TOE thread - continued from TOSOTW thread.

[R Kadin]

Welles was the opposite of a naiif when it came consciously to making room for sex in his films. For example, the dancers from the "Kane" Inquirer celebration scene were unquestionably hookers in the filmed footage, something that Welles was going to use to get the Hays Office into a lather and stoke even more promotional controversy for the film. Oh, yes, and there were also the artistic issues about freedom of expression and making an adult point about the contrast between Kane's private crusader image and his private debauchery, yadda, yadda, yadda; so, Welles was apparently all geared up for a fight, but decided ultimately to leave out the racier scenes as he had more than enough controversy without them...so I'm told. The incestuous overtones of his treatment for Ambersons was no latent element, either. The Lady from Shanghai? You want deliberate sexual imagery? Look at almost any frame in that film. So, right from the start Welles and sex were themes that were never far apart, each from the other - onscreen or off, according to legend, at least.

[jaime marzol]

yeap, i always find a repressed/rampant sexual quality in welles' films. great stuff. and it's not underlined with close-ups and reaction shots. you gotta look for it.

[Cole]

Just a small correction to the above. George Minafer's aunt was named Fanny in the book. Orson didn't change her name in the movie.

[Welles Fan]

There's always the possibility that Orson inserted the rampant/repressed sexuality into his movies because...sex sells.

Sometimes an artist's work features sex just to titillate the audience. Remember the cockato in Kane, with the transparent eye? Much can be made of what it "represents", and why you can see straight thru the bird's eye, but O.W. said the screeching bird was there to "wake up the audience" and the eye thing was a technical mistake.

[jaime marzol]

cole:

the carringer book says it was something else, and welles changed it to fanny. it was one of those covert sexual thing he liked to do, the book said. i have not read ambersons. don't know what her name was.

[jaime marzol]

sex does sell, always has. but it seems to me the way welles did things like he made touch of evil, it was to amuse himself. he also amused metty , and tamiroff. you know those 3 huddled about all the framing, and lighting on janet leigh's breasts.

[Cole]

Jaime – If that’s what the Carringer book states, it’s wrong. From beginning to end, the book referred to George’s aunt as “Fanny.” The only name that was changed in the movie was George’s uncle, who in the book was also named George. For the movie Orson changed the uncle’s name to Jack, and undoubtedly he did this to avoid the small confusion of having two main characters with the name George.

I haven’t read the Carringer book myself, but if he took the position that Orson inserted a lot of hidden sexual messages into the movie, Carringer used made-up facts to support this claim.

[jaime marzol]

does not surprise me that carringer is wrong. in my eyes, all his opinions, and assumtions are wrong, so why not his facts.

this is where i found it:
carringer's ambersons book, page 197, footnote 60:
"the name by which everyone called agnes moorhead , changed from maggie in tarkinton novel. Welles loved covert allusions of this sort."

cole, are you sure about this? if you are right, then carringer is less competent that i thought he was.

he is right about welles loving covert allusions. i have found so many hidden covert sexual allusions in touch of evil, that has just set welles fans foaming at the mouth (some on this site). they think i'm making it up, but it's right there on the screen for anyone who cares to search.

would be really surprised if fanny is fanny in the book also.

if cole is right, then my first impressions were right; carringer and his books, suck.

[Welles Fan]

Jaime, I have a copy of the novel, and all through it, Aunt Fanny is indeed referred to as...Aunt Fanny. Fanny was not an uncommon name at the turn of the century. Also, in the Criterion Laser, Carringer claims that the scene with George, Fanny and the boiler is re-shot because Moorhead was so over the top in that scene. Is this true?, because she's really pushing it in the scene as it exists now. If that is the toned-down version, one can see why the preview audiences might have laughed at that part.

Also, as to the framing and lighting on Janet Leigh's breasts-when weren't they ever treated in that fashion? I don't think I've seen a film with Leigh that didn't feature her breasts front and center. ...Or maybe I was spending so much time watching them, I didn't notice other things in the movies? hmmm....

[jaime marzol]

in the scene with susan in uncle joe's office:

a) the shot is lined up so it looks like uncle joe's gun is lined up with susan's breasts, as he waves the gun up and down.

b) uncle joe shoves the gun in his pants and leigh was probably directed to follow the path of the gun with her eyes. she looks down right at uncle joe's crotch.

c) tamiroff can be seen looking to make sure his cigar shadow falls right between leigh's breasts.

d) tamirof lunges with phallic cigar in mouth right to susan's lips.

e) once again camera lines up the shot so it looks like tamiroff is holding phallic cigar to leigh's lips.

f) tamirof turns around and is clearly seen looking right at leigh's breasts

g) as uncle joe puts on his coat the shot is lined up so that it looks like uncle joe's arm thrusting through the coat sleeve is headed towards susan's breasts. play this little segment a few times and tell if it's not suspicious the way tamiroff stops where he does, and how metty lined up the shot.

h) as leigh backs out of his office, uncle joe licks his lips; this one is blatant.

these are the ones just off the top of my head.

if this doesn't sound like much, you should see how incriminating it looks when you collect these clips and play them side by side.

[ToddBaesen]

-

Carringer isn't wrong. The reference is to Isabel saying to George, "wouldn't you like to have (the maid) Aggie fix something for you in the dining room. In the novel the maid's name was Maggie. So it was Welles changing the maid's name to Agnes Moorehead's nick-name of Aggie. It has nothing to do with Aunt Fanny's name being changed.

[jaime marzol]

todd:
that makes sense. too bad. was more fun to think that carringer was wrong. i'm not a carringer fan.

[dmolson]

Jaime
its' fun to put all those ideas together, makes for a great college paper thesis. I'm sure you're not the first to interpret all or at least some of these signs, but I personally only recognize a couple of those 'items' you've described. Perhaps Welles really wanted to spice up the film, slip a handful past the censors, or maybe you've got a great imagination.
On Carringer, I've found his book on Citizen Kane as very interesting and helpful. I think perhaps you're a little too tough on him, but I won't allow my imagination to read that as 'jealousy'...:^)

[ChristopherBanks]

Jaime, I have a copy of the novel, and all through it, Aunt Fanny is indeed referred to as...Aunt Fanny. Fanny was not an uncommon name at the turn of the century. Also, in the Criterion Laser, Carringer claims that the scene with George, Fanny and the boiler is re-shot because Moorhead was so over the top in that scene. Is this true?, because she's really pushing it in the scene as it exists now. If that is the toned-down version, one can see why the preview audiences might have laughed at that part.

Only the first part is re-shot. You can easily tell where the splice occurs, the lighting goes from flat to stark and the sound suddenly changes to that of two people talking in an empty mansion instead of a dead soundstage.

[jaime marzol]

dolson:
these things i mentioned are right there on the screen, it's not imagination. some of the books on film crit i've studied teach you not to be a passive viewer. too often today all we have to do is pay admition, sit in theater and enjoy arnold schwartznegger destroying the mall. this is fine for modern films, no brain needed, it's all handed to you. but it would be a mistake to think that the same 'no thought' process can be applied to films by welles, hitch, von sternberg, von stroheim, etc. there is so much beneath the surface to be enjoyed, that to sit through a fim like KANE, or REAR WINDOW, without applying tought paterns, without identifying symatec clusters of meaning, infered meanings, casting theories, you rob yourself of a lot of film watching enjoyment. yes, film watching, if you steer away from eddie murphy type films, could be a rewarding, and intellectual experience.

and i don't expect everyone to agree with my findings. schollars to this day still quibble about what shakespeare meant, and intended. it's largely a matter of opinion.

the few who have read my book were totally surprised by it, and i've heard on more than a few occassions that reading my book taught them a different way to look at films. this is great. that was my intention. the books i read taught me a new way to watch and enjoy films. i'm just trying to pass the enjoyment on to others. and that it's as much fun finding this stuff as it is cataloging it to the written page with text, captures, and circles and arrows. i'm not trying to smear welles, like some blindfolded screaming ninis have said.

but the blindfolded screaming ninis have given me some pleasure, and reasurance that i'm headed in the right direction. maybo some close minded critics will see it, blast it in their columns, and i'll make sales.

on carringer:
no jelousy. if the stuff was good i would embrace it because i love everything welles did. another knowledgable schollar's take on welles is always welcomed, and treasured.

haven't you noticed that carringer never assigns credit to welles for anything? haven't you noticed that in his writing, it's always some one else's idea, it's never welles. according to carringer, in the wellesian topics he chose to write about, welles is not the resident genius, every one else is. this is what i dislike, and disstrust about works by higham, and kael. carringer just hides his contempt for welles a bit better than higham, and kael. i guess this comes from reading what is below the surface as well as what he puts up front for you too see.

this is my opinion on it. i don't expect any one to read this and change their opinion, but next time you read carringer on welles, maybe a little bit of this info will be in the back of your head and some of this might come to light.

dan, what do you think about carringer putting the blame on the unravelling of ambersons on the oedipuss complex? he wrapped up his essay by offering up, "where is hamlet in the welles canon?" as if this answered everything. and i paid $30 for that book.

rosenbaum feels the same way about carringer. either we are both jelous of him, or we have seen something that maybe others havent yet. who knows, it's a crap shoot when it comes to opinions.