Iago=Houseman, Othello=Welles

[A Kid Ran]

According to the Micheál MacLiammóir's wikipedia entry:

"His Iago is unusual in that MacLíammóir was about fifty (and looked older) when he played the role, while most Iagos are about thirty-five or so. This may have been because of Welles' intended interpretation - he wanted Iago played as an older homosexual consumed by jealousy for the younger Othello."

I remember reading somewhere (possibly in "This is Orson Welles" or "The Magic World of OW") that John Houseman was sweet on Welles.

It seems as if Welles was once again shuffling his deck of facts and fiction and asking the audience to pick a card, any card.

[Glenn Anders]

Such an interpretation may not be popular around here, Kid, but it makes perfect sense to me.

The theme you suggest can be followed through a number of other Welles' films, sometimes in the form of father-son or male bonding conflicts: Leland -- Kane in CITIZEN KANE; George -- Eugene in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS; Grisby -- O'Hara in THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI; Quinlan -- Vargas in TOUCH OF EVIL; Falstaff -- Prince Hal in CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT; and Hannaford -- Dale in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. The relationship flips over in the later films.

Perhaps others may find other connections.

We need more of your insights!

Glenn

[Tony]

I don't beleive Welles wanted Macliamoor to play Iago as a frustrated homosexual; he did explicitly state he told Macliamoor to play Iago as impotent. Welles states this in "Filming Othello" as well (I believe) in "This is Orson Welles". Obviously, just because Macliamoor was gay doesn't mean that his Iago also had to be gay.

As for Houseman, he was married for all of his adult life, and there is no evidence he was homosexual; although he was enamoured with the useful Welles, reading his book "Run-Through" it seems to me a platonic attraction. In these times, it's sometimes difficult to remember that such attractions do exist between people.

:;):

[A Kid Ran]

Part of the reason i started this topic was to see if anyone could confirm or refute the validity of the quote i pulled from Wikipedia, "This may have been because of Welles' intended interpretation - he wanted Iago played as an older homosexual consumed by jealousy for the younger Othello."

I've actually never seen this mentioned anywhere else, so there's a good chance it's nonsense.

I only brought up the connection in hopes of inciting discussion.

[Glenn Anders]

Come on, Kid. Stand your ground.

Your insight is obviously and certainly valid.

Perhaps, Tony, "homoerotic" should be substituted for "homosexual." Both terms have fallen into disuse, but the former has a long history in Shakespeare Studies, and may also better characterize the volatile relationship which Welles and Houseman had, not to mention the various other pairings in Welles' life and art.

You have reminded me, Tony, of "Bright Lucifer," one of Welles first writings, and then "The Big Brass Ring," one of his last. He seems to have turned the question over in his mind and in his work for much of his life.

Welcome, Kid!

I'm sure you will stimulate discussion.

Part II of Larry French's presentation of the Study Guide to MACBETH on our Main Page may suggest an additional connection to your subject: Macbeth's betrayal of Banquo.

Glenn

[Store Hadji]

Validity and Wikipedia do not belong in the same sentence.

[Tony]

Glenn: we're back where we usually are: I have referred to what Welles said, and you have given your idea of what you believe Welles's intentions were.

Here's what Welles said in "This is Orson Welles":


"Iago has no reason. The great criticism through all the years has been that he's an unmotivated villain, but I think there are a lot of people who perpetuate villainy without any motive other than the exercise of mischief and the enjoyment of the power to destroy. I've known a lot of Iagos in my life. I think it's a great mistake to try to motivate it beyond what is inherent in the action."

Sorry, Glenn: no gay motivation, at least in Welles's mind.

:;):

[A Kid Ran]

"According to Welles, Houseman, who (though married) was, as Orson said, generally known in show business circles as a closet homosexual, had been in love with Welles. Orson said he had probably not handled this right and instead got into a terrible public row with Houseman, who was also ten years his senior." ---From Peter Bogdanovich's introduction to TIOW.

I can certainly imagine a "scenerio" in which Welles indirectly acknowledges this episode in his life through his film. Even if it's not entirely true and only Welles' point of view.

[chipm]

As a writer and creative person myself, I would tend to see what the work evokes for you personally....not what the author said a decade or so later. While I enjoyed "This is OW", I don't particularly think he's the most reliable narrator of his own life and works. As enjoyable as the interviews and OW's raconteuring may be....

To soley rely on what the author said about the work is a bit rigid in my mind. Creating artistic works is a weird and mysterious process...that at some level even the artist is not wholly cognizant of what he is trying to communicate...

Chip

[ToddBaesen]

Peter Bogdanovich's quoting Welle's telling him about Houseman being gay (and enamored of Orson) seems quite suspect to me.

One reason I really don't think it's true, is because there is little doubt that Bogdanovich took on Welles own dislike of Houseman, blaming him for supplying Pauline Kael with all the information about Mank being the only one to write the script to KANE. Bogdanovich now says he even didn't like Houseman when he first met him as a young actor at the Stratford, Conn. Shakepeare Theater in the late fifties.

But as Houseman tells his version of their break-up in RUN-THROUGH, it's clear that their Mercury Theater producing partnership couldn't last in any event. It's also interesting to note that in Callow's new book, Orson seemed to tell all his close male friends how much he loved them, and seems to have inspired love from them in return... all strictly platonic it would seem.

But in any event, even if Welles felt betrayed by Houseman in some ways, in reality, I would say Welles would be more at fault, and also the bigger loser of the two in their break-up, since Houseman seemed to function quite well as a leading Hollywood producer with directors like Nicholas Ray and Vincente Minelli. As Glenn has noted, Welles would have fared much better if only Houseman has stayed around and handled the money problems and deflected the interference from the studio that he proved to be so good at with his films with other iconaclast directors, and as he did with Welles, allowing him to function at his peak on their stage collaborations.

[Tony]

Do you recall the extra tape that came with the "Theatre of the Imagination"? It was called, I think, "The Mercury Theatre Remembers". I found it found it fascinating: all of the particpants were former Mercury Players, and all agreed that the Welles-Houseman breakup, initiated by Welles, was a disaster for OW. Houseman was a triple-threat: business manager, writer, and general smoother-over guy. What were Welles's problems for the rest of his life? His weakness in writing (which Houseman said was his biggest weakness), his disordered business dealings, and his alienating people, especially the money people. There's no doubt that the team that revolutionized stage, radio and live theatre in 5 years flat would have gone on to create decades of masterpieces if only Welles's giant ego, the one which told it's owner he could do it all, hadn't destroyed the Houseman partnership.

And to add final insult to injury, Houseman won an oscar for acting! Welles must have really been burned up about that!

:angry:

[Store Hadji]

Welles was also pretty self-destructive. I was thinking the other day of all the scandals and controversies he attached to his name just during the 30's and 40's. He seem compelled to play scorpion to his own frog.

[Tony]

Yeah, the guy surely was his own worst enemy, but who amongst us isn't? He just happened to be a genius in the 20th century public eye.

Leonardo was pretty weird, Bach was really cranky, Beethoven used to peep into girls' bedroom windows, etc. etc.

I always get the feeling that Welles very healthy, psychologically; perhaps too healthy, as perhaps he wasn't self-critical enough.

But: who among us is self-critical enough, and as a friend of mine said: if Welles had been more self-critical, and had he been able to 'play the game' better, then he would be Steven Spielberg.

[LamontCranston]

I was thinking the other day of all the scandals and controversies he attached to his name just during the 30's and 40's. He seem compelled to play scorpion to his own frog.

Such as?

[Store Hadji]

Not that I agree that all of them should have been scandalous, but here are some of the early ones. This isn't my attempt at denigrating Welles or a call for him to be defended; I simply note that he seemed to be a lightning rod for trouble, deservedly or not:

The Cradle Will Rock

War of the Worlds

Being at RKO for a year without getting a film off the ground

Pissing off Hearst and Hollywood with Kane, with all the negative publicity and financial loss that generated for Welles and RKO, which culminated with a nearly unreleasable film which was booed by the Academy

Pissing off Mankiewicz about the credit for the screenplay

Throwing sterno at John Houseman

Being replaced by Houseman on Campbell Playhouse

Trashing a hotel room in Rio and throwing furniture out the window

The death of Jacare

Snubbing South American dignitaries during his time as good will ambassador

The It's All True debacle

The commercial failure of Kane, Ambersons and Journey into Fear

Being unemployable as a film director from 1942 to 1946

Getting fired from This Is My Best after 5 weeks

Pissing off the South, having The Stranger banned, being hung in effigy, having his radio show cancelled and never being offered another after his campaign to bring justice to Isaac Woodard

Public response to Lady from Shanghai

Leaving Republic with an unfinished Macbeth

Public response to Macbeth

_


This is some of the crap thrown at Welles during the early days. I'm not listing it as an attack, merely as an illustration of points where his reputation was tarnished and why by the 1970s he was still needing to "set the record straight."