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

[NoFake]

To clarify the somewhat awkward syntax in my last post, the "his" and "he" refer of course to Orson Welles -- not Roger Hill... ???

NoFake

[dmolson]

Besides the terrific TIOW, I really enjoyed Leamings book, since it had participation from OW himself. I've got Rosebud sitting on my shelf but have yet to dive in, probably due to some opinions I've read here. Although I'm anticipating Callow's follow-up, I can't help but think -- after reading the first book -- that Callow would love to be the one to 'out' orson. He's an interesting researcher and pulled forth more than a few interesting items, however, he had an gnome-ish manner about Orson's circle and the friends he kept.
The Citadel book was a treasure of photos.

[Glenn Anders]

Yes, NoFake, has it right about the 1995 Edition of Barbara Leaming's book. I found in the Epilogue, the episode of the "Thorne Rooms" to be such a perfect metaphor for the artistic vision of a genius like Orson Welles.

I would only add that, according to her, when she gave him some pictures of the shadow boxes, which she had bought in the museum gift shop on a visit to Chicago, he dismissed them, throwing them on the floor, because the photographer had eliminated the "frame" for the tableaux.

He told her that his whole point was in regard to the importance of the frame.

It is nice to reflect that when you see one of those extraordinary Wellsian shots within a shot -- like old Kane walking in front of the mirror in CITIZEN KANE, the principals in THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI firing into mirrors, Macbeth or Othello looming by torchlight up a dark staircase, you are seeing how he applied what he had learned playing hookey twenty or thirty years before.

I agree with others, pretty much, about the other books discussed.

Glenn

[jbrooks]

NoFake,

Isn't the original 1985 edition of Barbara Leaming's book also dedicated to Roger "Skipper" Hill? And I believe his 90th birthday was circa 1985, not circa 1995.

JBrooks

[Christopher]

I just finished reading Peter Noble's THE FABULOUS ORSON WELLES and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are lots of personal tidbits not found in the other biographies. Noble's biography goes up to the year 1955-56, when Welles was only 40, so there is none of the "a genius who didn't fulfill his potential" crap that is found in some of the biographies written later on. Noble also knew Welles personally and spent considerable time with him -- not always the case in the burgeoning realm of Welles's soothsayers and biographers.