The Beatrice News Watch

[Cole]

A few days ago while checking up on the status of Beatrice’s court actions against Turner Entertainment and the Motion Picture Academy, I noticed that she filed another lawsuit about a month ago in a California federal court. This time she’s suing two companies: Canal Plus and Sogecable. I don’t know what it’s about, but I’d guess it’s Welles related. Anyone have any ideas?

Incidentally, the cases against Turner Entertainment (regarding the rights to Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons) and the Motion Picture Academy (as to the Citizen Kane Oscar) are both still pending, although two of the three claims in her complaint against the Academy were recently dismissed.

[Christopher]

I'd be interested to know which complaints were dismissed.

[Cole]

I wish I knew more details about these cases but I don't. As to the two of three claims dismissed against the Academy, all I know is that in the same order the judge ordered Beatrice to pay the other side's attorney fees. It's pretty unusual in the US for a court to order a party to pay the other party's attorney's fees. It usually only happens when someone asserts a "frivolous" claim or defense, but there may have been another reason for the award in this case.

[blunted by community]

Yes, ordering her to pay the other side's legal fees is like a slap in the face meant to deter idiots with money from filing senseless lawsuits. It’s supposed to make them think twice before filing again. Will she think twice? Probably not.

Every one is so surprised and outraged by her actions. If we look back, lots of people were outraged, surprised, dumbfounded by Welles’ actions. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Most of his life Welles did self-destructive things that defied all logic. From what i read about Beatrice's actions, she seems to be as nutty as Welles was. Some of her actions i've understood, and others just seem loony, and off the wall.

[Christopher]

Blunted, I have to disagree with some of your statements. Orson Welles spent most of his life trying to make movies his way and doing whatever he had to do to further his art. If you call that "self-destructive," then you would have to apply the same term to all great artists. I doubt very much that Welles's daughter Beatrice is "nutty." Rather, I suspect, she lacks good judgment and has hired lawyers who have given her poor advice. You must remember that she was burdened with the Orson Welles estate when she was barely thirty and had no experience in these matters.

[Glenn Anders]

I agree with you, Christopher. Welles was a quietly driven man inside, and without, who had to maintain a public attitude of bonhommie, but it must have been lacerating for him to know what he had accomplished and what he might have accomplished.

And Beatrice, for all her eccentricities, must be given some consideration. She lost her father and her mother within a year's time. It can't have been easy for Welles to have been a popular legend, especially an American Popular Legend. Nor for Beatrice to have been the daughter of a legend, particularly a profligate dead one.

I'm not sure Blunted or the rest of us would have done a tenth as well.

Glenn.

[Oscar Christie]

I agree with Blunto.
Why so much understanding for the woman who has caused such mischief?

[allegra]

I don't know, Oscar; I too was astonished at the sympathy for the seemingly selfish, destructive one. But when you think of it -- their attitude's about as Wellesian as one could wish...!

[blunted by community]

chirstopher:
in the book citizen welles, i read when welles returned from europe in the late 50s, only 3 projects happened for him, and only one he was able to direct. but about 52 (?) projects were proposed during the 2 (?) years he was here in the late 50s. he got tv, and movie offers. welles never stopped getting offers, they just didn't happen. why? because welles was a flawed, emotionally unstable man, and producers are not known for their bravery. they wanted to give him work, but when they had contact with him, they saw how dangerous he was to their money.

read the peter bogdanovich book by andrew yule. some of my opinions were formulated from the yule book, the citizen welles book, and a lot of interviews with first hand sources.

the loss of that toad housemann hurt welles. he would have never needed to meet and negotiate with the money people. houseman did that.

watch the short film sacred beast sometime, watch welles' movie pitch to a group of conservative spanish investors. you see why he had such a hard time getting money.

i don't at all argue that so far he has been the most prolific filmmaker ever. i'm a huge fan and love all his films. i even love getting my hands on little chunks of unfinished films. everything he ever did with a movie camera is brilliant. not so with his writing, or his ability to deal with people.

i think he was far from the wronged artist a lot of people think he was. it's a romantic notion, but i don't think it's the truth.
he just was not able to cope with people.

but that is only how i perceived what i have read.

[Earth Calling Orson]

Blunted, you have astute observations. I must say these notions have crossed my mind at times.

I have often thought that Welles was way to picky and demanding when it came to control over a piece. He was understandably raw, I'm sure because of what RKO did to him. But I think he could have directed quite a lot more in the mainstream if he had released some of his control issues. Plus, if I were the head of a studio and knew I was going to get a 58-page memo after I edited or made changes to a picture, I probably would be pretty reluctant to hire Welles.

Of course, this is said with the qualification that Welles fought for what he believed in and nine times out of ten was right. He was also clearly far ahead of his time, and sadly for Welles fans, directors eventually won much of the control Welles was denied after 'Citizen Kane'.

[Jeff Wilson]

My own opinion is that Welles obviously believed his way was the best way to make a picture, often to his detriment when finding funding. He also had little or no feel for what was commercial, which no doubt contributed to a large part of his difficulty in getting money. After all, if you're a guy with money to invest in pictures, do you take a chance pissing it away on Welles, who had a terrible rep for blowing cash and making flops, or find a project that looks more promising? It's just common sense, as artistically crappy as that is. I think Welles was irresponsible and occasional foolhardy in his actions, but I think calling him emotionally unstable is maybe pushing it.

As for Beatrice, I have no sympathy for her legal troubles, as she has brought all of it on herself. For all the things she could have done for her father's work, she's done virtually nothing other than try to cash in where possible. Which, of course, is her legal right, but it doesn't preclude us getting to feel good when she loses. What I am curious about, in light of the whole Kane/Ambersons wrangling, is whether she sponsored research to check all old contracts for possible legal challenges, or someone tipped her off to it, and why they did so.

[Glenn Anders]

Glad we can all have "a little target practice"!

However, as far as I know, none of us were there in 1935, 1938,1941, 1942, 1946, 1948, or 1955. To that point, Orson Welles was doing okay.

Afterwards, Welles and his daughter were in trouble.

I've just returned from visiting an old friend in hospital, suffering (for a second bout) from Lymphoma.

It's so easy to forget the strong, vigorous person in his/her prime!

A lot of courage is required, just to live out our lives, no matter how squalid.

There is little doubt that Welles was a genius in several mediums. What is to be gained by dwelling unduly on his failings? or for that matter, on those of his children?

The work is all that ever counts.

The rest is, at some level, bullshit.

Like Picasso, an artist I don't much care for, in an artistic or personal sense, Orson Welles will be remembered as long a there is Art.

Regards to all of us all -- whether or not we can do better.

Glenn

[blunted by community]

earth calling:
thanks. i expected to be chased out of town like the frankenstein monster for my opinion. you turned the tide.

glen:
we are just talking about a subject we are into. in all his shades. all his grossness, genius, presonality conflicts, self destructiveness. it's all interesting. what van gough fan doesn't know he eat soil and eat his paints to get high. what elvis fan doesn't know about what he did. we are sharing opinions formulated from reading. we are not bad mouthing welles.

jeff:
the emotionally unstable comes from nunally johnson, who said welles could have owned hollywood, but he wasn't emotionally prepared.

how can welles justify turning over a table in a restaurant while in a creative fit? he had a lifetime of bad behavior, and bad choices. like earth-calling-orson said, when the money man loses his nut, he's out of business. that is what i mean be emotionally unstable. he wasn't like violent to people, but he did outrageous things.

and like welles said, his paint box is too expensive. he had to depend on money people to work. so when you turn over the table the money man is eating at, that is self destructive, but funny and interesting to read about.

glenn, i appreciate all of welles. all these little tidbits i read about, some outrageous piece of behavior, it's just another brush stroke for the mental portrait i have of him. i appreciate all of it.

[blunted by community]

who doesn't crack up laughing at the mental picture of welles throwing 2 flaming dishwarmers at john houseman?

then in the 70's welles denying it, saying, "i didn't throw them at him. I threw them in his direction." also funny. this is outrageous behavior, and funny.

[Christopher]

I agree with Glenn that the work is all that ever counts and the rest is gossip and bullshit, but I also agree with Blunted that the gossip and bullshit are fascinating. So here we go!

I've been reading an awful lot of negative comments about Beatrice Welles on this message board, and I'd like to introduce a little balance into the picture. First, Welles knew what he was doing when he left his unfinished films to his highly intelligent and artistic companion, Oja Kodar. He would never have left any part of his work to his youngest daughter who he saw as an airhead. She has little formal education (Welles didn't believe in it) and no knowledge of filmmaking, no creative ability, and, consequently, no real understanding of his work. It is not realistic to expect Beatrice could or should have done more once she inherited the estate. She did restore "Othello" in an effort to improve the soundtrack, but that was in the early days when enough money was coming into the estate to support Beatrice and her various projects. She did talk about founding an Orson Welles Institute, which could have been a good thing, and which she may still do if the money ever materializes. However, it seems clear from her recent actions that her main motive now is to raise cash any way she can. Otherwise, why would she put the Oscar on the auction block which she had bought back from Gary Graver, ostensibly for the Orson Welles Institute of the future? There's something pathetic to me about that kind of desperation and mishandling of her affairs to the point where she was telling the Academy she was on the verge of bankruptcy. Yes, we can say with Jeff that she's brought her troubles on herself. Why should we feel any sympathy for her when she's been living off her father's estate for the past eighteen years? She's also given over her life to fighting her daddy's battles, and since her daddy was Orson Welles, that often means tilting at windmills.