Spielberg - His Generation's Orson Welles?

[Gordon]

I'm glad the previous thread which had degenerated in tone was shut down. I'd like to bring up the subject of Steven Spielberg and hope that it can be approached in a more responsible manner.

I highly reccomend Joe McBride's biography of Spielberg. (Sorry I don't know how to link to amazon.com so that Wellesnet gets a piece of the purchase, perhaps someone could help by posting a link on this thread. Like all McBride biographies, (most noteably "Searching for John Ford") it is exhaustively researched. McBride interviewed more than 300 people for the biography and took over three years to complete it. to get an idea of the value of McBride's authorship compare his Ford bio with the similarly ambitious "Print the Legend", which appeared at the same time.

One theme that appears throughout the book is the topic of failed parents (especially fathers) in Spielberg's work. He refers to Henry Sheehan's 1993 essay "A Father Runs Through It"
The story line of the new movie fits this pattern.

[Tony]

Two things come immediatley to mind:

Barbara Leaming remembering (on the day of Welles death) that "Here was a man who read Shakespeare EVERY day."

And Spielberg himself, when asked why he was filming The Colour Purple, a more serious picture than usual for him: "Someone loaned it to me and I read it straight through in a couple of hours; it was the first book I had read in ten years! You know, usually i just read scripts".

Enough said: Spielberg ain't no Orson, never will be, never can be.

And did you notice in AI, up to the helicopter crashing under the water: that's mostly Kubrick; from then on, it's all downhill into Disney/Spielberg,: just dreck.

Spielberg ain't no Welles or Kubrick: he's entertained billions, but Macdonalds has served billions: both are junk food, one for the stomach and one for the mind.

Let's get serious here, and compare Kurasawa or Bergman or Fellini to Welles: but Spielberg?

Please.

[Gordon]

I stand by the comparison.

There were many facets to Orson Welles.
But in terms of technical brilliance as a director, before the run-away success of Jaws made it clear that Spielberg had a particularly practical form of genius, there were many who were comparing him to Welles.

McBride notes that Spielberg cast the wife of a studio exec in Jaws, which is reminicent of Welles casting of Amy Irving in his proposed 'Cradle'. With respect to Spielberg and Welles & 'The Cradle Will Rock', I do not understand why Spielberg is criticized for not picking up the check at a lunch to which he was the invited guest, and why he is blamed for declining to pay for the filming of a project that had zero commercial potential, a lousy script, and that Spielberg never expressed interest in. McBride quotes Spielberg as saying that he doesn't invest his own funds in show business
(an exception would be the DreamWorks seed capital)

[Tony]

Let me put it a slightly different way: Welles was a man of great intellectual curiosity, especially regarding humans, what it is to be human. Spielberg has almost no intellectual curiosity at all: he's an entertainer of great brilliance, period. This is the difference between an artist and an entertainer; Welles films will last for all time, but at no time will they be particularily popular, for the simple reason that most people are not intellectually curious; however, people are always ready for good light entertainment, and that's where the Spielberg's come in. Spielberg seems a very pleasant fellow, with the typical curiosity of a 10 year old. He is quite likely a far nicer guy on a regular basis than was Welles, but that's not important for his worth as a creator: he's still an entertainer of extaordinary brilliance, but an entertainer nonetheless: Macdonalds for the brain. And he knows it: he's not a stupid guy. Spielberg will be enormously popular probably as long as he makes films, but then he will be forgotten, because he's essentially superficial: he's all show; spectacular show, but still only show.

And I stand by this distinction.

[etimh]

Tony: absolutely correct and very well stated.

Admittedly, Spielberg has some kind of talent. But film is, of course, a cooperative art and Spielberg benefits HIGHLY from the multitude of talent that he surrounds himself with on every project. So who wouldn't make a competent product with all the resources that he has at his disposal? And this is not simply a question of glorifying Welles because he somehow represents the "outsider" as opposed to the establishment hack. But the truth is, how interesting is a guy who has access to all the goodies yet still just continues to put out this mainstream pedestrian pap?

Tim

[GM]

Good points from both Etimh and Tony. Spielberg's films are enjoyable enough on the big screen, and I am looking forward to the new War of the Worlds flic, but there are few of his movies that are worthy of any kind of in-depth study, like practically every one of the Welles films are. In other words, who's brain would you rather pick through their art, Spielberg's or Welles's? When it comes to that question, there's absolutely no contest whatsoever.

[R Kadin]

Let's try this, by way of highlighting a key difference between the two:

In a single night and once and for all, Welles' "WOTW" knocked radio off the pedestal of almost absolute credibility that much of the public had conferred upon it - and which it had been all too happy to accept, thus teaching not only that generation but those still to come to be wary of what they are given to see or hear over any broadcast media. It's a subversive - yet essential - lesson that still resonates today.

Even if Speilberg's post-9/11 spin on the story were to succeed in reminding us to be likewise sceptical, questioning and self-reliant, it will only be re-treading ground that Welles and his collaborators staked out almost seventy years ago. That's assuming his version is going to attempt anything nearly so ambitious. I highly doubt it will subvert anything or teach us much we don't already know. And, whether it continues to speak to generations seventy years hence is not a bet on which I'd wager much.

Welles spent a lifetime and a personal fortune trying to use film to challenge peoples' perceptions; Spielberg has spent a lifetime and has garnered a personal (mega) fortune by, for the most part, confirming perceptions. Artistically and intellectually, we're talking two very different leagues; commercially, we're still talking different leagues but with the roles reversed.

Which will have died the happier? Neither, I reckon. Perhaps, in the end, that's what the two will have most in common.

[L French]

Just saw Spielberg's new version of War of the Worlds, and I must say, it's quite impressive, at least from a visual effects standpoint... Storywise, of course it may be a slightly different matter, but it's still a very thrilling and very entertaining movie. However, it certainly IS NOT based on the Welles radio show, but much more on sequences from George Pal's original film version.

Interesting Item:

I just read an interview with Spielberg where he states that his interest in remaking WOTW's stems from when he brought Orson Welles' personal copy of the 1938 WOTW script, back when it was up for action in June of 1994 (for about $50,000.) So along with the Rosebud sled Mr. Spielberg has spent over $100,000. on artifacts from Orson Welles career. I think this is one valid reason why Oja Kodar has questioned why Spielberg wouldn't be willing to spend a little time or money to help to fund a filmmaker like Orson Welles, who Spielberg supposedly so openly admires...
Even if he didn't want to invest his own money, a simple call from Spielberg to any studio head in Hollywood saying, "why don't you invest $5 million so we can bring out THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, would surely create some offers or interest.

Anyway, at the time the Welles WOTW script was put up for auction by Christie's, the buyer was not identified as being Mr. Spielberg, but the fact that it fetched such a large sum amount of money, was I think, reported on.

Welles original WOTW script was put up for action by someone he had sent it to for safekeeping, presumably way back in the 40's, and came with a hand-written Welles cover letter on Mercury Theater letterhead stating the following:

This is to certify that this is my own directorial copy of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS radio scrpt. Needless to say I scarcely anticipated the reaction accorded what seemed to us to be a fairly routine hour radio show.

(signed) Orson Welles

The 45 page script (by Howard Koch) was heavily annotated by Welles, with many changes, many drawings by Welles (one apparently of Hitler on a back script page) and also contained no mention of Howard Koch. Instead, Welles has scrawled his own name, "WELLES" in large letters on the top of the opening page, along with a drawing of a fat man in a tuxedo, and at the bottom of the same page is Welles' own signature.

It would certainly be nice if Spielberg would allows some book company to reproduce the script with Welles notations and drawings, but that seems most unlikely, as unlike Welles' daughter who put out Les Bravades, Spielberg certainly doesn't need the extra money.

[tony williams]

There is very little that I can add to the mailings by Tony and others who have justifiably drawn relevant comparisons. However, at least one director has financially aided various projects - Martin Scorsese. He has not only helped the cause of film restoration but has championed other filmmakers. Also, in the 1970s, Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas were instrumental in helping Kurosawa Akira make more movies at a time when his status was low and comparable to Orson Welles. Before JAWS, Spielberg did show some promise. But he took the money and ran making schlock entertainment and Cecil B.De Mille fake humanitarian spectaculars.

By contrast, Spielberg has done nothing except to aid self-promotion. I have no problems with his refusal to fund a Welles film but a multi-billionaire who walks out of a restaurant leaving a talent he supposedly admires to pay the bill is nothing better than cheap and shoddy which is how future generations will regard his films in the same way as they do the post 1920s work of his mentor DeMille.

[jaime marzol]

i agree with tony williams. at the time welles courted speilberg, speilberg had to move money to go to the bathroom. stevie idolized the man, the pioneer, the maverick, why not pick up the check and throw the man a few million?

with all the bad press he has gotten because of that, bet he might do it different if he could go back. steve would pick up the check, make orson tip the waiter, but no millions.

[Tony]

Welles (with Houseman) revolutionized theatre, radio and film by the time he was 25; Spielberg did Duel and Jaws by the time he was 25.

How many of Spielberg's films are ever on any serious list?

ET? Close Encounters? Jaws? Raiders of the Lost Ark? The Colour Purple? Schindler's List?

He's a brilliant Hollywood director- period.

[etimh]

I do like Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun" quite a bit. Its a very interesting film and an example of Spielberg's overwrought melodrama actually complimenting a strange and mythological narrative. Of course, it is based on fantastic source material--the amazing autobiographical novel by J. G. Ballard.

Tim

[andrej]

During the nineties Francis Ford Coppola was in Rome, to present his Dracula, and I had an interview with him for Rai television. We talk half an hour about his inspiration by Welles' version ,that he confirmed. At the very end of the interview I asked him, with a bashful disappointment, if he ever considered, during the Zoetrepe period in which he worked with Kurosawa and Michael Powell, to contact Welles for producing his unfinished or even for new projects. many years before - he replied - he was in the kitchen, working at the financial balance after Apocalypse Now. In the same time, he told, the tap water was turned on and someone entered in announcing that Orson Welles was at the phone for him.
Coppola lefts his papers on the table and went to the telephone. They had a one-hour-conversation in which spoked of a possible collaboration between them. The result was that Welles should have been contacted by FFC in the very next days with a positive reply. But he never did. And the tap faucet wasn't turned off during their long conversation. After some years - Coppola added - he built his private projection room where he had the kitchen. And a large blot on the wall is still there to remember his sense of fault.
Forgive my bad english!

[etimh]

andrej: thanks for this anecdote. Your English is forgiven--the point of the story is clear.

Yet another example of a person who disrespected Welles and who now has "regrets," long after his death. I suppose Coppola is somehow doing his own kind of personal penance by maintaining the reminder on the wall, but still, thanks for NOTHING Francis.

I don't forgive him, or any of the others.

Tim

[GM]

Too bad Coppola didn't have his wine business going back then. Welles could have jumped ship from Paul Masson.