Thomson on Houseman

[Jeff Wilson]

from the 2/3/02 New York Times:

"SO the Brooklyn Academy is mounting a tribute to John Houseman (it runs from Feb. 15 to March 10 at the BAM Rose Cinemas). To which I can only respond, well, of course, but surely there is always a tribute running to this extraordinary and entertaining man, one of the small number of people who raised the term ''movie producer'' to a level of honor?

As many recall, John Houseman was the man in the Smith Barney commercials who seemed to have the moral weight of the British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone behind him when he said of the investment firm: ''They make money the old-fashioned way. They earn it.''

He was shameless about those commercials (because he knew he did them splendidly). And it pleased him that late in life the one-time mollifier of other actors' egos had become so assured an on-screen performer in ads and that he had won a supporting-actor Oscar as the imposing law professor in ''The Paper Chase'' (1973). But there had always been an actor inside Houseman as he made his way in a shifting world. How else would someone born Jacques Haussmann (of the family that laid out some of the grand boulevards of Paris), become not just John Houseman, an apparent English gentleman, but also the chief of radio propaganda for the United States Government during World War II?

''I was conceived in the second year of this century,'' he wrote in 1972, ''and legitimized five years after that. By then I was speaking English with my mother, French with my father and his friends, Romanian with the household and German with a visiting governess. Two of my first four birthdays were celebrated on board the Orient Express between Paris and Bucharest, the city where I was born on Sept. 22, 1902, of a Jewish-Alsatian father and a British mother of Welsh-Irish descent.''

That is the start of ''Run-Through,'' the first of three volumes of autobiography, one of the essential works of show business history. It is remarkable for the way Houseman is always the attentive, helpful figure at the shoulder of some difficult, neurotic or impossible artist, who is deserving of his best creative help. John Houseman had a degree of vanity and pomp in his own style, but it was proper and merited. He did things well in his own way. He was a fine actor; an eloquent writer and a good teacher, but above all he adored those in whom he saw great talent. He would do anything for them that a man of the world, with at least four languages, inexhaustible nerve, a minor English public school education (Clifton) and cast-iron taste could manage.

Just look at what the Brooklyn series has to offer: ''They Live by Night'' (1949), starring Farley Granger and Cathy O'Donnell, the debut film by Nicholas Ray, an artist so self-destructive, so bound up in his problems, so steeped in gloom that it would have been no surprise if he never made a single picture. But Houseman helped bring into being the film noir with the most tender, unflawed love story. A few years later, with Ray again, he produced ''On Dangerous Ground,'' a somber study of a rogue cop, starring Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan, an actor Houseman cherished.

He is also the man who produced Vincente Minnelli's 1956 portrait of Van Gogh, ''Lust for Life,'' with Kirk Douglas as the tortured painter. To this day, there is not another movie about a painter so true to the artworks yet so momentous as entertainment. A few years before that, with Minnelli and Mr. Douglas, he had produced ''The Bad and the Beautiful,'' which stands only a half-step behind ''Sunset Boulevard'' as a love-hate letter to Hollywood. He produced the 1953 version of ''Julius Caesar'' that has Marlon Brando, John Gielgud, James Mason, Deborah Kerr and Greer Garson, and helps keep their diverse styles on the same page. He produced John Frankenheimer's movie of William Inge's ''All Fall Down'' -- one of the early works of Warren Beatty in which he was searching out how nasty he could be.

Houseman was the producer of ''The Blue Dahlia,'' a 1946 Alan Ladd-Veronica Lake picture, with a script by Raymond Chandler. He also made the wondrous CinemaScope adventure film ''Moonfleet'' (1955), directed by Fritz Lang, and ''Executive Suite'' (1954), written by Ernest Lehman and directed by Robert Wise, one of the first movies to see the drama in big business.

No one necessarily would argue with you if you decided that these were just eight very good (or very, very good) pictures. Equally, I believe it would be generally consented to by film critics that ''Letter From an Unknown Woman'' (1948) is a perfect film, a masterpiece. It was, commercially, probably the least successful of Houseman's films. But a noble producer learns to ignore such vagaries of fate. Houseman knew that he had the director Max Ophuls at his greatest, prepared to recreate Vienna on a Hollywood sound stage, in a bittersweet love story, taken from Stefan Zweig and beautifully written by Howard Koch. He cast Louis Jourdan and Joan Fontaine (a woman with whom Houseman had once had the taste and courage to be in love), and he let the cameras roll. If you doubt me, see that one film at the BAM.

Anything else? Well, yes, of course there is, though ''Citizen Kane'' is a film on which John Houseman received no credit. In 1935, in New York, he had met Orson Welles: Welles was 20, Houseman 31. It's possible that the older man fell literally in love with the huge kid. At the very least, he recognized his profuse talent and the way in which Welles could easily become his own worst enemy. And Houseman decided to be Welles's friend, manager, producer, whatever it took, even if it all ended in betrayal.

You may judge by the terrible (if radiant) chaos of Welles's later career just how effective Houseman was. They were the leaders of the Mercury Theater, and within a few years they did stage productions of ''Voodoo Macbeth,'' ''Doctor Faustus,'' ''The Cradle Will Rock,'' ''Julius Caesar'' and ''Heartbreak House.'' All the while, the Mercury boys (including Joseph Cotton, William Alland, Paul Stewart and Ray Collins) were doing radio plays, too, with Houseman as the producer. It was Houseman who engaged Howard Koch to do a script for something called ''The War of the Worlds.'' It was Houseman who helped keep Welles going, despite 20-hour days, a private life out of control and the serene ability to inspire the loathing (as well as the love) of all who worked for him.

It was John Houseman who went out to Hollywood with Welles when the fat offer came. And it was Houseman who took the blame, one lethal night, when Welles, driven to fury by his inability to fix on a project, started throwing heating dishes around a restaurant. Their row was never mended. But then it was Houseman who lived up at the ranch in Victorville, north of Los Angeles, keeping Herman Mankiewicz off booze while he wrote the script for what became ''Citizen Kane.''

And it was Houseman, out of love, admiration, understanding and a little bit of mischief, who helped teach Mankiewicz how far this Charles Foster Kane of theirs resembled George Orson Welles. Not just a producer and a friend, but a hero."

[Rick Schmidlin]

And so the story goes that Thomson really does not and never did respect Orson Welles. When we were re-editing TOE a well meaning friend said Thomson lived in the Bay Area and might like to see what we are up to, that he might be able to provide some insight. I never invited him it was too scary of a thought. Later he his story in Esquire showed me just cause not to let him be involved.

[Jeff Wilson]

This letter to the New York Times from Frank Mankiewicz (son on Herman) proves that some people never learn:

"To the Editor:

I really enjoyed David Thomson's article about John Houseman [''Houseman: Producer and Hero,'' Feb. 3], and I was pleased with the accuracy of the reference to my father, Herman Mankiewicz. Although I have been engaged in a 60-year argument -- publicly and privately -- over who wrote ''Citizen Kane'' (Houseman's secretary, who controlled the script from beginning to end, has been quoted many times as saying that Orson Welles wrote ''not one word'' of what went on the screen), I do not think enough credit has been given to Houseman for pulling ''Kane'' together."

[R Kadin]

Given the ferocity of the rift that erupted between Welles and Houseman - and the echoes thereof that still resonate among those to whom such things matter still - it can be extremely difficult to be seen to praise one without inviting the ire of those who hold with the other. This is most unfortunate, since it is unquestionably true that there is glory enough for all in the careers of these seminal figures.

"Kane" was at once both an individual AND a collective triumph. And all the richer for it. Any number of individual contributors to the film rose to heights many of them had never seen before and would be hard-pressed to equal ever again. And yet it is because of the way those contributions all come together in "Kane's" bold, unprecedented form that we cherish this film as we do.

In it there is so very much to admire that there is no need to advance the cause of one contributor at the expense of another. I respectfully suggest that only those who lack confidence in the depth and breadth of this masterpiece might feel the need to resort to such a tactic so unworthy of it.

So, let Schaefer strut and let Houseman howl; let Mankiewicz (Sr., Jr. or otherwise) boast and let Toland crow. Let everyone who so much as moved a prop on this film stand up and take unfettered pride in his or her part in its creation. Their numbers could be legion and their tales magnified unmercifully - and still there would be unlimited room left over for our man's unquestionably crucial role in it all.

[Jeff Wilson]

It's true that there's plenty of glory to go around for Kane, but one gets tired of the blatant untruths of the type Mank's son is spouting. That particular accusation was disproven by Bogdanovich 30 years ago.

[Obssessed_with_Orson]

So in other words, some people are still trying to get the credit they deserved, even if they really had none to be deserving, on the case of the movie "Citizen Kane"?

Oh, brother. I guess this'll be the longest fight in the history of "Whose Film Is It Anyway?".

I don't know.

[jaime marzol]

::::::::::::::::::

nat:
housman did deserve a credit. in today's film world houseman's duties might well be discribed as executive producer; he oversaw the drunk (mank), and was a handy dish warmer target when orson needed to blow off steam.

credit wise mank is probably right where he belongs. toland is right where he belongs. james g stewart deserves a more momentous card to bear his name, but this is just my view of it.

[jaime marzol]

::::::::::::::

they had the unknown welles convention at the the Film Museum in Munich Germany. no such thing exhists in america.

if one was going to do something like that in america, it would work to make it the main feature of a film convention.

the south beach film noir convention.

the ohio old film festival, 4th of july weekend, packs in 1000 people at $25 per head. they also have the merchandising dollar coming in because not only do people come to ssit through 3 screening rooms running 24 hrs a day for 3 days, but they buy tons of memorabilia and tapes.

if ohio film festival can pack in 1000 people at $25, the south beach film noir convention can easilly bring 1500 to 2000, at $40 a head. south beach is always jammed with europeans, the merchandising dollar would be huge.

i've attempted this 2 times, and both times the proposed partners were too consumed with everyday life and eventually lost the drive to do something cool.

my friend does the comedy convention 4 times a year, and has made a bundle doing something he is passinate about. i've done some research on the topic on and off over the last few years, and haave picked my comedy convention friend's brain. it's not such a difficult thing to do, you just need a few partner/owners because it's too much for one person to do effectively.

[R Kadin]

Jeff, I agree with you about the arguable overclaims from the Mankiewicz camp; but, we're never going to get objectivity from a loyal and image-conscious son. As for slings and arrows launched from still other sources, it has been and will be ever thus where the great deeds of great men & women are the topic of debate.

Jaimie, I sure do like your enthusiasm about the unfinished Welles North American retrospective. We've got some pretty sizeable festivals here in Canada, as well (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Banff, to name a few); so, the possible number of venues on this side of the world could be larger, still. Perhaps I might try putting a bug in a few ears to test the interest levels.

Local interest or no, however, I would be more than willing to travel the continent to take in such a fantastic opportnity.

[jaime marzol]

:::::::::::::::::::::::::;

rkadin:
i've always felt that the classic film fan is forgotten. we have huge shindigs here for independent filmmakers, award shows and award organizations of every type that honor up and coming stars. we even have huge shindigs for foreign independent filmmakers. we have third world theaters here that show mexican movies, iranian movies, and indian movies; and they are not screening to ethnics, they cater to a main stream audience. but not a john ford, or john huston, or orson welles retrospective anywhere in sight. i have no interests in awards, up and comers, or third world movies, but like you, would also travel across the cointinent for a 3 day retrospective on any of my fav classic film directors.

putting on such a thing has been in the back of my head for years. i have 16mm projectors and occasinally do a cinema night, and it's a great artistic outlet for me. i don't have much contact with intellegent life anywhere on this planet, except when i have a screening. would be a great thing to do on a large level. one day the right combination of 3 or 4 partners will come together, then it will happen. until then i will have to get my fix on the home screen.