Hi, Blunted,
Just wanted to say that many of your comments about Welles as a person strike me as astute and perceptive. As you point out, he was certainly lacking in people skills, especially as he got older, but only with some people. Remember he commanded loyalty, love and respect from many of the actors he worked with, such as Jeanne Moreau or Marlene Dietrich. Like all remarkable men, he was complex and contradictory, and we may never be able to figure him out. I am wondering if you have read Michael MacLiammoir's two books, "All for Hecuba" and "Put Money in Thy Purse." They are extremely insightful about Welles as well as entertaining to read. As I am sure you know, MacLiammoir knew Welles from the age of 16. His account in "Put Money in Thy Purse" of working with him on "Othello" is fascinating.
The Beatrice News Watch
63 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
by Christopher » Sat Nov 08, 2003 2:30 pm
-
Christopher - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
by Glenn Anders » Sat Nov 08, 2003 4:38 pm
Blunted: We have a peculiar modern obsession (accelerated possibly by the rise of fan magazine and gossip column -- now on TV) with valuing the vagaries dredged from the life of an artist more than the values to be had from a much tougher task of understanding and applying his/her accomplishments. It is so much . . . so much easier to chortle at Welles' weight problem, or at occasions when he lost his temper, rather than to understand and discuss the dramatic insights he gave us about our consumerism, our search for what he called "lost empires," our will to power, the place of women, or the terrors of old age, etc.
There is nothing wrong with looking at Welles' life or even in examining gossip about him, so long as we are very careful with the facts. When we are careless, the gossip becomes "fact" and is passed on as truth.
For instance, in one note, Blunted, you talk of Welles' overturning a table in a restaurant. When and how did that occur?
In another place, you write he threw two "flaming dishwarmers" at John Houseman. [I assume that you refer here to the altercation at Chasen's, when the Mercury Players were becoming worried and impatient over Welles' first project not getting on the blocks. Welles is said to have knocked over two sterno heaters (for the chafing dishes), which must have been more damaging emotionally than physically. Welles incorporated the incident into Charles Foster Kane's rage at losing his wife in CITIZEN KANE.] You then deride Welles for saying, thirty years later, "I didn't throw them at him. I threw them in his direction."
Well, Blunted, in writing, we call that "point of view."
Obviously, Welles did not want to intentionally injure Housman, even if he did aim the braziers at him. He was undoubtedly reacting in a frustration he must have felt as much as the others, a rather human quality that we all show, on occasion.
I only plead that we not take snide pleasure at trafficking in perhaps unreliable lore about our betters, when the undeniable truth from the Art of Orson Welles is so much more rewarding and uplifting, in human terms.
Glenn
There is nothing wrong with looking at Welles' life or even in examining gossip about him, so long as we are very careful with the facts. When we are careless, the gossip becomes "fact" and is passed on as truth.
For instance, in one note, Blunted, you talk of Welles' overturning a table in a restaurant. When and how did that occur?
In another place, you write he threw two "flaming dishwarmers" at John Houseman. [I assume that you refer here to the altercation at Chasen's, when the Mercury Players were becoming worried and impatient over Welles' first project not getting on the blocks. Welles is said to have knocked over two sterno heaters (for the chafing dishes), which must have been more damaging emotionally than physically. Welles incorporated the incident into Charles Foster Kane's rage at losing his wife in CITIZEN KANE.] You then deride Welles for saying, thirty years later, "I didn't throw them at him. I threw them in his direction."
Well, Blunted, in writing, we call that "point of view."
Obviously, Welles did not want to intentionally injure Housman, even if he did aim the braziers at him. He was undoubtedly reacting in a frustration he must have felt as much as the others, a rather human quality that we all show, on occasion.
I only plead that we not take snide pleasure at trafficking in perhaps unreliable lore about our betters, when the undeniable truth from the Art of Orson Welles is so much more rewarding and uplifting, in human terms.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Glenn Anders » Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:55 pm
Christopher: Thank you for the interesting details you provide about Beatrice. I only saw her once, in person, and if my son had not been eager to go somewhere, I might have spoken with her. It was at the premiere of the restored OTHELLO, in San Francisco. She seemed a lovely, blonde young woman, a successful cosmetics executive, at the time, so we were led to understand; eager to give her father's film a wider due. Perhaps, that glimse I had of her colors my recent remarks.
As for the allegations that Welles was lazy or uncaring about his career in the 1950's, the man appeared in 18 movies, including OTHELLO, CONFIDENTIAL REPORT, MOBY DICK, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE LONG HOT SUMMER, and COMPULSION, all memorable performances, and of course, he wrote the screenplays for, and directed, three of them.
What have we done of note in the last ten years?
Someone wrote here that Welles "was not good with people." I think it would be more accurate to say that he was not good with "business people" or, in a slightly broader context, people who did not share his given vision or talent for accomplishing certain projects. There can be no doubt, the failing cost him (and us) dearly, but as you suggest, dozens of the finest artists of the time, in several mediums, never gave up on him, considered him a friend, and were often willing to make room for his plans on their schedules.
Finally, one more observation about Welles and "business people": We can easily forget now how attractive Welles was to business people of the Arts during the 1940's and 1950's. Welles was a significant force in the Theater, on Radio, in the Movies, in Newspapers, in the War Effort, and even in politics (especially what we call today, "Human Rights"). He was producing and directing plays on Broadway (Native Son) and in Europe (Moby Dick Rehearsed); producing and starring in the Campbell Playhouse on Radio, as well as giving social commentaries, appearing in his almanac series, doing guest appearances for Jack Benny and other radio stars; making the movies we all know; writing a syndicated column; standing in for FDR at political debates, and working on some of the President's speeches; participating in War Bond rallies and entertaining the troops.
In addition, of course, during much of that time, Welles had the potential of becoming a movie and theater matinee idol, something that he fought against.
What it came down to, was that Orson Welles did not want to be typed. Like any true artist, he did not want to give up his artistic freedom. And "business people" and "moneymen," then as now, want to turn the artist into an easily packaged, clearly recognizable product.
Welles was prematurely giving his artistic epitaph, when he had Charlie Kane say to Jed Leland: "I didn't do too badly."
But in America, as another Welles' protegee, Arthur Miller, illustrated in Death of a Salesman: if we do not go from success to success, if we do not "move with the times," if we "get a spot on [our] hat," we are swiftly discarded. It is rather amazing that Welles was able to continue (in a mostly self-financed fashion) after his energies and commercial potential began to fade in the 1950's.
It was all to easy, by the end of the 1950's, to attack his physical appearance, his political and social attitudes; and to take snide pleasure in lampooning his inefficient ways, his compromises with commercialism, and his sometimes pitiful efforts to create Art.
[I sometimes wonder if parallels in the career of Oliver Stone (not so large an artistic figure as Welles) will not be seen decades from now.]
Regards.
Glenn
As for the allegations that Welles was lazy or uncaring about his career in the 1950's, the man appeared in 18 movies, including OTHELLO, CONFIDENTIAL REPORT, MOBY DICK, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE LONG HOT SUMMER, and COMPULSION, all memorable performances, and of course, he wrote the screenplays for, and directed, three of them.
What have we done of note in the last ten years?
Someone wrote here that Welles "was not good with people." I think it would be more accurate to say that he was not good with "business people" or, in a slightly broader context, people who did not share his given vision or talent for accomplishing certain projects. There can be no doubt, the failing cost him (and us) dearly, but as you suggest, dozens of the finest artists of the time, in several mediums, never gave up on him, considered him a friend, and were often willing to make room for his plans on their schedules.
Finally, one more observation about Welles and "business people": We can easily forget now how attractive Welles was to business people of the Arts during the 1940's and 1950's. Welles was a significant force in the Theater, on Radio, in the Movies, in Newspapers, in the War Effort, and even in politics (especially what we call today, "Human Rights"). He was producing and directing plays on Broadway (Native Son) and in Europe (Moby Dick Rehearsed); producing and starring in the Campbell Playhouse on Radio, as well as giving social commentaries, appearing in his almanac series, doing guest appearances for Jack Benny and other radio stars; making the movies we all know; writing a syndicated column; standing in for FDR at political debates, and working on some of the President's speeches; participating in War Bond rallies and entertaining the troops.
In addition, of course, during much of that time, Welles had the potential of becoming a movie and theater matinee idol, something that he fought against.
What it came down to, was that Orson Welles did not want to be typed. Like any true artist, he did not want to give up his artistic freedom. And "business people" and "moneymen," then as now, want to turn the artist into an easily packaged, clearly recognizable product.
Welles was prematurely giving his artistic epitaph, when he had Charlie Kane say to Jed Leland: "I didn't do too badly."
But in America, as another Welles' protegee, Arthur Miller, illustrated in Death of a Salesman: if we do not go from success to success, if we do not "move with the times," if we "get a spot on [our] hat," we are swiftly discarded. It is rather amazing that Welles was able to continue (in a mostly self-financed fashion) after his energies and commercial potential began to fade in the 1950's.
It was all to easy, by the end of the 1950's, to attack his physical appearance, his political and social attitudes; and to take snide pleasure in lampooning his inefficient ways, his compromises with commercialism, and his sometimes pitiful efforts to create Art.
[I sometimes wonder if parallels in the career of Oliver Stone (not so large an artistic figure as Welles) will not be seen decades from now.]
Regards.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Christopher » Sat Nov 08, 2003 6:42 pm
Glenn: I have never subscribed to the myth that Orson Welles was self-destructive, lazy, undisciplined and a "failed genius." Once a genius, always a genius. It is not a quality that goes up in smoke. People who worked with Welles say no one worked harder or was more single-minded when it came to making a picture. And as you so rightly point out, he accomplished an amazing amount in a number of different fields in his lifetime.
It is interesting that the myth of the "self-destructive failed genius" has taken hold in the U.S.A. but has received little credence in Europe. I wonder if American film critics would change their view of Welles if they were more familiar with movies like F FOR FAKE, THE TRIAL and CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT. At a symposium on Welles, I once heard Andrew Sarris dismiss these and other films Welles made during his years in Europe because they were technically flawed, as though the only goal in filmmaking is technical perfection.
As for getting along with people, Welles could be absolutely charming when he chose to be, but he could also be ruthless when he had to be. He followed his own star, and that cost him, but what matters in the end is how much he achieved in spite of all.
Like you, I would like to see a lot more discussion about Welles's work and ideas. His life is of interest only to the degree that it illuminates his work; yet, ironically, there is more to be learned about Welles the man by looking closely at his art than by reading all the books about him.
It is interesting that the myth of the "self-destructive failed genius" has taken hold in the U.S.A. but has received little credence in Europe. I wonder if American film critics would change their view of Welles if they were more familiar with movies like F FOR FAKE, THE TRIAL and CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT. At a symposium on Welles, I once heard Andrew Sarris dismiss these and other films Welles made during his years in Europe because they were technically flawed, as though the only goal in filmmaking is technical perfection.
As for getting along with people, Welles could be absolutely charming when he chose to be, but he could also be ruthless when he had to be. He followed his own star, and that cost him, but what matters in the end is how much he achieved in spite of all.
Like you, I would like to see a lot more discussion about Welles's work and ideas. His life is of interest only to the degree that it illuminates his work; yet, ironically, there is more to be learned about Welles the man by looking closely at his art than by reading all the books about him.
-
Christopher - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
by blunted by community » Sun Nov 09, 2003 3:18 pm
yes, welles had 3 sides. the side that could coat the floor in a bed of clouds and charm the actor through a role, the side that would scream at crew members to get work done, and the side that did strange things that no one understood.
what we are talking about is not cheap fan mag gossip.
in analyzing artwork i think knowing the creator goes a long way to finding greater enjoyment in his art. artists get very angry at this and say the artwork is what matters, not me. if they really thought like that they would not give any interviews.
..........
in a documentary houseman said welles threw the dishwarmers at his face.
to bogdanovich welles said the throwing had the desired effect, hoseman left for new york to help the crumbling mercury theater/radio?
and i didn't deride welles for saying he threw them in his direction. i thought it was a quick, witty hillarious come back. had me laughing.
the turning over tables i think is in rosabella.
had welles took the minelli road to filmmaking we might not be here right now, so i don't mind at all talking about all the things that formed the person that made the art i appreciate so much.
there is some more welles twisted behavior is peter viertel's book DANGEROUS FRIENDS that should be checked out to add another brush stroke to the portrait.
if we were disussing who welles was screwing, who was cheating on who, what happened in the dressing room after a certain scene, then we would be reduced to fan mag tripe.
this thred is beat. some one please start another
what we are talking about is not cheap fan mag gossip.
in analyzing artwork i think knowing the creator goes a long way to finding greater enjoyment in his art. artists get very angry at this and say the artwork is what matters, not me. if they really thought like that they would not give any interviews.
..........
in a documentary houseman said welles threw the dishwarmers at his face.
to bogdanovich welles said the throwing had the desired effect, hoseman left for new york to help the crumbling mercury theater/radio?
and i didn't deride welles for saying he threw them in his direction. i thought it was a quick, witty hillarious come back. had me laughing.
the turning over tables i think is in rosabella.
had welles took the minelli road to filmmaking we might not be here right now, so i don't mind at all talking about all the things that formed the person that made the art i appreciate so much.
there is some more welles twisted behavior is peter viertel's book DANGEROUS FRIENDS that should be checked out to add another brush stroke to the portrait.
if we were disussing who welles was screwing, who was cheating on who, what happened in the dressing room after a certain scene, then we would be reduced to fan mag tripe.
this thred is beat. some one please start another
- blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
by Glenn Anders » Sun Nov 09, 2003 5:38 pm
Thank you, Christopher, for that splendid response.
May I just add that it has long been observed that, traditionally, it has been understood in Europe that a writer, composer, or someone in the theatrical arts, like a painter, can not be expected to produce one masterpiece after another. That is not how creativity works. A fallow interval seems often necessary before the artist can progress to different level. In fact, Europeans have often (inexplicably, to me) praised artists for their weaknesses -- as you will note if, for instance, you happen attend a bad play in London, and a favorite old player comes on. The sophisticated audience often bursts into applause, completely destroying any illusion at the proscenium.
In America, after some initial praise of an artist, we are always looking for the weakness, the flaw, the falling away, dismissing a moderate success or casting the exceptional work against the failures or uncompleted projects, denigrating them for minor flaws, as you suggest in the response of Sarris to Welles' F FOR FAKE or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT.
-----------
Dear Blunted: "Rosabella!" may be your last word.
There were many sides to Welles, which is one of the things that Mankiewicz and Houseman recognized as they shaped Kane, and which Welles rather lightheartedly added to himself. His self-denigrating nature gave his enemies as much ammunition as did his genuine failings.
Let us agree that Welles evidently knocked over a couple of gas heaters of some sort. The act should not be seen to have damned his whole career, nor, under the circumstances, be regarded as a "hilarious" act. That we bring it up again and again, without observing that Welles went on in the next months to make CITIZEN KANE, generally regarded the finest film ever made in Hollywood, says a good deal about our priorities.
What act of social boorishness, Blunted, explains that Vincent Minnelli followed CABIN IN THE SKY with I DOOD IT (which I remember enjoying), or MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE CLOCK with YOLANDA AND THE THIEF, or GIGI with THE RELUCTANT DEBUTANTE?
Are we to explain Minnelli's career after MEET ME IN ST LOUIS by repeating the story of how he got Margaret O'Brien to become hysterical by annoucing her dog had been killed? He made some good movies and he made some bad ones. As with Welles, the rest is hagiagraphy
As for Peter Viertel, he was a minor screenwriter and novelist, who was helped by John Huston to get a couple of jobs, and from the evidence, made a seperate career of never letting Huston forget it.
You may be right, Blunted. If we could really drop threads like this one, we might be making progress.
Glenn
May I just add that it has long been observed that, traditionally, it has been understood in Europe that a writer, composer, or someone in the theatrical arts, like a painter, can not be expected to produce one masterpiece after another. That is not how creativity works. A fallow interval seems often necessary before the artist can progress to different level. In fact, Europeans have often (inexplicably, to me) praised artists for their weaknesses -- as you will note if, for instance, you happen attend a bad play in London, and a favorite old player comes on. The sophisticated audience often bursts into applause, completely destroying any illusion at the proscenium.
In America, after some initial praise of an artist, we are always looking for the weakness, the flaw, the falling away, dismissing a moderate success or casting the exceptional work against the failures or uncompleted projects, denigrating them for minor flaws, as you suggest in the response of Sarris to Welles' F FOR FAKE or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT.
-----------
Dear Blunted: "Rosabella!" may be your last word.
There were many sides to Welles, which is one of the things that Mankiewicz and Houseman recognized as they shaped Kane, and which Welles rather lightheartedly added to himself. His self-denigrating nature gave his enemies as much ammunition as did his genuine failings.
Let us agree that Welles evidently knocked over a couple of gas heaters of some sort. The act should not be seen to have damned his whole career, nor, under the circumstances, be regarded as a "hilarious" act. That we bring it up again and again, without observing that Welles went on in the next months to make CITIZEN KANE, generally regarded the finest film ever made in Hollywood, says a good deal about our priorities.
What act of social boorishness, Blunted, explains that Vincent Minnelli followed CABIN IN THE SKY with I DOOD IT (which I remember enjoying), or MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE CLOCK with YOLANDA AND THE THIEF, or GIGI with THE RELUCTANT DEBUTANTE?
Are we to explain Minnelli's career after MEET ME IN ST LOUIS by repeating the story of how he got Margaret O'Brien to become hysterical by annoucing her dog had been killed? He made some good movies and he made some bad ones. As with Welles, the rest is hagiagraphy
As for Peter Viertel, he was a minor screenwriter and novelist, who was helped by John Huston to get a couple of jobs, and from the evidence, made a seperate career of never letting Huston forget it.
You may be right, Blunted. If we could really drop threads like this one, we might be making progress.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Christopher » Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:59 pm
Before we drop this thread, I'd just like to point out that no one has responded to the questions Cole raised when he began it.
-
Christopher - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
by Glenn Anders » Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:16 pm
Touche, Christopher. A couple of you actually did try to answer Cole's questions before our discussion became a "ravelled sleeve of care." Cole may have nodded off, by now.
All I could have suggested to Cole is that Canal Plus is a French company, associated with Vivendi, which has had a finger in some of the better, more adult films of the last 15 years or so. Canal Plus might well have had some interest in Welles projects. If so, the breakup of Vivendi in the last several months might have prompted Beatrice Welles, or her attorney, to take an interest in any payout from the various negotiations which have recently dominated the Trades.
I am not familiar with Sogecable, I'm afraid.
There, I've done what I can to get us back on thread!
Regards.
Glenn
All I could have suggested to Cole is that Canal Plus is a French company, associated with Vivendi, which has had a finger in some of the better, more adult films of the last 15 years or so. Canal Plus might well have had some interest in Welles projects. If so, the breakup of Vivendi in the last several months might have prompted Beatrice Welles, or her attorney, to take an interest in any payout from the various negotiations which have recently dominated the Trades.
I am not familiar with Sogecable, I'm afraid.
There, I've done what I can to get us back on thread!
Regards.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by blunted by community » Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:43 am
glenn:
you are reading much more into what i'm posting than i'm putting in to it. you are directing answers at me to questions i never asked. makes it difficult to respond to you. i have no idea what to say except correct mistaken notions.
minelli was a studio director, welles was not. that is all i meant.
viertel is a guy who wrote a book about people he hung around. i never imagined he had any greatness.
i liked viertel's 2 books that huston is in. i didn't think either book had the slightest feel of a man with an ax to grind. since vietel only wrote those 2 books that have something to do with huston, i wonder what you read that formulated your opinion? it didn't come from WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART, or DANGEROUS FRIENDS.
is what you posted your opinion, or something you read? if it's something you read, can you post your research reference? i'd be curious to see that.
you are reading much more into what i'm posting than i'm putting in to it. you are directing answers at me to questions i never asked. makes it difficult to respond to you. i have no idea what to say except correct mistaken notions.
minelli was a studio director, welles was not. that is all i meant.
viertel is a guy who wrote a book about people he hung around. i never imagined he had any greatness.
i liked viertel's 2 books that huston is in. i didn't think either book had the slightest feel of a man with an ax to grind. since vietel only wrote those 2 books that have something to do with huston, i wonder what you read that formulated your opinion? it didn't come from WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART, or DANGEROUS FRIENDS.
is what you posted your opinion, or something you read? if it's something you read, can you post your research reference? i'd be curious to see that.
- blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
by Glenn Anders » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:32 pm
Dear Blunted: I believe the problem is really in your use of antecedents.
What are we to make of an opening paragraph like the following?
"you are reading much more into what i'm posting than i'm putting in to it. you are directing answers at me to questions i never asked. makes it difficult to respond to you. i have no idea what to say except correct mistaken notions."
Which posting? What "it"? Which "mistaken notions" are you correcting? Mine or your own? Forgive me, but I can't quite grasp your clarity.
It is you, after all, who brought up Minnelli:
"Had Welles took [sic] the Minelli road to filmmaking, we might not be here right now . . . . "
Where would we be, Blunted? Are you saying that if Welles had become a fashionable hack, we would not have to bother with him? We all be much happier, discussing Hollywood trivia. You would not have to damn Welles with faint praise? You would be able to refrain from making vague or irrelevant references to fictional works as if they were gilt edge factual primary sources?
I have not read Dangerous Friends, but I have read, many years ago, White Hunter, Black Heart. Blunted, you can not use Viertel's fictional characterizations as fact. What Viertel wrote, to give him the benefit of the doubt, were not even speculations. He was telling a good yarn about a movie company in Africa (unusual, in the mid-1950's), basing his main character on a director he had worked with. If you have ever tried your hand at intentional fiction, you will know that plot and the need to avoid prolix often requires all kinds of exaggerations of the models you begin with.
You write:
"is what you posted your opinion, or something you read? if it's something you read, can you post your research reference? i'd be curious to see that."
Do you think that I simply make up my postings here, in a kind of euphoric fantasy?
What is the "what"? Of course, it is an opinion! Few of us here sat down with Welles or Huston when they were alive to take down verbatim the subjective and crucial influences in their works.
Let us GUESS that you refer to the following paragraphs of my next to last posting:
"There were many sides to Welles, which is one of the things that Mankiewicz and Houseman recognized as they shaped Kane, and which Welles rather lightheartedly added to himself. His self-denigrating nature gave his enemies as much ammunition as did his genuine failings.
"Let us agree that Welles evidently knocked over a couple of gas heaters of some sort. The act should not be seen to have damned his whole career, nor, under the circumstances, be regarded as a "hilarious" act. That we bring it up again and again, without observing that Welles went on in the next months to make CITIZEN KANE, generally regarded the finest film ever made in Hollywood, says a good deal about our priorities."
Over the decades I have read so many books on Welles' work that some have slipped through my fingers at this point. Let me give you a reference, I happen to have at hand, from one of the earlier and best volumes on the subject: Frank Brady's Citizen Welles. Particularly, I refer you to pages 233-269 for an excellent account of how CITIZEN KANE was formulated, written, produced and directed. I believe that those pages will back up my suggestions about the complex process by which the film was created.
If you are obsessed, Blunted, as you seem to be, over the sad incident at Chasen's, during the Christmas Season of 1939, John Housman has a personal account in Run Through, the first of his autobiographical trilogy. For an even harder critic (though not as vitrolic as Simon Callow), that of a former idolator, try Rosebud by David Thomson (not admired here, but I understand what he was trying to do), pp 134-35.
Again, I happen to have a copies.
In the latter account, Thomson tells us that the reason for the meeting was not . . . Christmasy nor hilarious. Welles, Housman, Albert Schneider, Herb Drake, Richard Baer, William Alland, Richard Wilson and a secretary (in other words, a meeting of the Executive Board, such as it was, for the Mercury Theater) had come together about the plight of the Mercury Players whom Welles had brought to Hollwood in the heady days following his "War of the Worlds" generated movie contract. A year having passed, with no satisfactory script delivered to RKO, the Studio was taking them off salary as of December 31st of 1939.
Welles grandly said that he would pay his people from his own pocket, but his financial advisors said he had no money in his pocket to do that. Welles [flying much of that year back and forth across the country to help pay the troupe's expenses] responded, if that were the case, 'you sons-of-bitches piss it away!' Houseman and Welles exchanged pointed questions on what was to be done for the actors, Houseman responded: 'Tell them the truth for once."
That remark tore it, and eventually Welles threw 'dish heaters' at Houseman.
'Onlookers had no doubts: Welles had instigated the scene to make up for frustration.'
Thomson concludes: 'The most noted creative bond in Welles' life was over -- or nearly over --and touched with a need for vengeance."
That account comes from what I see as a grieving admirer.
I'm afraid, as I suggested in earlier posts, that the scene was hardly hilarious; rather it was tragic, in view of what might have been. Yet, a little over a year later, Houseman was still helping Welles, and the actors were all still in Hollywood, setting out to make, CITIZEN KANE, the finest black and white film produced in the zenith of the Studio System.
My view is that the rest of these petty stories are frivolous.
Blunted, I hope these additions clear up my characteristic vagueness, in your eyes.
Glenn
What are we to make of an opening paragraph like the following?
"you are reading much more into what i'm posting than i'm putting in to it. you are directing answers at me to questions i never asked. makes it difficult to respond to you. i have no idea what to say except correct mistaken notions."
Which posting? What "it"? Which "mistaken notions" are you correcting? Mine or your own? Forgive me, but I can't quite grasp your clarity.
It is you, after all, who brought up Minnelli:
"Had Welles took [sic] the Minelli road to filmmaking, we might not be here right now . . . . "
Where would we be, Blunted? Are you saying that if Welles had become a fashionable hack, we would not have to bother with him? We all be much happier, discussing Hollywood trivia. You would not have to damn Welles with faint praise? You would be able to refrain from making vague or irrelevant references to fictional works as if they were gilt edge factual primary sources?
I have not read Dangerous Friends, but I have read, many years ago, White Hunter, Black Heart. Blunted, you can not use Viertel's fictional characterizations as fact. What Viertel wrote, to give him the benefit of the doubt, were not even speculations. He was telling a good yarn about a movie company in Africa (unusual, in the mid-1950's), basing his main character on a director he had worked with. If you have ever tried your hand at intentional fiction, you will know that plot and the need to avoid prolix often requires all kinds of exaggerations of the models you begin with.
You write:
"is what you posted your opinion, or something you read? if it's something you read, can you post your research reference? i'd be curious to see that."
Do you think that I simply make up my postings here, in a kind of euphoric fantasy?
What is the "what"? Of course, it is an opinion! Few of us here sat down with Welles or Huston when they were alive to take down verbatim the subjective and crucial influences in their works.
Let us GUESS that you refer to the following paragraphs of my next to last posting:
"There were many sides to Welles, which is one of the things that Mankiewicz and Houseman recognized as they shaped Kane, and which Welles rather lightheartedly added to himself. His self-denigrating nature gave his enemies as much ammunition as did his genuine failings.
"Let us agree that Welles evidently knocked over a couple of gas heaters of some sort. The act should not be seen to have damned his whole career, nor, under the circumstances, be regarded as a "hilarious" act. That we bring it up again and again, without observing that Welles went on in the next months to make CITIZEN KANE, generally regarded the finest film ever made in Hollywood, says a good deal about our priorities."
Over the decades I have read so many books on Welles' work that some have slipped through my fingers at this point. Let me give you a reference, I happen to have at hand, from one of the earlier and best volumes on the subject: Frank Brady's Citizen Welles. Particularly, I refer you to pages 233-269 for an excellent account of how CITIZEN KANE was formulated, written, produced and directed. I believe that those pages will back up my suggestions about the complex process by which the film was created.
If you are obsessed, Blunted, as you seem to be, over the sad incident at Chasen's, during the Christmas Season of 1939, John Housman has a personal account in Run Through, the first of his autobiographical trilogy. For an even harder critic (though not as vitrolic as Simon Callow), that of a former idolator, try Rosebud by David Thomson (not admired here, but I understand what he was trying to do), pp 134-35.
Again, I happen to have a copies.
In the latter account, Thomson tells us that the reason for the meeting was not . . . Christmasy nor hilarious. Welles, Housman, Albert Schneider, Herb Drake, Richard Baer, William Alland, Richard Wilson and a secretary (in other words, a meeting of the Executive Board, such as it was, for the Mercury Theater) had come together about the plight of the Mercury Players whom Welles had brought to Hollwood in the heady days following his "War of the Worlds" generated movie contract. A year having passed, with no satisfactory script delivered to RKO, the Studio was taking them off salary as of December 31st of 1939.
Welles grandly said that he would pay his people from his own pocket, but his financial advisors said he had no money in his pocket to do that. Welles [flying much of that year back and forth across the country to help pay the troupe's expenses] responded, if that were the case, 'you sons-of-bitches piss it away!' Houseman and Welles exchanged pointed questions on what was to be done for the actors, Houseman responded: 'Tell them the truth for once."
That remark tore it, and eventually Welles threw 'dish heaters' at Houseman.
'Onlookers had no doubts: Welles had instigated the scene to make up for frustration.'
Thomson concludes: 'The most noted creative bond in Welles' life was over -- or nearly over --and touched with a need for vengeance."
That account comes from what I see as a grieving admirer.
I'm afraid, as I suggested in earlier posts, that the scene was hardly hilarious; rather it was tragic, in view of what might have been. Yet, a little over a year later, Houseman was still helping Welles, and the actors were all still in Hollywood, setting out to make, CITIZEN KANE, the finest black and white film produced in the zenith of the Studio System.
My view is that the rest of these petty stories are frivolous.
Blunted, I hope these additions clear up my characteristic vagueness, in your eyes.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by blunted by community » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:14 am
again, i have no clue where to begin responding to your monologue. the only darn question i asked was where you read the facts that formed your opinion on viertel. they didn't come from WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART. so you post a whole page of stuff, and didn't answer the only question i asked.
-yes, i think you answer in a euphoric fantasy.
-i'm not obssessed with the chasems incident. if we measure the posting real eastate used on the chasems incident to determine the obssessed, you are the land baron, i am the meek condo owner.
-yes, i think you answer in a euphoric fantasy.
-i'm not obssessed with the chasems incident. if we measure the posting real eastate used on the chasems incident to determine the obssessed, you are the land baron, i am the meek condo owner.
- blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
by blunted by community » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:25 am
chasems again!
glenn wrote:
I'm afraid, as I suggested in earlier posts, that the scene was hardly hilarious; rather it was tragic
blunted replied:
ok.
i'll take your word for what is in thomson's book. i have not read it, and probably never will.
yes, I believe my problem really is in my use of antecedents. I will take your advice, and dispense a bit of advice myself:
less is more. use less words, more active verbs, will bring your writing to life.
glenn wrote:
I'm afraid, as I suggested in earlier posts, that the scene was hardly hilarious; rather it was tragic
blunted replied:
ok.
i'll take your word for what is in thomson's book. i have not read it, and probably never will.
yes, I believe my problem really is in my use of antecedents. I will take your advice, and dispense a bit of advice myself:
less is more. use less words, more active verbs, will bring your writing to life.
- blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
by blunted by community » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:25 am
i'm sure glenn is aware of all these books, i'm posting these titles in case other members are curious about huston books.
these are the huston books i liked.
THE HUSTONS, a bio by lawrence grobal is excellent.
PICTURE by lillian ross, about the filming of red badge of courage, the best book i've read on huston
the viertel book, DANGEROUS FRIENDS, tie for second place with grobal's book.
GREEN SHADOWS, WHITE WHALE by ray bradburry, about writing the moby dick screenplay with huston in ireland. this is good, though i don't like bradburry's writing too much
REFLECTIONS IN A MALE EYE is good, not a bio, it's analysis on his films.
JOHN HUSTON INTERVIEWS is ok, i'm glad i bought it.
the best interview i've read from him so far is in the andrew sarris book, INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS
the best hitchcock interview i've read in in the bogdanovich book, WHO THE DEVIL MADE IT, a pretty darn good book.
and by the way, and what is happening with the beatrice trial? wish they would put in on court tv.
these are the huston books i liked.
THE HUSTONS, a bio by lawrence grobal is excellent.
PICTURE by lillian ross, about the filming of red badge of courage, the best book i've read on huston
the viertel book, DANGEROUS FRIENDS, tie for second place with grobal's book.
GREEN SHADOWS, WHITE WHALE by ray bradburry, about writing the moby dick screenplay with huston in ireland. this is good, though i don't like bradburry's writing too much
REFLECTIONS IN A MALE EYE is good, not a bio, it's analysis on his films.
JOHN HUSTON INTERVIEWS is ok, i'm glad i bought it.
the best interview i've read from him so far is in the andrew sarris book, INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS
the best hitchcock interview i've read in in the bogdanovich book, WHO THE DEVIL MADE IT, a pretty darn good book.
and by the way, and what is happening with the beatrice trial? wish they would put in on court tv.
- blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
by Christopher » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:27 pm
Hello, Glenn and Blunted,
I'm new to this game of "posts" and "threads" -- even the terminology is new -- but the charm of it for me has been the lively discussion generated by a diversity of opinions and differing points of view. I would not like to see anyone made defensive, no matter what he says or how he says it. Haven't we all joined a global forum open to anyone with a genuine interest in Orson Welles? Surely we are not here to step on each other's sensibilities, particuarly when we are all strangers to one another and can't modify our words with a smile or a handshake. The way I see it, and correct me if I am wrong, we are here to raise questions, exchange ideas, share what we know and what we don't know and in the process learn what we can from one another. We may also argue and debate at times but always, I would hope, respectfully, and keeping in mind that the reason we are here is to discuss and explore all things Wellessian. So if you two want to argue about Blunted's use of antecedents and Glenn's writing style, fine, but please do it somewhere else.
Will someone please bring us up to date about Beatrice Welles's law suits?
I'm new to this game of "posts" and "threads" -- even the terminology is new -- but the charm of it for me has been the lively discussion generated by a diversity of opinions and differing points of view. I would not like to see anyone made defensive, no matter what he says or how he says it. Haven't we all joined a global forum open to anyone with a genuine interest in Orson Welles? Surely we are not here to step on each other's sensibilities, particuarly when we are all strangers to one another and can't modify our words with a smile or a handshake. The way I see it, and correct me if I am wrong, we are here to raise questions, exchange ideas, share what we know and what we don't know and in the process learn what we can from one another. We may also argue and debate at times but always, I would hope, respectfully, and keeping in mind that the reason we are here is to discuss and explore all things Wellessian. So if you two want to argue about Blunted's use of antecedents and Glenn's writing style, fine, but please do it somewhere else.
Will someone please bring us up to date about Beatrice Welles's law suits?
-
Christopher - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
by Oscar Christie » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:50 pm
As Blunto said at the end of page 1:
this thred is beat. some one please start another
this thred is beat. some one please start another
- Oscar Christie
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:38 pm
63 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest