BRIGHT LIGHTS 55 TOSTW Interview

[chipm]

oral agreement is probably the sticking point...if there isn't paper...you're in trouble...

C.

[rizibo]

The "Confirmation of Ownership Rights" is a written agreement by Welles confirming the oral agreement that she owns the films. So ultimately the agreement is written.

[Kevin Loy]

But was the confirmation drawn up by a lawyer, or at least notarized? That would make a huge difference.

Kodar could claim that each film was designated as a work-for-hire, and Beatrice Welles would have no copyright claims whatsoever (since the rights to said work are relinquished in a situation like that -- i.e. a director makes a film for a studio [a work for hire], so even though it is the director's work, the studio retains all rights to the work unless otherwise decreed). But that would be an extremely difficult thing to prove, and it would require Oja to register the works as such, which I don't think she can do in the case of TOSOTW (due to the deal with Astrophore).

The problem here is that there isn't really a great way to get rid of Beatrice Welles (hey, I sound like I'm in a film noir with dialogue like that). That's why the suits keep paying Beatrice off -- they suppose it is better to throw a million dollars her way to get her to shut up (but of course, even after her lawyer takes his 33% commission, she still clears $666,000...and, wait a minute -- what a great idea! You can claim that you run a non-profit animal shelter as a tax dodge! Not that I agree with taxes in any way, but still...), instead of getting drawn into some legal battle that, in this crooked day and age, they may very well lose. Of course, that only complicates the problem, since it gives her even more money to throw towards these stupid lawsuits.

Maybe countersuing her would be a great way of getting rid of her (since I don't think anybody has tried that yet). Every time she throws out one of these ridiculous lawsuits, throw one right back at her, alleging defamation of character, slander (at least $55 million worth), filing a lawsuit under false pretenses, or whatever other weird allegation a creative lawyer could concoct. And of course, it could take years for the case to be heard...or maybe building a website dedicated to detailed reports on the way that she is single-handedly ruining her father's legacy (with citations, so that a libel case would be more difficult to build). Or perhaps the movie could be edited in China...

[RayKelly]

I am sure someone here will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Beatrice has claimed direct ownership or the copyright of OSOTW nor did she do that when she interfered with the re-edit of Touch of Evil. My recollection is that she claims the right to her father's likeness and image. Reconstructing or re-editing his films "damages" the (reputation) image she controls. (Not my opinion, mind you).
Again, I think that is how her lawyers have played it. We all know she didn't have a legit claim of Touch of Evil since it was funded and owned entirely by Universal. My recollection was that she argued they could not bill it as a director's cut. With OSOTW, her argument (I believe) is that a released, completed version would not be a true Orson Welles film (and harm his reputation/image). The courts would have to decide whether or not that is true.
BTW, I am pretty sure she is NOT the final signature holding up a Showtime deal. Gary Graver told me when he was in Massachusetts last year that she had been taken care of regarding her objections regarding OSOTW. She likely gets a licensing fee or some screen credit. I'd have to pull out my copy of Peter Bogdanovich's cut of One Man Band, but I think that is what they did on that project.

[Store Hadji]

Not to dispute you, Ray, but since when was reputation a protected legal right? Beyond matters of libel, I never heard of such a thing. That's like having a cork stuck in your mouth because someone else is afraid of what you might say, even though you haven't said anything.

[RayKelly]

I agree Hadji. I don't think a reputation is a protected legal right.
And I am of course NOT siding her on this. But I *think* her argument might be:
"I own the rights to daddy's image/likeness.... Making a bad movie with his name on it cheapens his reputation. I have to protect daddy's reputation so his image/likeness don't lose their commercial value to me."
If that is not her rationale, I'd love to know what it is. She doesn't own the film copyrights, so how can she bully Universal, Viacom and others?
I have not seen a print or TV interview with her since 1993. I'd like to hear her point of view. If anyone has a copy of her legal arguments on Touch of Evil or OSOTW I'd love to see them.

[rizibo]

I don't think Beatrice has claimed direct ownership or the copyright of OSOTWMy recollection is that she claims the right to her father's likeness and image. Reconstructing or re-editing his films "damages" the (reputation) image she controls. (Not my opinion, mind you).
Again, I think that is how her lawyers have played it. With OSOTW, her argument (I believe) is that a released, completed version would not be a true Orson Welles film (and harm his reputation/image). BTW, I am pretty sure she is NOT the final signature holding up a Showtime deal. Gary Graver told me when he was in Massachusetts last year that she had been taken care of regarding her objections regarding OSOTW. She likely gets a licensing fee or some screen credit.

On page 212 of McBride's book Whatever happened to Orson Welles, there is a quote from Britain's Sunday Telegraph that Beatrice Welles claimed she was the owner of TOSOTW. This quote may be wrong by the newspaper because I never heard this claim by the attorney of Beatrice Welles. You're right, Beatrice Welles' attorney usually uses an arguement that Orson Welles image is being damaged. I don't know how this arguement could be used in court by Beatrice Welles to stop a work in court because I always thought libel or slander usually applies to living people and not when they are dead. Maybe the Beatrice Welles claims to be the Orson Welles estate and damaging the image of Orson Welles causes damage to the image of the Orson Welles estate. I wonder how all these biographies of Orson Welles have been released which contain negative protrayals of Orson Welles (like Simon Callows first book and Thompsons book) and have escaped the wrath of Beatrice Welles.

If you are right that Beatrice Welles is not the last signature holding up the release of TOSOTW then the question is what is holding up the release? Someone mentioned that there is a confict between the different parties involved concerning creative differences. Orson Welles only edited 40 minutes of the movie and Orson Welles left notes about how to edit the rest of the movie. According to McBride, TOSOTW is a movie about a director and you also see the movie he is making. This movie within the movie according to McBride is very slow paced. Oja Kodar and Orson Welles wanted the movie within the movie to be 50% of the total movie. McBride wanted most of the movie within the movie scenes to be removed in order to make the movie more lively. I have seen some scenes of the movie within the movie in the One Man Band (Dale rides the motocycle and he follows the girl and you see their reflections on the buildings and the other scene where they have sex in the car) and I think they are amazing. Showtime maybe is feeling the same way as McBride and wanting a more entertaining cut. I think this would be a big mistake (similiar to RKO replacing the ending of The Magnificent Ambersons). According to McBride, Beatrice Welles wanted the material not edited by Orson Welles to not be edited and to be released in a documentary form like It's All True. I am more for the editing of the movie according to the notes writen by Orson Welles and making the movie withen the movie to be 50% of the movie. I don't know if this editing issue is the last hurdle which needs to be cleared for the release of TOSOTW but it would be nice if Bogdanovich gives another interview explaining exactly what this "last signature" needed is.

It would be nice to know exactly why Orson Welles didn't finish editing the film. If Oja Kodar would write a biograpy about Welles and all the details of all the unfinished work by Orson Welles it could answer a lot of questions.

[Store Hadji]

I think the last signature is from Showtime, the one agreeing to pay 3 million in producer fees in addition to everything needed for post production and distribution. Or did I read that Oja had gotten cold feet about the project? Can't remember.

[Tony]

They always just need the last signature... ???

[ToddBaesen]

I believe the final signature now needed is Oja Kodar's. The rights with the Iranians and Beatrice are supposedly now worked out, and Oja was reportedly presented with the contract, which she has not signed since late last year...

What her exact objections are at this point, or why she won't sign it is anyone's guess, especially since she is getting a very big payment.

As to the merit of finishing the film, I don't there there can be any doubt it should be attempted, and I think if it is done correctly, it will be a very important Welles film. On the other hand, if it's thrown together by some hack editors, it could be just like the Jess Franco version of DON QUIXOTE. And frankly, I don't think Peter Bogdanovich and Oja Kodar are the best people to be doing the editing. Obviously they should be consulted, but it will really be a big job, requiring someone who can actually spent the time to go through all the material and try to find ways of putting it together as close to what Welles wanted as is possible.

But it's going to be a very tough and possibly thankless job, which is no doubt why Walter Murch said "No thanks" when asked if he'd want to take on the task.

[Store Hadji]

That's like being given a tape of F for Fake and all the original scraps of film and being told "here, assemble this footage just like it is in the tape."

Ouch. Hopefully there are some dedicated Welles-fanatic film editors out there willing to make the attempt.

[Glenn Anders]

Not a lawyer, my guess is that Beatrice Welles' claims are predicated on rather recent laws which protect the estates of celebrities from a trademark standpoint. In other words, certain figures, say, Marilyn Monroe or John Wayne, exist as icons which are recognized worldwide. To take Miss Monroe's image and put it on a doormat, or Wayne's on a button next to Osama bin Laden, would violate the image, reputation, and commercial value of the tradmark.

"Orson Welles," in the view of Beatrice Welles' attornies, may approach that status. If that status has reached legal standing, any subsequent change in Welles' image as it exists within extant works by others could be argued a violation of trademark. On one level, we might agree, but if the legal threats are only to squeeze income from Welles' memory, it is rather sad -- commonly sad in America today, I'm afraid.

As for THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, I think the key to the editing comes down to the title itself. The questions are: What is "this side" of the Wind? What is "the other side" of the Wind? And what is the Wind itself?

In my view, one side of the wind is reality, and the other side is imagination. And the Wind is a divine or ironic one. That's where a narrator, playing God, would have come in. I think that idea would have appealed to Welles, as it would have to John Huston.

Having seen some of the footage discussed, I agree with those who would like to see produced the best version possible of the film Welles' shot, according to his concept. We have the script, and we know that Bogdanovich was privy through discussions, from Day One, about what the film concerned, and how it should generally be edited. Whether Bogdanovich does the actual editing or not, I think he should be in close consultation.

To me, "the other side of the wind" is a metaphor for life, the difference between reality and imagination, the corrupt and the devine, the prosaic and the profound -- in terms of the material, the difference between the reality of old Auteur Director Hannaford's life and milieux compared with his attempt to recapture his youth, inspiration, and manhood through the movie he has just finished shooting, a self-revealing mess which defeats the old man's attempts to interpret it and leads him to his suicide.

Hannaford has lost his reputation, his control, his abilities, his grip on a sense of youth, and all those losses suggest. If realized anywhere near the possibilities of the conception, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND might approach a universal truth. Life after a certain point is a process of transformation and loss.

I think it might be as simple and as complex as that.

If you would indulge my presumption, in my imagining, I would employ a "chinese box" technique -- i.e., a box within a box within a box. We would begin in the present with a new narrator, a producer trying to put together Great Jake Hannaford's last "unfinished" masterpiece, who would speak of the reputation of Hannaford, and would continue throughout the film, commenting wherever necessary -- being the 21st Century God. Augmented by the narration of Welles (the 20th Century's God) wherever possible, the reality of Hannaford's existence, starting with his burnt out coffin (the sports car) would present on the last day of his life. This riotous carnival would be punctuated by swift, sometimes almost subliminal, dream-like shots of his "lost" youth in the form of the film he was making. The whole rhythm and pace of the film would rise to the all-inclusive level of tragedy, absurdity and banality.

Hannaford's presence, the hangers on, the chattering of the critics and other directors, the commercial worries of the studio, the frustrations of those still loyal to him, the insecurities of the talent, the ambitions of his latest "discovery," and the ravenous rebelliousness of the new young gods, would all be shown in quick parallel and multiple images against that matrix of Hannaford's last day on earth.

Those who have seen portions of the footage will recognize that there is a great amount of repetition in the action, shown not only in the different camera angles and shot variation, which would be expected, but in considerable use of different color stock and tinting. [Some insist that this material is only evidence of poverty of means or carelessnes, but what if it is not?] We know that a use of different cameras and film millimeter was intended on Welles' part. But the side-by-side quality of some sequences available suggests an attempt to reproduce "a positive and negative" for "the wrap" of Jake Hannaford's life.

No doubt some sequences were intended to be seen from different points of view. Here, to me, is a clue that Welles intended to contrast Reality with Art, in an a surrealistic way. For instance, in the almost famous (by now) car seduction and humiliation of Johnny Dale by the Roma girl (Oja Kodar) playing a Native American (or vice verse), we note that sometimes she is "fully" clothed and other times virtually naked. I believe that the contrast was intended to represent the difference between the raw, cross-purposed nature of a sexual encounter (reality) and the carefully lit and staged reproduction of passion in imagination or art.

Given a matrix of reality, Hannaford's last day, his final film would be a commentary on his loss. I doubt that "50 percent" of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND would be made up of that material, but with lightnine edits, a good deal more than we might at first imagine could be legitimately utilized.

It all depends upon which side of the wind you find yourself.

I'll return the discussion to professionals like Todd Baesen. :laugh:

Glenn

[Store Hadji]

Could someone synopsize this for me? After one of Glenn's paragraphs I always scroll down to the next entry.

[Tony]

Ouch! :O

C'mon, Store: be nice! I disagree with Glenn all the time (well, almost all the time), but he works hard on his posts!

As for the meaning of the title "The Other side of the Wind":

a. I always thought the "wind" was the meaningless noise and energy of the press, in this case coming in the direction of Hanneford, and the "other side" was the reality of Hanneford's life, both inner and outer. This idea is not totally disconnected from Glenn's.

b. Oja says in some documentary that it was her title, that it just came to her, but I don't recall that she actually explains its meaning.

[Store Hadji]

Glenn loves to antagonize people. He can handle it.