't much for critical appraisals of any of Welles' work. If you like anecdotal material, it's worth a look. It has a few pictures I haven't seen elsewhere as well. It's a book in Welles' corner, from what I remember.

[Tony]

Jaime:

Don't listen to anybody else's opinion.

READ EVERYTHING!

Then make up your own mind; form your own opinion. Interpret Welles your own unique way: don't follow the pack.

I think this is the way Welles would want it.


IT'S ALL TRUE

Thompson drives me crazy, but there are passages that are spectacular. Leaming is gullible, but there's wonderful things in her book. McBride is great, but sometimes boring. Peter Noble is exciting, but too show-biz. Bessy is profound, but sometimes just silly. Brady is complete, but sometimes empty. Rosenbaum is...

etc. etc.

READ EVERYTHING

even old reviews and newspaper articles from the time- they are invaluable.

Read intellectual treatises, read pop stuff, read critical evaluations, read psycho bios, READ IT ALL...

CREATE YOUR OWN WELLES.

everything I've just written is absolutely false...



...and true...


Listen to everybody else's opinion.

[jaime marzol]

ok.

[tony williams]

I have two required texts in my current Welles class. THIS IS ORSON WELLES and Naremore's book. Other material is on reserve in the Library including Michael Anderegg's perceptive work on the Shakespeare films and biographies by Brady and Leaming but NOT David Thomson nor Charles Higham.
Leaming does have some interesting things to say as, for instance, her comments on the Brechtian techniques in LADY FROM SHANGHAI and her quoted comments from Welles are valuable. But no biography is perfect.
As Wellesnet.com shows (also recommended in my syllabus), the final word can never be said and Jonathan should be encouraged to write a superb text on Welles to accompany what Catherine should accomplish in the future. Her work may be well worth waiting for.

[Glenn Anders]

Perhaps, it's because David Thomson lives in San Francisco, and I've attended public interviews he has done, met him once casually, but I am sympathetic with his disillusionment. Rosebud is like the novels he wrote, which folded in characters and events from film noirs and westerns he admired. He just reversed the technique for his biography of Welles.

Compared to Callow's volume one, Thomson is a fan club leader. Consider that Callow's book ends with Welles completing CITIZEN KANE, at the height of his powers: star of stage, screen and radio, a social critic, a civil rights champion, a popularizer of Jazz, and a possible American politician of importance. Yet Callow denigrates all those triumphs and accomplishments. Where can his future volumes go but much lower on the degradation scale than Thomson ever could imagine?

No doubt Brady and Naremore are the best in critical biography so far, and This Is Orson Welles is invaluable on several scores, most of all, I think, for that marvelously complete timeline. Barbara Leaming's revised biography, I value, for the story of "the frames," which she tells in the Epilogue. There is also a book on Welles and Shakespeare that is pretty good.

I understand that Joseph McBride will have a new book out on Welles shortly, and we all await Catherine's book.

Glenn

[Christopher]

Glenn,

I have the Leaming biography that was published in 1985 by Viking Penquin. I didn't know there had been a later, "revised" biography. Please explain. Thanks

Christopher

[Christopher]

Thanks, everyone, for your feedback on Peter Noble's THE FABULOUS ORSON WELLES. I've decided to add it to my library.

[NoFake]

The "revised" edition of the Leaming book must be the one published in 1995 and dedicated to Roger Hill "On His Ninetieth Birthday". It includes an epilogue in which she recounts his pointing out to her, on the way to what was to be their last dinner together, a boarded-up building that personified the "magic box" he had told her about.

He had first encountered the concept as a child, where at the Chicago Art Institute's "Thorne Rooms" he had seen "a series of illuminated boxes set into the wall," some of which "provided tantalizing hints of the imaginary spaces that adjoined them." Welles was eager for Leaming to see them, as he had continually used the term "to describe the artistic worlds he had created in films like Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons."

When she got back to her apartment in New York, she was surprised not to have a message from Orson, checking to see that she had arrived safely. Several hours later, there was a call -- from a reporter, asking her to comment on the death of Orson Welles...

NoFake