Doesn't SHADOWING THE THIRD MAN begin by stating that Welles was a liar? I didn't watch it beyond that point.
Aren't the networks self-censoring? I think the FCC doesn't get involved until viewers complain to them, and the networks themselves try to predict what would generate a complaint and snip it ahead of time. I'm sure we were more progressive in such matters in the 1970s. I'm going to complain to the FCC about the censorship.
What are you watching now? - (This is my brain on TV!)
by Glenn Anders » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:52 am
Thanks, Tony. I have those books, except for the Encyclopedia. I just can't get at them.
I wouldn't exactly say, 'don't believe [ANYTHING] you read on the Internet!!' That forms a conundrum, like declaring that, "We always lie."
What are we doing HERE?
But in the case in point, it looks as if you are surely correct.
----------------
Tashman: Agnes Moorehead had a long marriage to an actor named Jack Lee, which in its latter stages was unhappy because he came to regard her as "a meal ticket." Then, divorcing him, she married a man decades younger than herself, and that lasted only a few months. And so, she might have turned to sisters for comfort. She certainly appeared to try. She had no children of her own, for whatever reasons, but adopted and reared a son.
As we agree, the performance is the thing.
I have long thought that Orson Welles and John Huston had a kind of symbiotic relationship. They were opposites, yet they played off each other. Their professional collaborations and personal friendship must have lasted upwards of 50 years.
It would be fair to say, I think, that a number of Welles films, as they stand, are not so good as many critics think; whereas, many of Huston's skillfully crafted studio films are too easily dismissed. He was no hack.
Fitting, too, that Welles should have cast his Jack Spratt friend in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, a contrary stand-in for his beefy self or George Stevens.
---------------
Jaime: I just saw and reviewed LONE WHITE MALE. Avoid it, at all costs.
Glenn
I wouldn't exactly say, 'don't believe [ANYTHING] you read on the Internet!!' That forms a conundrum, like declaring that, "We always lie."
What are we doing HERE?
But in the case in point, it looks as if you are surely correct.
----------------
Tashman: Agnes Moorehead had a long marriage to an actor named Jack Lee, which in its latter stages was unhappy because he came to regard her as "a meal ticket." Then, divorcing him, she married a man decades younger than herself, and that lasted only a few months. And so, she might have turned to sisters for comfort. She certainly appeared to try. She had no children of her own, for whatever reasons, but adopted and reared a son.
As we agree, the performance is the thing.
I have long thought that Orson Welles and John Huston had a kind of symbiotic relationship. They were opposites, yet they played off each other. Their professional collaborations and personal friendship must have lasted upwards of 50 years.
It would be fair to say, I think, that a number of Welles films, as they stand, are not so good as many critics think; whereas, many of Huston's skillfully crafted studio films are too easily dismissed. He was no hack.
Fitting, too, that Welles should have cast his Jack Spratt friend in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, a contrary stand-in for his beefy self or George Stevens.
---------------
Jaime: I just saw and reviewed LONE WHITE MALE. Avoid it, at all costs.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Harvey Chartrand » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:49 pm
I think many of the John Huston films that were dismissed in the late fifties to mid-seventies were great – or at least interesting failures.
I'd like to see some of his lesser known works such as THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA, A WALK WITH LOVE AND DEATH and SINFUL DAVEY that are never televised up here in Canada. Nor are they getting the Criterion DVD treatment. They are just impossible to track down.
I'm told that Huston's PHOBIA is a real stinker, but I'd like to judge for myself. I saw ANNIE and it was okay. I usually hate musicals, but admired old man Huston for tackling this genre so late in his career. He did everything well. He was a cultured adventurer.
Whereas some of Welles' films are definitely overrated, I have to agree – F for Fake especially.
I'd like to see some of his lesser known works such as THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA, A WALK WITH LOVE AND DEATH and SINFUL DAVEY that are never televised up here in Canada. Nor are they getting the Criterion DVD treatment. They are just impossible to track down.
I'm told that Huston's PHOBIA is a real stinker, but I'd like to judge for myself. I saw ANNIE and it was okay. I usually hate musicals, but admired old man Huston for tackling this genre so late in his career. He did everything well. He was a cultured adventurer.
Whereas some of Welles' films are definitely overrated, I have to agree – F for Fake especially.
- Harvey Chartrand
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
by Tashman » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:37 pm
Hadji: The networks are likewise self-censoring, but they have shareholders. Whereas PBS is supposed actually to have your progressive interests at heart. Should they be capitulating? I think they could find deep pockets to support them if they wanted to 'fight the power' rather than wait it out.
Self-censorship is obviously a pertinent catchword right now, given the last couple weeks in the world of newspaper cartooning.
Glenn: In light of the researcher's comments I quoted earlier, is "She certainly appeared to try [to turn to sisters]" founded on anything in particular?
As to Welles v. Huston, I didn't mean to suggest that it need be a zero sum proposition between filmmakers, or between these two (anymore than it need be for Huston and Kubrick). I think Robinson's roles for each, however, do say something in shorthand about the two directors, respectively, regardless of any involvement of Huston in THE STRANGER or in the overall merits of that particular Welles film. Huston may be underrated at large as a craftsman, possibly. I doubt it has occurred to any serious viewer to dismiss him as a hack.
Self-censorship is obviously a pertinent catchword right now, given the last couple weeks in the world of newspaper cartooning.
Glenn: In light of the researcher's comments I quoted earlier, is "She certainly appeared to try [to turn to sisters]" founded on anything in particular?
As to Welles v. Huston, I didn't mean to suggest that it need be a zero sum proposition between filmmakers, or between these two (anymore than it need be for Huston and Kubrick). I think Robinson's roles for each, however, do say something in shorthand about the two directors, respectively, regardless of any involvement of Huston in THE STRANGER or in the overall merits of that particular Welles film. Huston may be underrated at large as a craftsman, possibly. I doubt it has occurred to any serious viewer to dismiss him as a hack.
-
Tashman - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:23 pm
by Store Hadji » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:58 am
Since we traded Uncle Sam for Jack the Ripper, nothing surprises me. Gutting prostitutes is good because sex is bad. Extend that to glorifying all hatred and criminalizing all sex (which seems to include nudity) and you have my conception of America. I've been reading Hunter Thompson's last book, Kingdom of Fear, and sadly shaking my head in agreement as I read. I know most people aren't the chronically miserable fuck that I am, and that's good as I wouldn't wish it on a dog (maybe a politician or media mogul though - yes, definitely those bastards) but my world view keeps being reinforced by everything that I see every day. I'm having too much of yet another Jospeh K moment to want to write any more. Sorry for incensing your sensibilities once again. Just ignore it.
Sto Pro Veritate
-
Store Hadji - Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:10 pm
by Tashman » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:10 am
(Oh, Christ, I thought. He's gone around the bend.)
Look on the bright side, things are always bound to get worse.
Who you're reading explains a lot--in fact, it should have been obvious. There's that seductive quality about the heftier comic imaginations that, after mingling with them, leaves us intoning in Grouchoese or Fieldsiana, or scribbling after the manner of Perelman or Thompson, etc. That last was a poet too, and funny as all hell, but--as you would probably expect--I don't think he was a prophet. Things are always bound to get worse, sure, but there's no reason they will. There is no consistency to it. When you start to see consistency you're on the road to religious ecstasy or paranoia. Towards the end of the century Thompson took to saying that we wouldn't see 2000.
To the extent he makes his readers laugh at uncomfortable truths and gives vent to all their frustration and paranoia, Hunter is aces; but to the extent he leaves them stewing in it, when truth-telling turns to monomania in the author or in the audience, Ye gods, it's time to flip the record.
Done and done.
Look on the bright side, things are always bound to get worse.
Who you're reading explains a lot--in fact, it should have been obvious. There's that seductive quality about the heftier comic imaginations that, after mingling with them, leaves us intoning in Grouchoese or Fieldsiana, or scribbling after the manner of Perelman or Thompson, etc. That last was a poet too, and funny as all hell, but--as you would probably expect--I don't think he was a prophet. Things are always bound to get worse, sure, but there's no reason they will. There is no consistency to it. When you start to see consistency you're on the road to religious ecstasy or paranoia. Towards the end of the century Thompson took to saying that we wouldn't see 2000.
To the extent he makes his readers laugh at uncomfortable truths and gives vent to all their frustration and paranoia, Hunter is aces; but to the extent he leaves them stewing in it, when truth-telling turns to monomania in the author or in the audience, Ye gods, it's time to flip the record.
Just ignore [my incensing your sensibilities].
Done and done.
-
Tashman - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:23 pm
by Harvey Chartrand » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:35 pm
I went through a Hunter S. Thompson phase about 30 years ago, but gave up on him after a while, though I still admire his book on the HELL'S ANGELS. It's a great pity that he became such a depressive in his later years.
Underrated at the time of its release in 1962, John Huston's FREUD is brilliant, proof that the director was a genius. It is impossible to tell that FREUD's lead player, Montgomery Clift, wasted from years of self-abuse following his 1956 car crash, was in terrible shape during production, unable to remember his lines, confused and quarrelsome, often inebriated, and going blind. Rather ironic that such a "torn creature" (as Huston described Clift) was cast as the Father of Psychoanalysis. But FREUD is an amazing film, with superb performances by Clift (despite his deplorable condition), Susannah York, David McCallum and Larry Parks.
Underrated at the time of its release in 1962, John Huston's FREUD is brilliant, proof that the director was a genius. It is impossible to tell that FREUD's lead player, Montgomery Clift, wasted from years of self-abuse following his 1956 car crash, was in terrible shape during production, unable to remember his lines, confused and quarrelsome, often inebriated, and going blind. Rather ironic that such a "torn creature" (as Huston described Clift) was cast as the Father of Psychoanalysis. But FREUD is an amazing film, with superb performances by Clift (despite his deplorable condition), Susannah York, David McCallum and Larry Parks.
- Harvey Chartrand
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
by Glenn Anders » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:15 pm
Tashman: "[I]s she certainly appeared to try [to turn to sisters]" founded on anything in particular?"
I only meant that Miss Moorehead (as they used to say), by some judgments here not a great beauty, after two tries at marriage, and raising an adopted son whom some said ran away, may have become fed up with men. More easy for heterosexual women than for homosexual men, I think, in the vice verse.
Tashman and Harvey: If you look at Huston's career, after films hailed by critics like James Agee in the 1940's and early 1950's, such as THE MALTESE FALCON, THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, and THE AFRICAN QUEEN, he suffered a critical decline similar to that which plagued Welles. At one point, he was regarded by many as a hack, who would do just whatever was handed him. His films of the late 1950's and 1960's you mention, Harvey, THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA or A WALK WITH LOVE AND DEATH, which look pretty good today, were battered. SINFUL DAVY was just not released in Canada, I don't believe it had a real theatrical release in America.
FREUD was cut in the way many of Welles' films were butchered. You may very well be right, Harvey, about its excellence. I've never seen a full print of the original film.
But unlike Welles (whose F FOR FAKE or TOSOTW our man might have had hopes would do the trick), Huston had a critical comeback in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING in 1975, and though he had his ups and downs after, he died a champ.
Hadji, in the America and World of today, you must not tear your self up. We are all in the same boat.
Tashman, Tony, Harvey, Hadji, perhaps I can tie all of this together:
One reason Huston was long interested in making a film on the life of Freud was that, like many Mid-20th Century men, he was fascinated with the idea of mental treatment and psycho-analysis, though not much of a willing subject himself. In The Hustons, Lawrence Grobel tells us that John Huston, who had made the suppressed Army documentary, LET THERE BE LIGHT, was puzzled by his relationship with his mother.
And Margaret Huston Carrington, influential in Huston's transformation into a responsible craftsman and director of actors, sent "Bobby" Jones, the set designer, to Vienna "to cure him of his homosexuality," when Huston was under her sway. It did not work, of course, but she eventually married Jones, and they remained together until her death in 1938.
One can readily see similar concerns underlying Welles' THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.
Now . . . I might try to connect Agnes "Bobby" Moorehead to all of this . . . but I won't.
Saw MUNICH last night, Jaime. Full of soul-searching and psychologizing. Better than most Spielberg, not so sentimental, but still pretentious and exploitive.
Glenn
I only meant that Miss Moorehead (as they used to say), by some judgments here not a great beauty, after two tries at marriage, and raising an adopted son whom some said ran away, may have become fed up with men. More easy for heterosexual women than for homosexual men, I think, in the vice verse.
Tashman and Harvey: If you look at Huston's career, after films hailed by critics like James Agee in the 1940's and early 1950's, such as THE MALTESE FALCON, THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, and THE AFRICAN QUEEN, he suffered a critical decline similar to that which plagued Welles. At one point, he was regarded by many as a hack, who would do just whatever was handed him. His films of the late 1950's and 1960's you mention, Harvey, THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA or A WALK WITH LOVE AND DEATH, which look pretty good today, were battered. SINFUL DAVY was just not released in Canada, I don't believe it had a real theatrical release in America.
FREUD was cut in the way many of Welles' films were butchered. You may very well be right, Harvey, about its excellence. I've never seen a full print of the original film.
But unlike Welles (whose F FOR FAKE or TOSOTW our man might have had hopes would do the trick), Huston had a critical comeback in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING in 1975, and though he had his ups and downs after, he died a champ.
Hadji, in the America and World of today, you must not tear your self up. We are all in the same boat.
Tashman, Tony, Harvey, Hadji, perhaps I can tie all of this together:
One reason Huston was long interested in making a film on the life of Freud was that, like many Mid-20th Century men, he was fascinated with the idea of mental treatment and psycho-analysis, though not much of a willing subject himself. In The Hustons, Lawrence Grobel tells us that John Huston, who had made the suppressed Army documentary, LET THERE BE LIGHT, was puzzled by his relationship with his mother.
And Margaret Huston Carrington, influential in Huston's transformation into a responsible craftsman and director of actors, sent "Bobby" Jones, the set designer, to Vienna "to cure him of his homosexuality," when Huston was under her sway. It did not work, of course, but she eventually married Jones, and they remained together until her death in 1938.
One can readily see similar concerns underlying Welles' THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.
Now . . . I might try to connect Agnes "Bobby" Moorehead to all of this . . . but I won't.
Saw MUNICH last night, Jaime. Full of soul-searching and psychologizing. Better than most Spielberg, not so sentimental, but still pretentious and exploitive.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Tashman » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:25 am
I haven't seen FREUD, either. Must do so. Incidentally, Huston's continuing relationship with Oswald Morris might be proof enough of his sometime ambitions, if there were any doubt otherwise. (I think it was Hawks who said, or maybe exaggerated, that a good indicator of how he felt about a picture could be seen in the cinematographer he gave himself.) MAN WHO WOULD BE KING appeared in '75, and Morris was on board--I think for the last time with Huston.
-
Tashman - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:23 pm
by Glenn Anders » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:10 pm
Yes, Tashman, you make an excellent point. Huston, a sometime painter like Welles, always tried to have the best available photographers. For color, he utilized the services of Jack Cardiff, early on, and later, Morris (from MOULIN ROUGE {1953} to THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING (1975). [You are right about the last date; I'll change it in my entry.] Your rule for directors and photographers might also be applied to Welles' ability to command a Gregg Toland or a Stanley Cortez, or having to depend up on a loyal (bless him) but relatively limited Gary Graver.
Glenn
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Harvey Chartrand » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:11 pm
Gary Graver also lent a helping hand to another great director who couldn't get any backing from the major studios: Curtis Harrington. The result: USHER, a 38-minute gem filmed in 2002.
Graver may soon lens a second film directed by Harrington, based on Edgar Allan Poe's THE MAN OF THE CROWD.
Graver may soon lens a second film directed by Harrington, based on Edgar Allan Poe's THE MAN OF THE CROWD.
- Harvey Chartrand
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
by jaime marzol » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:00 pm
STOREHADJI SAID:
"Doesn't SHADOWING THE THIRD MAN begin by stating that Welles was a liar? I didn't watch it beyond that point."
Well, i saw how they assumed what they said was reasonable. welles said he was largely responsible for the dialogue of harry lime. i know welles meant that cool little story about 500 years of brotherly love not producing anything, they didn't know that. the crew in the documentary also bad-mouthed welles about him not wanting to act in a sewer. well, i can't say i blame him for that.
...........
so far all the later huston films i've seen were at the very least, interesting. some were darn good.
................
only speilberg film that turned my screws is SCHINDLER. i plan on seeing MUNICH.
.........................
KANE is not a film i watch often. i only pop it in the player when i know i'm going to watch it. you know, really watch it. before long it sucks you in. then some one comes in the room, turns a light on, and it yanks you back to 2006. ever experience that? i guess that is what they call seamless entertainment.
...........................
and i don't agree with gary graver being limited like harvey says.
"Doesn't SHADOWING THE THIRD MAN begin by stating that Welles was a liar? I didn't watch it beyond that point."
Well, i saw how they assumed what they said was reasonable. welles said he was largely responsible for the dialogue of harry lime. i know welles meant that cool little story about 500 years of brotherly love not producing anything, they didn't know that. the crew in the documentary also bad-mouthed welles about him not wanting to act in a sewer. well, i can't say i blame him for that.
...........
so far all the later huston films i've seen were at the very least, interesting. some were darn good.
................
only speilberg film that turned my screws is SCHINDLER. i plan on seeing MUNICH.
.........................
KANE is not a film i watch often. i only pop it in the player when i know i'm going to watch it. you know, really watch it. before long it sucks you in. then some one comes in the room, turns a light on, and it yanks you back to 2006. ever experience that? i guess that is what they call seamless entertainment.
...........................
and i don't agree with gary graver being limited like harvey says.
-
jaime marzol - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:24 am
by Eve » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:27 pm
Store Hadji wrote:
One line it is says something like this: Welles kept mixing fact and fiction. The few times the documentary turns to Welles it seems to try to give an extremely unfriendly portrait of his involvement with the film.
If Jaime Marzol says that "they" didn't know that Welles was referring to the 'cuckoo clock'-speech when speaking of his share in writing the dialogue of Harry Lime, then I don't know what could be judged as a reasonable research when being faced with the project of a documentary comparable to this one.
Frederick Baker (the director) could have known it. Together with Brigitte Timmermann he published an extensive book about "The Third Man". He is definitely an expert on the subject.
I spoke with Frederick Baker after the showing of his documentary in Locarno because I wanted to ask him about his view of Welles' involvement with the film.
I am very sorry to say that he seemed quite ignorant of the issue and didn't want to discuss it beyond the point of
his statement that Welles lied.
Doesn't SHADOWING THE THIRD MAN begin by stating that Welles was a liar?
One line it is says something like this: Welles kept mixing fact and fiction. The few times the documentary turns to Welles it seems to try to give an extremely unfriendly portrait of his involvement with the film.
If Jaime Marzol says that "they" didn't know that Welles was referring to the 'cuckoo clock'-speech when speaking of his share in writing the dialogue of Harry Lime, then I don't know what could be judged as a reasonable research when being faced with the project of a documentary comparable to this one.
Frederick Baker (the director) could have known it. Together with Brigitte Timmermann he published an extensive book about "The Third Man". He is definitely an expert on the subject.
I spoke with Frederick Baker after the showing of his documentary in Locarno because I wanted to ask him about his view of Welles' involvement with the film.
I am very sorry to say that he seemed quite ignorant of the issue and didn't want to discuss it beyond the point of
his statement that Welles lied.
- Eve
- Member
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:16 pm
by jaime marzol » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:55 pm
there is a book called CHARMED LIVES, written by the son of the korda brother that had to chase welles down across europe. it's a fabulous account.
that comment i made was just my assumption because i felt the documentary was truthful. i think every one presented the stuff as best as they remember.
as a welles fan i was not assaulted by the info they presented. i loved the greene footage, the accounts of the execs, etc.
and i liked how they projected the images on the real locations
that comment i made was just my assumption because i felt the documentary was truthful. i think every one presented the stuff as best as they remember.
as a welles fan i was not assaulted by the info they presented. i loved the greene footage, the accounts of the execs, etc.
and i liked how they projected the images on the real locations
-
jaime marzol - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:24 am
by Store Hadji » Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:48 pm
jaime marzol wrote:i liked how they projected the images on the real locations
Ug. After being insulted by the Welles bashing I still lingered for a few minutes, but I hated the back-alley projector, and turned it off because of that. No offense, J, just didn't work for me.
I have a 3D Krazy Kat comic. Welles liked Krazy Kat.
Is my avatar of Jack Carter? I snagged it from that WPA Macbeth clip. My first Screen Capture. I'm not a virgin anymore! (Sound of self-derisive vomitting here.)
I've read about 20 pages of Hunter S in my entire life. My paranoia is informed by the Media, when I am stupid enough to watch it. Hunter had the same sardonic attitude which I do - one of bitterness and no joy - but he is able to make me laugh - one of those brittle and humourless laughs, but I'll take it, gratefully.
I saw Freud years ago. I didn't know Clift was having any health problems. I liked the scene with the German professors roaring with laughter at the idea of "erogenous zones," with Clift/Freud cringing as he was brutally mocked. Made me think of how progressive views are attacked by established normalcy.
I also transferred my first VHS tape to DVD - and editted out the commercials. Took me 6 hours, with all the mistakes which I (or the software itself) kept making. Nice end result.
Can a DVD of my NTSC tapes play over there in PAL land? Are DVDs just DVDs as long as they are region free? I've seen people trade NTSC and PAL versions of the same titles, with the assumption that only the right one for your region will work.
Sto Pro Veritate
-
Store Hadji - Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:10 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests