BRIGHT LIGHTS 55 TOSTW Interview

[chipm]

Rizbo,

Yes it was unfortunate...but a great learning experience. I see your point in talking about Welles' situation being different - but I guess my point is the dymanics are the same. Starting a film without funds for completion. Looking for finishing funds. The perception to people in the business would likely be, what the problem with the person involved is - as this business model is so far removed from the normal film funding process. And I do think as the late '60s and 70's wore on, and KANE became solidified as AFI's top film ever made, the prospects of completing something that would be compared to that...was daunting to say the least.

Regardless, I would like to see TOSTW completed in some form. Hopper in his day would have been great. So would Coppola. But both have moved on to doing work that has been below what they did at the height of their respective powers. Bogdanovich partnered with a crack editor - will most likely be the best scenario possible.

Chip

[rizibo]

The perception to people in the business would likely be, what the problem with the person involved is - as this business model is so far removed from the normal film funding process.
Regardless, I would like to see TOSTW completed in some form. Hopper in his day would have been great. So would Coppola. But both have moved on to doing work that has been below what they did at the height of their respective powers.

I think Welles problem was he didn't have a good agent when he went into Hollywood. A good agent would have told him not to make Citizen Kane, a movie attacking a very powerful media mogul. The movie didn't make that much money because the theaters were afraid to show the film due to fear of reprisal by Hearst. If Welles would have made Heart of Darkness it would have been a big commercial hit. He then would have made Magnificent Ambersons and I think if marketed right (instead of dumping it in a double feature) this film would have been a hit also. With two big hits I think Welles could have been a bankable director. There is a good book called Despite the System which shows how the films of Welles were hurt by the studios interventions starting with the Magnificent Ambersons. It's heartbreaking to read this book because you see how his films would have been better if he retained the full control that he had in Citizen Kane. If he started his career with big hits, the studios would not have interfered with his future films and these films would have been better. The end of the career appears to be important. Ultimately many the great directors are thrown into the dust heap when they are old and Welles in his old age was no exception with no one willing to fund King Lear. Hopefully with the success of Scorcese and Eastwood in their older age there will be change. Welles career was hurt by a bunch of other reasons including his own lack of emotional intellegence but Hollywood would have forgave him as long as he made money for them.

You're right Coppola and Hopper's work are definitely on the decline. I think their testostone levels should be checked for male menopause. Maybe Tarantino would be better.

[Christopher]

As for why Oja should/shouldn't ask for a million dollars, she and Welles invested more than a million 1970s dollars of their own money into the film-not to mention years of working on it for no salary, and trying to get it released. And she is the co-author and a star of the film as well. I hope she gets it.

Tony,

Thanks for making this clear.

[Christopher]

As you say, rizibo, if we can agree with the proposition, Welles wanted Bogdanovich to complete the film for him.

There is a widespread impression that in the event Welles was unable to complete TOSOW himself, he asked Bogdanovich to do it for him. However, the only source for this so-called "appointment" is Bogdanovich himself. No one else close to Welles at the time knew that he wanted Bogdanovich to carry on for him. Surely, if this were Welles's wish, his nearest and dearest would have known about it.

[Christopher]

While I admire and enjoy his later work, seeing the immense amount of unfinished material in One Man Band leads me to believe that as the years wore on Welles became more process driven and less project driven. I don't subscribe to Welles having a fear of completion. Men are more complicated than that. I believe Orson fought his own demons. In the end, we are lucky to have what we do...as they are victories over his own worst nature.

The main problem, if not the only problem, Welles faced in his later years was inadequate financial backing and support. It is simply not true that he was "fighting his own demons" and managing in spite of himself to complete a movie -- that the films he did finish against superhuman odds were "victories over his own worst nature." It is really sad that the myth of Welles as a self-destructive genius lives on. It is also ironic that this myth continues to flourish in his native land but not in Europe and elsewhere. If Welles did not finish more films in his later years, it was not because he was self-defeating, undisciplined, etc., etc. No one worked harder or with greater focus, energy and determination. Had he been born in Italy instead of the United States, or in Sweden, and had the financial support he deserved as well as colleagues who appreciated art films, then I have no doubt Welles would have made as many movies as Fellini or Bergman.

[ToddBaesen]

Christopher makes a very good point about Peter Bogdanovich. It seems a bit odd how his now well known story about Welles asking him to finish OSOTW never was mentioned by him until 1998... nearly 15 years after Welles died.

However, whether it's true or false, as one of the few leading actors from OSOTW who is still alive, Bogdanovich is certainly an important person to have around to complete the film. One thing he could presumable do, is serve as the opening narrator for the story, taking over this task from Welles, who intended to do it himself. As Brooks Otterlake, Bogdanovich was a key witness to the events on the final day of Jake Hannaford's life, so it would make perfect sense for him to narrate the story and possibly fill in any story gaps as well.

[Tony]

Christopher:

I must compliment you on your wording; I don't think it's ever been put better or more succinctly:

" If Welles did not finish more films in his later years, it was not because he was self-defeating, undisciplined, etc., etc. No one worked harder or with greater focus, energy and determination. Had he been born in Italy instead of the United States, or in Sweden, and had the financial support he deserved as well as colleagues who appreciated art films, then I have no doubt Welles would have made as many movies as Fellini or Bergman."

Beautifully put by someone who knew him.

[Gordon]

Glenn Anders . . .
Wellesnet Legend . . .
Posts: 1026 . . .
Joined: June 2003 . . .
Posted: Feb. 17 2007,06:02

. . . For tonyw and rizibo, a final remark from me:

This is apparently Glenn's farewell post.

How sad the way that his treatment by some on this Board lead to this.

Glenn's 1,000 + posts made a great contribution to this Board and to we who enjoyed them.

Think of his living memory.
He saw Moby Dick, Arkadin and more.
I've always suspected that Zelig-like, he was in that audience in Pomona.

His reviews on e-pinions are very highly thought of.
They are more fun to read than any pubished critic.
In more active years, he was a respected restaurant critic as well.

The story of Glenn and Todd circling each other on the internet only to discover each other in the same neighborhood would make a great short story or even a good script.

It's sad that there couldn't have been a little more patience or understanding or even simple respect for this living bridge to history, if only selfishly to learn more from him.

What was it that Welles or Jake Hannaford said about old directors not being listened to or taken seriously any more?

What happens to critics of a certain age?
They pour their hearts out, get disrespected and disappear.

This will be my good-bye too.

[Store Hadji]

Glenn spent his time wiping his ass on people and chasing them off the board. For all his abuse, I'd say his treatment by others was pretty kind.

[Tony]

Glenn will be back; he already posted 30 minutes after he left forever. He can't not post here. And he's become more and more abusive, rude and condescending as the years have passed. I merely asked him to be more civil, and he picked up his toys and went home in a sulk. With Glenn, it's either you agree with him or a) you're a fool, or b) you're persecuting him.

But don't worry, Gordon: you can e-mail Glenn while he's preparing his Grand Return.
:;):

[ToddBaesen]

Dear Tony and Store:

Since I normally agree with you both, I really wish Gordon hadn't posted what he wrote, because of course Glenn isn't leaving this board...

I don't know how Gordon got that idea, but unfortunately, it seems to have only magnified what Gordon was saying about your attacks against Glenn and his valuble insights. I know, I've been disagreeing with him for a long time, but the point is, he certainly does not mean to be offensive in any way to anyone here.

His posts are to be taken with a grain of salt and with irony... something that Welles would have surely enjoyed. But your toxic responses indicate you have apparently never realized this. Perhaps this is one of the great drawbacks of messageboards. Knowing Glenn personally, I can tell you he's being tongue-in-cheek. But frankly, the kind of name calling you have dumped on him is not at all called for, even if you think he deserves it. For one thing he never uses four letter words. And supposedly neither did Welles... So let's all just bury the hachet and forget the whole thing - and move on to more important topics, like OSOTW, which I think this thread had proven to be most imformative about... It would be a shame to have Jeff lock this topic because of a misunderstanding... and if either of your feels that Glenn has truly offended you personally, I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you that was not his intention.

[Store Hadji]

I see in whose clique you are firmly entrenched. How much of Glenn's vitriolic snottiness have you missed over the past several years? All of it apparently. Maybe patronizing toxicity is all the rage in San Francisco, but an asshole is an asshole where I come from. Shame on you Todd Baesen.

[ToddBaesen]

Dear Store:

Unfortunately for the good of everyone at Wellesnet, your reply indicates you have no sense of proportion about these relatively minor issues, which you seem unable to take any way but personally. I'm sure Tony will see things differently.

But, now my guess is we will see this whole fruitful thread locked down by the webmaster. And it certainly isn't Glenn's fault, but yours. When or where did Glenn ever use such an epithet towards you or anyone else on this board as you have used against him?

Perhaps it's best, since in my view calling anyone names or making moral judgements, as you seem to be so willing to do, is completely unjustified, especially on such slim evidence.

[Tony]

Is Glenn really Shorty the chauffeur?
:O

Todd: I have to disagree with you on this one. I really believe Glenn must take responsibility for his actions and cease being so condescending, sarcastic and "superior". It often rubs people the wrong way; we all say silly things sometimes, but he's doing it more and more. I know at least 3 members who have told me they just can't stand his attitudes, and just scroll past his posts. Not because of something interesting he might have to say, but because of his attitude; and then they're missing something of value that he might say. And when people have attacked him, I have often come to his defense. But many times in the last 2 years he has increasingly attacked me: he just can't seem to disagree without going for the jugular.

Lasr week I merely asked him to be more civil, and he exited in a grand huff- a real primadonna. I guess you missed this display of royal pique.

But I'm sure that if Glenn were to apologize for his rudeness, and check the attitude, he'd always be welcome here.

But I don't see Glenn doing that. I think he'll just come back the same.

PS: I hope Jeff doesn't lock this thread, because I think it's important for us to hash this out: after all, we're all adults here!

[Christopher]

Since I joined Wellesnet several years ago, I have found the message board to be a wonderful source of information, discussion and ideas. The lively exchange of opinions is often stimulating, whether or not the people involved agree with one another. In fact, it is sometimes more interesting and provocative when they don't agree. Most of the members who post regularly sound like intelligent and evolved human beings who truly appreciate the creative genius of Orson Welles and what they have to say is usually worth considering.

So it would be a great shame, in my view, if the message board were to become a trivial place where members bicker with one another, take umbrage and play personal games of one-upmanship. Our Webmaster, Jeff Wilson, has already made it clear that financial contributions from the members may be necessary to keep Wellesnet going. Hey, guys, we've got a great thing going here. Let's not spoil it.