john houseman - the man behind the man

[jaime marzol]

what you mistake for 'scared to discuss welles sexuality,' is just me not wanting you and JC getting into another spat and getting this thread locked up too. i have no issues with
discussing welles' sexuality, though i'd rather discuss his framing, or his artistic accumen. his sexuality seems to be the least interesting thing about a very interesting man.

[etimh]

jaime:

I really wasn't thinking about you when I dropped the comment about people being skittish around this topic. You have responded thoughtfully to my questions in this thread and I have valued your perspective. In light of your comments about your own specific interests, your participation in my little sidebar is even more appreciated. Thanks.

In regards to your concern about another encounter with Christley, point taken and understood. I defer to your sensibility and judgement here so will step the hell off. But I wasn't trying to be confrontational--antagonistic maybe, but not confrontational.

Have a good one.

Tim

[R Kadin]

I think it's legitimate to include discussions of an artist's sexuality in studies of his/her work, especially an artist so avowedly devoted to self-expression as Welles. Such an influence is bound to infuse the artist's output to some degree and, sometimes, it can prove to be a significant key to understanding it.

It's unlikely, however, that Welles would have had time either for field-skipping stereotypes or for groups attempting to appropriate vast tracts of creative output by proclaiming them to "skew culturally" in their own direction. So, all the more I concur that, when the discussion starts veering off into the land of grand conjecture, or when it stops being about Welles and starts being about ourselves, it's time to jostle these threads back on track.

[Lucy]

i'm not trying to secure welles' hetro sexuality, i do have a hard time hearing BS like welles and perkins were in 4 movies together so they were an item. it's that inquirer mentality.

So would the following be another example of the inquirer mentality?

though i didn't believe it at first the rumors about houseman, when i saw the 'poopy head' letter, i was swayed to believe the sordid rumors.

[jaime marzol]

hearing the sordid rumors, and posting them as fact with no reference are 2 different things.

people say things, i hear them, i judge the info, and take in what i determine to be true, or to possibly jive based on what i already know. we all do that, it's an ingrained characteristic in humans. all i posted about is the poopy head letter, and that letter is fact, not conjecture.

tim, so sorry, i thought that was aimed at me for warning that guy to lay off the sexual conjecture so's not to piss-off anyone and get this thread locked. my appologies.

lucy, like my posts says, welles' sexuality is the least interesting aspect of a very interesting man. however, like arkadin says, you have to consider his sexuality, and especially when you account for overt sexuality like in the other side of the wind, and muted, bizare sexuality like in the trial. then you need to base opinion on fact, not assumption. that is if you want to keep your reader interested and if you want your reader to think that you write real, solid opinions based on research and FACT.

assuming that welles and perkins were an item because they were in 4 films, and posting it as fact, is what i was referring to. however, i could be way off here, but who knows.

"inquiring minds want to know!"

[jaime marzol]

check out tony's fabulous list above. all that is analysis based on fact. there are no false facts there. we can base opinions on fact, but we should not create fact out of flimsy analysis and twisted opinion.

would a jury buy that welles and perkins were fudging because they were in 4 movies together?

[Orson&Jazz]

Not to stir up the pot regarding Orson's sexuality...

Didn't Orson say in Leaming's book that most of the boys at Todd were fascinated by Skipper Hill, and that they pretty much battled for a spot to be one of his "favourite" students, or rather they fought for Skipper's affection. I am not saying that Orson and Skipper were lovers, but I remember reading in Leaming's book that Orson had once told Skipper that he could have "had" Orson if he wanted him. Something along those lines any way.

Orson said a lot of things in Leaming's book, but I remember that part because it intrigued me. I think Orson's sexuality was as mysterious as the man himself.

I'm thinking maybe he was just free and open with his sexuality. Or he was just secure in his masculinity in general not to be bothered by it.

[etimh]

Okay, some interesting things from R Kadin and marzol that I have to comment on--all concerning the nature of critical "scholarship."

R Kadin: of course, totally agree with you concerning the legitimacy of exploring relevant "identity" issues of any of the people behind the production of cultural artifacts.

Not clear, however when you make the statement about it being "unlikely...that Welles would have had time either for field-skipping stereotypes or for groups attempting to appropriate vast tracts of creative output by proclaiming them to "skew culturally" in their own direction." Well, to be blunt, isn't Welles (in whatever capacity you want to imagine his participation) actually irrelevant to such an inquiry, for the most obvious reason? That is, his deceased status. Of course, we can examine Welles' own stated positions, or even confirmed accounts of his attitudes, beliefs, and philosophy on any topic of concern. But your assumptions about Welles' presumed position on this specific topic would seem to contradict your own parameters of scholarly inquiry. Your dismissal of the "grand conjecture" that is a fundamental part of contemporary critical theory ignores the highly creative part of what we do as cultural theorists and commentators. Despite some critics who still insist on arguing for a limited empiricist methodology, more philosophy-based theoretical models of critical analysis demand creative interpretive practices.

marzol: yes, sometimes this hermeneutic process wanders into the realm of speculative conjecture and fanciful musings. But this is how the established boundaries of knowledge are expanded and how we arrive at new realizations and perspectives on things. A strict scientific empiricism based on an evaluation of contingent "facts" simply doesn't promote this kind of expansive and innovative scholarship.

The heavy emphasis on this idea of "facts" is problematic as well and is best illustrated by your last assertion that "we can base opinions on fact, but we should not create fact out of flimsy analysis and twisted opinion." I don't know about you but my opinions are rarely determined entirely by an examination of "facts." What about emotion, imagination, and ethics? And following your line of thought, how can we ever know that these facts (so often presented as "truth" and the basis of all that opinion) are not in turn created out of the very flimsy analysis and twisted opinion you would avoid? In other words, how factual, in fact, are the facts?

You guys make me think too much. Cheers. :p

Tim

[jaime marzol]

lets go back to talking about welles' framing. this does require too much thinking.

[R Kadin]

etimh, we could, I suppose, regale this board with a protracted philosophical discourse on discourse, parry for parry; I suspect that we both possess the agility for it. And, flattered though I be by an invitation from one so evidently practised in the art, I doubt its entertainment value would justify this venue's real estate, while I suspect that its outcome will add little, one way or the other, to the fate of scholarly inquiry as a discipline.

So, please, feel free to let your imagination roam and, having loosed yourself from empiricism's inconvenient bonds, indulge in whatever speculation you might fancy. I mean that, really. There might just be an audience out there for it.

You will, of course, understand if some among us here opt, instead, for other pasttimes.

[etimh]

R Kadin: I didn't initiate this philosophical discussion--I was just trying to offer a different perspective. But I appreciate your point. Regardless of your peculiar concern about the judicious use of the board's "real estate," (huh?), its very easy to "opt for other pasttimes" here by simply just choosing not to participate. Disappointing, particularly in your case, but I'm sure I'll survive.

But still, it reminds me of the situation where, during uncomfortable discussions, someone would interject with that old cliche' about religion and politics being the only two subjects that should never be discussed among people. I would always respond with, "What else is there to talk about?" Point being that it is ALL about the nature of discourse and the discernment of truth(s)--whether that is a conversation about research methodology, or, about the framing of shots in a film.

Hope to talk to you again sometime R Kadin. But, do as you wish.

Tim

[GM]

It's unlikely, however, that Welles would have had time either for field-skipping stereotypes or for groups attempting to appropriate vast tracts of creative output by proclaiming them to "skew culturally" in their own direction. So, all the more I concur that, when the discussion starts veering off into the land of grand conjecture, or when it stops being about Welles and starts being about ourselves, it's time to jostle these threads back on track.

Welles was often pretty cryptic in his beliefs and in his art, so it is necessary to go beyond "facts", however factual those facts may be. I think a webboard like this is a nice safe place to indulge in some grand conjecturing, as long as those conjectures are rooted in facts and don't degenerate into superfluous verbosity.

The idea that Welles and Tony Perkins were an item is, of course, conjecture and not fact. But it is a fact that someone claims to have heard rumors about them. That in itself would probably not be worth noting if it were not for Welles's own fascination with homosexuality, which is pretty well represented in his work.

[jaime marzol]

in an interview john huston said that what seems like incestuous casting is really hollywood not being as big a town as it pretends to be. i always attributed the pairing of actors not to will, but to chance, and geography. this to me sounds more reasonable for welles and perkins being in 4 pictures than for the reason that was offered.

in an article about touch of evil i read the writer claim that upon arriving at universal welles immediately demanded his cameraman from the stranger, russel metty, be hired. the truth is that metty was already working at universal making shit movies. so how can we trust what we read or hear unless we have read it in 3 or 4 other journals? quoting something that is only in one source could be called rumor mongering, like what louelle parsons and hedda hopper did.

but these are things that some people adopt, and some don't. that is how we rate the quality of writers, or persons posting.

[jaime marzol]

me? i just make up everything i post