Joseph McBride's What Ever Happened to Orson W - Examines Welles post-1970 work

[Christopher]

Tony,

Thank you for your excellent summary of Jonathan Rosenbaum's division of Welles biographers and commentators into two camps, pro and con, and for referring us to the three Rosenbaum articles, none of which I have read.

Norman Corwin, who knew Welles during his radio days, said in an interview that was screened last summer at the Locarno retrospective that he felt a lot of animosity towards Welles was the result of jealousy or envy. I would add ignorance of Welles's European films which are so rarely screened in the U.S. and a closed mind to the worth of his achievements after KANE.

It is my fervent hope that the next comprehensive Orson Welles retrospective will take place in the United States so that all of his films, complete and incomplete, can be seen in this country. I can't help thinking that if Schickel had been in Locarno last August, viewing all the footage, attending all the workshops, he might have modified his view of Welles.

[Iago]

Mr. Schickel is obviously a bitter, senile old man, who's envy for OW is very transparent from the opening paragraph of his book review. To claim (in print, no less) that Welles didn't direct anything worthwhile after 1942 shows that this old fart probably doesn't know his left hand from his right. Why would his editor, after proof reading Schikel's blabbering nonsense, allow the review to actually run? In a major newspaper no less. I guess we can add the old geezer to the list of other jealous OW haters like Kael and Higham. In the end, all you have are three people who time and history won't even remember long after they're gone. OW, on the other hand, is eternal!

[Tony]

Iago:
I've found no evidence to support the idea that Schickel is senile or bitter, and being old is certainly no crime; however, I do believe he shares certain assumptions with the Higham/Kael/Conrad/Carringer/Thomson camp (as outlined above) which inevitably lead him to his conclusions. His review was published because he's one of the most respected writers on film in the country, and has been since the late 60s. The Higham/Kael etc. camp all got their books and articles published, and continue to do so.

Christopher:
Your comment about jealousy reminded me that Oja Kodar mentioned this at Welles's funeral service; at the time, I thought perhaps she was just being emotional, but could it be she was right? I've always wondered why, when it was known he was having trouble making films especially from the 70s on, that few came to help in terms of the Hollywood community. Perhaps they actually shared Schickel's assumptions, or were unconsciously jealous; or perhaps they thought he was burned out, when in reality he was just as strong and original as ever: Big Brass Ring, the Dreamers and The Other Side of the Wind were all very unusual and unique when he was shopping them around (in fact, they probably still are). As Rosenbaum has pointed out, part of the problem was that Welles refused to repeat himself and turn himself into a commodity, like Hitchcock, Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese or Ron Howard. Investors want a sure bet, not something they've never seen before. One of the few directors I can see today who is uncompromising and truly original like Welles is Terry Gilliam, and he's always having financing problems; of course, he has what Welles had: real vision.

[tonyw]

:( Christopher. Even if Schickel had attended Locarno (and he would not since it is a formum for experts and scholars), nothing there would have made him change his mind. He is a merely a shallow reviewer who has to follow nonsensical popular myths such as the "decline of Orson Welles.". That is why newspapers and television appoint folksy commentators on the lines of Rush Limbaugh and Jonthan Ross in England who add nothing of depth to what they say and are mere empty show-biz personalities.

Also, since Kael comparisons have appeared in this thred, let me remind you of her reaction to the auteur theory when she said that she is not going to see any crappy film made by somebody like Phil Karlson to check up on whether the evidence is correct or not. he same thing is true about Schickel. He does not want to know. He also has belittled the influence of the blacklist which, indirectly, was responsible for Welles going to Europe in favor of biographies favoring the betraying figures of Elia Kazanm and others.

If Schickel actually considered the evidence we all know about, he would have to change his mind radically, admit he was wrong, and realize that Welles did represent a creative alternative to the Hollywood system. Were that so, it would not only finish him as an industrial-based critic, but the threats of withdrawl of advertizing space by the Hollywood machine and its multiple conglomerates would result in his removal from the well-paid, but trashy, type of biased journalism he produces for a system which now produces movies that are even worse than they were a decade ago.

The truth will become apparent as we all know in the near future. That is why Schickel is so desperate. He knows he is on the losing side and his work will eventually fall into the dustbin of critical writing unlike Welles who will grow more in stature. But it is a great shame as he said to Bogdanovich, "They will only appreciate me when I'm dead." In the meantime, this site started by Jeff and continued by Lawrence and others, as well as the informed postings here that will set the record straight.

[Iago]

"Tony wrote: I've found no evidence to support the idea that Schickel is senile or bitter, and being old is certainly no crime".

What are you, Shickel's son-in-law? Married to his daughter, are you? Either that or you've got a screw loose. No, I get it. You're Wellesnet's resident "devil's advocate". Taking the side of the unpopular, the unsubstantiated and the untrue.

I guess someone has to.

Back to lurking. It's funner that way.

:angry:

[Gordon]

Sorry to take the focus on this thread away from Mr. Pister's Third Volume, but I want to follow up on Christopher's

It is my fervent hope that the next comprehensive Orson Welles retrospective will take place in the United States so that all of his films, complete and incomplete, can be seen in this country. I can't help thinking that if Schickel had been in Locarno last August, viewing all the footage, attending all the workshops, he might have modified his view of Welles.

Can we reach consensus on a city to approach? The Filmuseum, to my knowledge, has made no commitment yet to a location, but it seems to prefer to hold a Welles Triennial in conjunction with an established film festival. What would be our choice to recommend to Munich as the best candidate in the United States to approach, following up on Christopher's suggestion, to host the 2008 Welles Triennial?

[Christopher]

Tonyw,

You are right. My vision of Schickel modifying his views at an Orson Welles retrospective -- in Locarno or elsewhere -- is mere wishful thinking. I should have remembered that some people are uncomfortable with greatness. It reminds them how small and insignificant they are, how soon they will be forgotten. These same people don't want to look up at anyone -- only down -- and the more charismatic the great person is, the more determined they are to shove him off his pedestal and bring him crashing down to their shabby level. We can all think of a number of charismatic individuals (in addition to Orson Welles) who have met this fate in recent times.

[Christopher]

Gordon,

I like your suggestion that Wellesnetters brainstorm on the subject of where to hold the next OW retrospective in the U.S., but perhaps we should start a new thread on this topic? Since it was your good idea, I'm leaving it up to you.

[Tony]

Iago:
My point was that we should not engage in personal attacks, but rather concentrate on building strong arguments against the attitudes of the Higham et.al. camp. Your post is not only intemperate and rude: it accomplishes nothing by attacking me.

[ToddBaesen]

I've started a seperate thread for the discussion of where to hold the next Welles conference if it should be held in the United States, so please post all further comments and suggestions there.