Uncredited Welles

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Blunted: I fear that you are a literalist.

I only suggested, at your puzzlement, that the use of "found" material in F FOR FAKE, documentary footage by several others, to tell a very different story, is the most obvious "influence" of the film on Oliver Stone's JFK. Contrary to your view, I would hold that perhaps a quarter of the original cut of JFK is documentary footage, and another quarter is recreated and dramatized footage. No one would suggest that the films looked alike or that they were on similar subjects, per se.

That's why I posited a Category 4 -- "Influence."

On the other hand, Carol Reed, if you trust Frank Brady, whom I quote at some length, obviously discussed THE THIRD MAN with Welles at length. At no point, did either Brady or myself write that Welles directed all of the picture. That's the point I was attempting to clarify with Flint.

And that's why I pled for a Category 3 designation for THE THIRD MAN.

Let us agree, Blunted, that neither of us was in Vienna in 1949.

Glenn

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Harvey, we are really in fundemental agreement. The point I tried to make about THE THIRD MAN, which Brady supports to an extent, is that accounts of the production, and a comparison of Greene's original fragment, the novel and screenplay he knocked out for Korda with the finished Carol Reed film suggests that Welles had a hand in the shaping of the film. No one, as I've written to Blunted, should claim that "Reed handed over the whole shebang to Orson to direct," as you put it.

I agree with you, too, about ODD MAN OUT and THE FALLEN IDOL. Reed and Welles obviously had a stylistic affinity.

I also agree that a few of Reed's later films bear re-evaluation, especially THE MAN BETWEEN (1953), with James Mason and Claire Bloom, which almost might be a sequel to THE THIRD MAN, about a black marketeer in Berlin after the War. The film showed "the Harry Lime figure" in a slightly more sympathetic light. The failure of THE MAN BETWEEN to achieve the same international acclaim given THE THIRD MAN marks the beginning of Reed's decline. A failure of nerve, indeed.

In a number of less flashy ways, I think, THE MAN BETWEEN is a better film than THE THIRD MAN. Very Wellsian but more sympathetic -- without the controversy we would be having if Welles had taken Mason's part.

Your point about Welles in CATCH 22 would also be mine. Definitely Category 3. I like the film better than some, but Welles' characterization is broad without being particularly funny, as say Buck Henry is in that film. Welles seem to have been striving for a military a sardonic military parody as General Dreedle, such as those provided by George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden in Kubrick's DR. STRANGELOVE (1964). It just doesn't work.

The LONDON pieces Welles did show him as a kind of Oliver Hardy, without Hardy's elephantine charm -- badly in need of a Stan Laurel, which Gary Graver attempts to provide in a couple of scenes.

I rather think that Welles' sense of humor was saturnine and ironic, not Mack Sennett.

Regards, Harvey.

Glenn

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Flint: I almost missed your response. It was crushed between my own effluviation and that of Blunted.

YOU -- who innocently asked a simple question!

I never developed that reference to THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. What I meant to expand upon is that Welles, very early, was obsessed with manipulating illusions, actors, sounds and, of course, images. He liked to create his own sound effects and to dub and redub characters, imitating actors' voices and changing their dialogue. In film direction, the later films in particular, he often apparently spontaneously asked an assistant or an actor on the set to direct a scene, saying if it didn't work, he would fix it on the editing table.

In THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, which was shot and re-shot at least twice, with substantially different casts, he had John Huston (the star), Gary Graver, and Oja Kodar direct some of the scenes. The film is said to be full of "home movies" of the action taken by the actors and film students from various angles, on different stocks, in various formats.

Look at F FOR FAKE to see what THE OTHER SIDE OF WIND would resemble stylistically, if Bogdanovich ever gets to finish it.

That's why I meant to link JOURNEY INTO FEAR, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, and F FOR FAKE in Category 2.

Welles as Executive Director, I guess, reflecting the conflicts he found in his personal life, early on.

All the best, Flint.

Glenn

[allegra]

Going back for a moment to THE THIRD MAN: As an admirer of Brady’s well-nigh definitive book, and of Glenn’s erudite and unfailingly illuminating commentaries here on Wellesnet, I’d like to offer a third resource for his and the Board’s consideration in attempting to assess authorship/directorship of the film: Charles Drazin’s July 2000 book, published by Limelight Editions, “In Search of The Third Man.” Drazin seems to have consulted, and in his book extensively cites, the most significant reputable, relevant materials for his almost cinematic recapitulation of the film’s genesis and development.

Though he does occasionally come off sounding perhaps somewhat parochially partial in emphasizing the British contributions to the film at the expense of the American, particularly Selznick (who was opposed to casting Welles as Lime after reading Gallup’s assessment of Welles as a “detriment”, but gave in after Korda related Reed’s “firm conviction” that “Orson could give a tremendous performance in this part”), there’s certainly some truth to his assertions and hypotheses, and at times, he even seems at pains to give the apparently aggravating Selznick the benefit of the doubt. Referring, for example, to Selznick’s legion of edits, additions, cuts, and what-have-yous over a two-week period of conferences between himself, Greene, and Reed, some of which struck his British partners as untenable and even ridiculous, Drazin, presenting the situation from Selznick’s point of view, remarks that “The chief creative personalities may have been British, but the most important market was American. Selznick, who was responsible for exploiting that market, naturally wanted a film that would appeal to an American sensibility.” Anyway, it certainly confirms Glenn’s suggestion that Selznick should be added to the mix of contributors because he “had a strong interest in the project, and was never able to keep his hands off anything he dealt with”...

[Glenn Anders]

Thank you, Allegra. I have read reviews of Drazin's book -- but not the book itstelf.

Most Helpful, I trust all will agree.

Glenn

[allegra]

Thank you, Glenn. That means a lot to me.

-- allegra

[blunted by community]

glenn said:
Dear Blunted: I fear that you are a literalist.

i said:
Oh my god, i'm a literalist! and all these years i thought i was a minimalist!

[Glenn Anders]

Pace, Blunted.

Glenn

[blunted by community]

glenn, i did not find any of welles' visual style in fallen idol, or in the other reed film you mention. in fact, the most visually interesting film i've seen from reed is THIRD MAN. some parts of the restored voyager third man, which i think is actually the british cut, looks like parts of THE TRIAL. would be willing to bet that like brando with chaplin, reed did a bit of homework before welles arrived on the set. and with selznik as producer, what we call welles' visual style, made it to the screen.

this is just an opinion, i have no first hand knowledge of any of this. when welles was in vienna with reed, i was in spain with errol flynn, and cbanks chasing senoritas.

[Glenn Anders]

Blunted: I would rather pass, but I agree with you that the British version of THE THIRD MAN is better than Selznick's, and that it is an extremely interesting picture. You should take up the stylistic similarities in THE FALLEN IDOL to Welles films with Harvey, who made the original reference, and may have fresher details in mind. I simply agreed with his opinion. It's certainly possible that Reed studied Welles' technique, as you suggest yourself.

We are in Category 4 again, are we not?

I do sincerely urge you, however, to pick up a copy of THE MAN BETWEEN, another masterful film by Carol Reed. In my opinion, in style, though a tragic romance, it is as good in some ways as THE THIRD MAN.

Glenn

[mteal]

Glenn, I think your 4 categories system is useful, but as Flint said, there's a great deal of grey area when it comes to Welles. THE THIRD MAN is a sort-of "fringe-area" Welles film in the sense that it looks Wellesian and revolves around his character, but IMO, there are only three films that I would describe as Category 2 or "semi-Welles" films (as I like to think of them). Those would be:

JOURNEY INTO FEAR, JANE EYRE and BLACK MAGIC

Of these three, I think JANE EYRE is by far the strongest, although, as has been mentioned, it's difficult to adaquately judge JOURNEY because of the reediting. I see JANE EYRE as a Welles film even though he didn't direct it. He was the uncredited producer, did most of the casting, and a brooding KANE-like atmosphere clearly dominates the film. BLACK MAGIC is not exactly what I would call a good film, but it's good campy fun, and Welles does some of his best scenery chewing as Cagliostro. Hopefully these three films will find their way to DVD soon.

Other films that Welles is said to have partially directed include DAVID AND GOLIATH and THE SOUTHERN STAR. I suspect he may have directed the nightclub sequence from the LORD MOUNTDRAGO segment of THREE CASES OF MURDER, which features one of his best performances as Mountdrago. I also suspect he essentially directed his Magic Show segment from FOLLOW THE BOYS, making it basically a little 6-7 minute Welles film of it's own.

Finally, how would you catagorize the outake of Welles drunk on the Paul Masson set? Clearly a case of Welles deliberately sabotaging another director's film in order to make one of his own. Category 2?

[Glenn Anders]

Dear wellesaddict: I like your picks for Category 2. And as I have suggested, the Category 3 stuff is the "grey area" you cite. Category 4 can be anything that Welles ever breathed the bouquet of Mouton-Rothchild 1949 upon. I think that the Paul Masson commercials might fit in Category 3, but certainly in Category 4.

Most informative and entertaining.

Glenn

[throatsprockets]

<!--QuoteBegin--Flint+Jan. 10 2004,20:35--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Flint @ Jan. 10 2004,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--> For example: I consider "Poltergeist" and "Nightmare Before Christmas" Speilberg and Burton films, respectively. Despite the talents of Hooper and Selnick (sorry, can't remember exact spelling) these are clearly the work of the former and would have been so regardless of the hired directors (IMOP).[/quote]
Just a quick note about Henry Selick and Nightmare: if you've seen Selick's pre-Nightmare short films, such as Slow Bob, you'll notice that Selick's influence on Nightmare is as strong as Burton's. Burton designed the characters and sets and wrote the story which gives the whole thing a Burtonesque feeling (along with the film using his regular composer, Danny Elfman), but the way characters move, the way the characters move, the camera angles, the physical comedy etc are pure Selick.

If you watch Selick's later, inferior features James and the Giant Peach and Monkeybone, you'll notice these similarities even more. Same if you watch Walter Murch's Return To Oz; Selick storyboarded the Nome sequences, and his influence shows through there.

Then there's the fact that Selick and Burton have very similar backgrounds - both are ex-Disney but were too dark to stick around, they're interested in similar subject matters, their design styles are quite similar, etc.

If any other stop-motion filmmaker had directed The Nightmare Before Christmas it would have been quite different. Burton deserves credit for the initial idea and the designs, but Selick wasn't just a hired hack following orders.

I would like to ask where the idea about Welles being involved with THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD came from. According to interviews I've read with that film's star, Kenneth Tobey, the whole movie was directed by Howard Hawks except for one scene that was directed by credited director Christian Nyby (which Tobey says was the worst scene in the movie).

[Flint]

Throatsprokets-
The issue I raised is not meant as a denegration of the abilities of hired directors. Tobe Hooper & Harry Selnik are obviously talented in their own right. They wouldn't have been contracted on such high profile projects if they weren't. But the artistic impetus, imprint & "soul" of these films is CLEARLY the producers and not the hired directors. This is ESPECIALLY true in the case of "Nightmare", hence the full title "Tim Burton's A Nightmare Before Christmas". Had another director been hired for "Nightmare", yes of course it would have been different. But not significantly so. The components that make the film unique would have remained unchanged (you mention this yourself i.e the character designs, sets & story).

The point was to show how a film not screen credited to Welles direction could actually be considered a "Welles film".
Many producers are the real "author's" of films (George Pal just came to mind as another example). Has this ever been the case with Orson?

-Flint

[mteal]

Yes, as I mentioned above, I think Welles as the producer was the real "author" of JOURNEY and JANE EYRE, and to a less-obvious extent, BLACK MAGIC. You're right that the producer is often the real creative force behind a movie; directors are frequently just hired hacks. GONE WITH THE WIND is a good example of a film where the producer (in this case Selznick) is the real auteur of the film. Sometimes even the writer can have a good claim to a film's authorship, (Ayn Rand and THE FOUNTAINHEAD, for example). Welles himself even said that in most cases, the director's role in the quality of a film is overrated. Welles was of course, one of those exceptional directors.

Like Throatsprockets, I'm pretty skeptical of Welles having directed any of THE THING. Doesn't really sound like his "thing" (sorry).