Rosenbaum Interview Posted

[Jeff Wilson]

Lawrence French's interview with Jonathan Rosenbaum is now up on the site, and can be accessed from the link below and on the Wellesnet news page. The link is to the first part of the interview; a link to the second half is at the end of the first half. Thanks again to Larry for sending it along to be posted here. Feel free to discuss the interview content in this thread as well.

JR Interview, Part One

[Jeff Wilson]

Okay, due to some confusion on my part, the interview was out of order, and a part of it never made it onto the site, so it's all there now, properly organized. The link is the same as in the above post. The entire interview is now in one big chunk, so don't look for a second part...



Edited By Jeff Wilson on Feb. 26 2003 at 09:34

[Jaime N. Christley]

Wow! I'm about halfway through with the first part, and it's a real eye-opener. I'm starting to worry whether Rosenbaum read my Welles profile on SENSES and may think I misrepresented some people or films. I don't think so, because it's difficult to really know all that stuff unless you're actually in the shit with all the pigs. Nevertheless...

[Fredric]

Jeff,

This has to be one of the most informative pieces I've read on Welles. You just doubled your site's worth with that one, and it was already valuable to begin with!

I'm suddenly brainstorming about a new section of the forum in which all the players in the shark-"invested" waters can discuss their points of view and maybe reach some sort of consensus--moderated, of course. Invitations should be sent out.

[Peter Tonguette]

Jeff,

Concur, concur. This is a superb interview and of great value to the site. Only problem is that it's so damned depressing in terms of what it says about the possibility of unfinished Welles stuff being released...

(OW's "King Lear" script w/ illustrations... oh my.)

Peter

[Fat Annie]

Jeff,

Thanks for posting this interview.

I'd like to follow up on JR's call for some proactive measure to challenge Beatrice's stifling new Welles related content.

1) There are many potential complainants. For example, anyone (like me) who added a cable channel to watch 'One Man Band' after it was nationally advertised and who did not get the program that was "paid for" experienced financial loss. If Beatrice has abused legal process in killing the Broadcast (Under my understanding of the will, Beatrice has no legal standing to shut down these programs) then the 'victims' have a claim. Obviously the idea is not to get a refund on our $9.99, it is to get a controlling legal opinion on Beatrice's (I don't think we should call her The Estate) rights in these matters.

2) If Jeff would agree, perhaps we could set up a site on this board to exchange views specifically on theories relating to Beatrices legal claims. We could probably come up with something more effective if we put our heads together on something concrete like this. Think of how many ideas we generate on other issues.

3) This whole problem underscores the fact that there is still no legitimate, recognized Institute, or Center, or whatever that is the principal focal point for Welles related material. The Lilly Library is a wonderful place to do research, but it is not The Orson Welles Center at Indiana University.

[ToddBaesen]

_

The KING LEAR screenplay with drawings would certainly be great to see. I wonder if Beatrice does have any of the many unfilmed scripts Welles wrote, or books of his drawings, or any other interesting Welles material that might possibly be published. If so, and she's so eager to get money out of Welles projects, why doesn't she attempt to publish some of them, as Rosenbaum says, the way her half-sister did with Les Bravades? At least she wouldn't have to sue anyone to get the money, but maybe she's asking too much money to get anyone interested, like the book, WELLES ON WELLES, which sounds like it would be a fascinating collection.

-

[Fat Annie]

Was the publication of Les Bravades successful for the company that bought it?[I]

[ToddBaesen]

-

I don't know if Les Bravades was successful or not, but they did a fairly good job of marketeing it, as I remember seeing it in bookstores.

In any case, according to Rosenbaum there is a certain lack of interest in Welles projects. FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH seems to be a case in point. It would make a perfect double bill DVD with THE IMMORTAL STORY, since together the two would still run under two hours. So I wonder why some small boutique company doesn't attempt to release them?
_

[fantomas]

In my opinion it would be more senseful to combine IMMORTAL STORY with the other Dinesen adaption THE DREAMERS (the restored 26 minutes fragment which was presented at the Welles conference in Germany) and FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH with PORTRAIT OF GINA and LONDON (three TV movies hosted and directed by Welles).

Among other screenplays, from OPERATION CINDERELLA to SANTO SPIRITO and MERCEDES, there is also a copy of the KING LEAR screenplay in the Munich Film Museum Welles collection - without any drawings but with a precise budget calculation "based on shooting in various locations in Spain, and in a U.K. studio".

[ToddBaesen]

-

I agree it would be great to see THE IMMORTAL STORY with the fragments Welles shot of THE DREAMERS script, but it doesn't seem like it would be practical with Beatrice Welles claiming to have rights to everything Welles left behind and ready to file a lawsuit. At least with FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH and IMMORTAL STORY, there are already clear rights holders who would not have to get permission from Beatrice (in this case Paramount/Desilu and Canal Plus), so all some DVD company like Anchor Bay would have to do is make a deal for the rights - which also may not be easy to do, but at least it seems possible.

-

[TheMcGuffin]

I personally think that they only way any of this stuff can come out is for a European or any other distributer outside of the US to put it out and hope they make it an All Region DVD...keep your fingers crossed for the asian blackmarket ;^)

Rob

[mteal]

That's a fascinating interview with Rosenbaum. The Welles on Welles book being suppressed by Beatrice is a real shame. A few other things that struck me:

1. Welles being angry about Richard Wilson's selling of all the documents that the Lilly now has. Rosenbuam is right: they might have been destroyed otherwise, perhaps by Welles himself, who might have preferred to spin his own mythologized version of events. Hopefully The Estate won't try to get their hands on them.

2. Welles having written The Kane Mutiny and then signing Bogdanovich's name to it. If true, it seems kind of silly of Welles to have done that. Why didn't he just sign his own name to it? I've never read the article, but I may want to track it down now, just out of curiosity.

3. Welles' criticism of Isreal and his calling John Wayne a fascist. Those are comments which could have illuminated or provided clues to Welles' somewhat ambiguous political beliefs. They should not have been suppressed by Bogdanovich just because they might have been offensive to someone.

4. Universal's reshooting of the scene in TOE where Vargas drives Susan to the motel, which eliminated the oil derricks which Welles had placed in the background. Given that oil derricks also figure prominently in the climax of the film (as well as the last shot of the film), it seems apparent that they were intended to be some kind of recurring visual motif. Maybe they can be digitally reinserted some day.

[ToddBaesen]

-

I think one reason Welles wanted to use Bogdanovich's name as a cover for THE KANE MUTINY article, was because he was loath to address critical response to his films. Like many artists, he obviously would be greatly upset by negative critical response, but would generally refrain from commenting unless it was to correct factual mistakes - of which there were plenty of in Kael's RAISING KANE piece. Futhermore, in 1971 it was still possible that Welles might make future films that Pauline Kael would review or even champion, as she did for FALSTAFF. So for Welles to sign an article attacking a powerful media critic would clearly not be in his own best interests.

-

[mteal]

But if Welles wrote The Kane Mutiny, it would be evidence that he was not loathe to address critical response to his films, he was simply loathe to ADMIT that he was responding to it. I assume The Kane Mutiny was written to address all the factual errors in Kael's piece, which could easily have been done without resorting to personal attacks. This would have given Welles the moral high ground over Kael, who did levy personal accusations against him. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble tracking down the Kane Mutiny article, so I can't comment on it too much yet. Libraries seem to have gotten rid of many of their older Welles books, I guess to make room for crud like Thompson's Rosebud.