Just read about 2/3 of 'Whatever Happened to Orson Welles?', and I'm really shocked: McBride manages a much more devastating critique of Welles's personality than does Thompson, because McBride knew Welles and worked with him for several years. The picture he draws is one of a control freak, a man who could not accept equals in relationships, a man who dominated people, a man who could draw people in, but either quit the relationship once the intenisty grew too strong, or who became cold to the person (as with McBride) so that no true communication could happen. Also, a man who was an intellectually superficial thinker, who was a reductionist, self-righteous, and bullying. McBride himself actually cut off the relationship in order to escape the situation, and all he writes is very dissappointing, if one believed that Welles was a nice guy most of the time. The surprising thing is that all the reviews don't mention this; they are treating it as just another McBride apology on Welles, which it most certainly is not.
There are also some shockers in the book, and one that really sticks in my mind is regarding TOSOTW: according to McBride, Robert DeNiro offered to play Pellarin in Big Brass Ring, but Welles rejected him as too ethnic for the part. And DeNiro in 1982 had just won the academy award for Raging Bull 2 years before. When I read this, I was quite angry. I felt a lot less sorry for Welles when I read that.
All in all, a devastatingly ugly portrait of a man who, while a genius film maker, was an absolute amateur human being.
???
Joseph McBride's new book
24 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
by Glenn Anders » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:23 am
Tony: You seem to blow hot and cold to me.
I've been reading McBride's book, too. His portrait of Orson Welles seems no more condemnatory of him than several other books. Welles was indeed a complicated human being, as are many artists. I believe that he said to someone, perhaps to Bogdanovich, that you could have Independence, or you could have Love. You could not expect to have both.
I think it clear which he chose.
[Or, maybe to be fair, what circumstances chose for him, after a certain point.]
If you have spoken to McBride, as I have a couple of times, it is clear, no matter how they may have parted, that he retains great love and respect for Welles and his works.
Welles seems to have known himself better than many men. I know you don't believe that works of Art contain autobiographical references, but surely, from CITIZEN KANE to THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, Welles constantly throws in illustrative remarks and incidents which comment upon characters much like himself. Most of the people he fashioned and acted are not at all admirable human beings. Some of them, I would suggest, he knew only too well, for they were unpleasant sides of himself, which he used in creating his work.
The interview between Welles and Juan Cabos contributed by Larry French (safely back from Spain) contributes an insight into Welles' creative process, which shaded the roistering Falstaff into a melancholy, sad, but well-meaning figure.
Perhaps CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (which I have seen only once, in a poor copy) may, as French suggests, be his best work, the one where Welles combines the two sides of his nature most poignantly in an artistic work.
We have both agreed: It's the work that counts.
He could have spent his time, after all, perhaps a happier man, one you would have liked better in a biography, tony, just making cuckoo clocks! :p
Glenn
I've been reading McBride's book, too. His portrait of Orson Welles seems no more condemnatory of him than several other books. Welles was indeed a complicated human being, as are many artists. I believe that he said to someone, perhaps to Bogdanovich, that you could have Independence, or you could have Love. You could not expect to have both.
I think it clear which he chose.
[Or, maybe to be fair, what circumstances chose for him, after a certain point.]
If you have spoken to McBride, as I have a couple of times, it is clear, no matter how they may have parted, that he retains great love and respect for Welles and his works.
Welles seems to have known himself better than many men. I know you don't believe that works of Art contain autobiographical references, but surely, from CITIZEN KANE to THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, Welles constantly throws in illustrative remarks and incidents which comment upon characters much like himself. Most of the people he fashioned and acted are not at all admirable human beings. Some of them, I would suggest, he knew only too well, for they were unpleasant sides of himself, which he used in creating his work.
The interview between Welles and Juan Cabos contributed by Larry French (safely back from Spain) contributes an insight into Welles' creative process, which shaded the roistering Falstaff into a melancholy, sad, but well-meaning figure.
Perhaps CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (which I have seen only once, in a poor copy) may, as French suggests, be his best work, the one where Welles combines the two sides of his nature most poignantly in an artistic work.
We have both agreed: It's the work that counts.
He could have spent his time, after all, perhaps a happier man, one you would have liked better in a biography, tony, just making cuckoo clocks! :p
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by mteal » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:17 pm
The picture he draws is one of a control freak, a man who could not accept equals in relationships, a man who dominated people, a man who could draw people in, but either quit the relationship once the intenisty grew too strong, or who became cold to the person (as with McBride) so that no true communication could happen.
Sounds like Kane or Mr. Clay
A few years ago I read McBride's book on Welles's acting career, and was rather surprised by it's harsh tone, since it was written during the late 70's, when McBride, presumably, still had some kind of working relationship with Welles. Here's a thread on it from three years ago:
McBride on Welles's 'Acting-Only' career
-
mteal - Site Admin
- Posts: 1170
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
by RayKelly » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:15 pm
A feature story I have written on Joseph McBride's book is available today on www.masslive.com It is written for folks who have a casual interest in Welles. Here is the text:
Copyright 2006 Newhouse News Service -- All Rights Reserved.
Author Blames Hollywood, Politics for Welles' Eclipse
By RAY KELLY
`What Ever Happened to Orson Welles? A Portrait of an Independent Career' by Joseph McBride (University Press of Kentucky, $29.95).
Scores of books have been written about Orson Welles since his death in 1985, some by colleagues of the great director, others by film scholars.
Readers will find the best of both worlds in Joseph McBride's "What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?", which blames a combination of right-wing and Hollywood politics for Welles' fall from grace.
The director of "Citizen Kane" found that by the late 1940s, the major studios were no longer interested in his proposals, but the FBI and House Committee on Un-American Activities were fascinated with his politics. In the four decades that followed, Welles struggled to make movies on his own terms.
McBride, a professor in San Francisco State University's Cinema Department and author of 15 books, first met Welles in 1970. Then a budding young film critic, McBride was given a role in Welles' still unfinished satirical take on Hollywood, "The Other Side of the Wind."
Welles was dogged in his final years (and beyond) by accusations that he was a profligate filmmaker crippled by a fear of completion, McBride said in a telephone interview from his home in Berkeley, Calif.
"The myth collapses in the light of the facts," McBride said. "One of the reasons I wrote this book was that I was awfully tired of reading biased and ignorant reports of Orson Welles' life."
A review of 64-year-old box office records by McBride showed that Welles' sophomore film, "The Magnificent Ambersons," was performing well in some cities before the new head of RKO yanked it from distribution and pronounced it a flop.
McBride has unearthed RKO studio records from 1942 that reveal Welles had spent half of the $1.2 million budget earmarked for a South American film when he was fired and blamed for overspending. More likely, Welles was let go because "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons" were not commercial enough for the cash-strapped studio.
"He was used as a scapegoat by the new regime at RKO. They had taken a chance on an offbeat director," McBride said. "In his later years, Welles said he wished he had been the American Charles Dickens, but he never had that appeal, except in radio."
Unable to find support at the major studios, Welles left Hollywood in 1947 to make movies in Europe.
McBride persuasively argues that a contributing factor in Welles' decision was that he feared he would be called to testify during the communist witchhunt. Welles' progressive politics, which had earned him President Franklin Roosevelt's friendship, also brought him a spot on an FBI list of communists and subversives.
In Europe, he became what McBride calls a "one-man operation his own studio boss." Welles wrote, directed and starred in an adaptation of "Othello," which won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1952.
The seldom-seen "Chimes at Midnight," released in 1965, is considered one of Welles' finest works, though it had poor distribution in the United States.
Welles also directed a number of European television projects that received scant attention in America. Even less has been reported about his work in America between 1970 and 1985.
Until his death, Welles financed many of his own films through acting jobs and commercial work. He was often derided for pitching Paul Masson wines or appearing as an actor in lesser films.
"He was willing to compromise as an actor to make money, but he was unwilling to compromise himself as a director," McBride said. "To me, he is a great artist who tried his best ... but he was not meant to thrive in the Hollywood system."
As McBride researched Welles' unfinished film projects, he found each had a unique set of circumstances that prevented completion.
McBride said Welles was a poor businessman who often dealt with shady producers and made questionable choices.
"It's the fault of the system that there was no room for an Orson Welles," McBride said. "It's partly our fault as an audience that we did not support him as an artist."
Ray Kelly is arts and entertainment editor for The Republican of Springfield, Mass. He can be contacted at [email=rkelly@repub.com.]rkelly@repub.com.[/email]
Copyright 2006 Newhouse News Service -- All Rights Reserved.
Author Blames Hollywood, Politics for Welles' Eclipse
By RAY KELLY
`What Ever Happened to Orson Welles? A Portrait of an Independent Career' by Joseph McBride (University Press of Kentucky, $29.95).
Scores of books have been written about Orson Welles since his death in 1985, some by colleagues of the great director, others by film scholars.
Readers will find the best of both worlds in Joseph McBride's "What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?", which blames a combination of right-wing and Hollywood politics for Welles' fall from grace.
The director of "Citizen Kane" found that by the late 1940s, the major studios were no longer interested in his proposals, but the FBI and House Committee on Un-American Activities were fascinated with his politics. In the four decades that followed, Welles struggled to make movies on his own terms.
McBride, a professor in San Francisco State University's Cinema Department and author of 15 books, first met Welles in 1970. Then a budding young film critic, McBride was given a role in Welles' still unfinished satirical take on Hollywood, "The Other Side of the Wind."
Welles was dogged in his final years (and beyond) by accusations that he was a profligate filmmaker crippled by a fear of completion, McBride said in a telephone interview from his home in Berkeley, Calif.
"The myth collapses in the light of the facts," McBride said. "One of the reasons I wrote this book was that I was awfully tired of reading biased and ignorant reports of Orson Welles' life."
A review of 64-year-old box office records by McBride showed that Welles' sophomore film, "The Magnificent Ambersons," was performing well in some cities before the new head of RKO yanked it from distribution and pronounced it a flop.
McBride has unearthed RKO studio records from 1942 that reveal Welles had spent half of the $1.2 million budget earmarked for a South American film when he was fired and blamed for overspending. More likely, Welles was let go because "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons" were not commercial enough for the cash-strapped studio.
"He was used as a scapegoat by the new regime at RKO. They had taken a chance on an offbeat director," McBride said. "In his later years, Welles said he wished he had been the American Charles Dickens, but he never had that appeal, except in radio."
Unable to find support at the major studios, Welles left Hollywood in 1947 to make movies in Europe.
McBride persuasively argues that a contributing factor in Welles' decision was that he feared he would be called to testify during the communist witchhunt. Welles' progressive politics, which had earned him President Franklin Roosevelt's friendship, also brought him a spot on an FBI list of communists and subversives.
In Europe, he became what McBride calls a "one-man operation his own studio boss." Welles wrote, directed and starred in an adaptation of "Othello," which won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1952.
The seldom-seen "Chimes at Midnight," released in 1965, is considered one of Welles' finest works, though it had poor distribution in the United States.
Welles also directed a number of European television projects that received scant attention in America. Even less has been reported about his work in America between 1970 and 1985.
Until his death, Welles financed many of his own films through acting jobs and commercial work. He was often derided for pitching Paul Masson wines or appearing as an actor in lesser films.
"He was willing to compromise as an actor to make money, but he was unwilling to compromise himself as a director," McBride said. "To me, he is a great artist who tried his best ... but he was not meant to thrive in the Hollywood system."
As McBride researched Welles' unfinished film projects, he found each had a unique set of circumstances that prevented completion.
McBride said Welles was a poor businessman who often dealt with shady producers and made questionable choices.
"It's the fault of the system that there was no room for an Orson Welles," McBride said. "It's partly our fault as an audience that we did not support him as an artist."
Ray Kelly is arts and entertainment editor for The Republican of Springfield, Mass. He can be contacted at [email=rkelly@repub.com.]rkelly@repub.com.[/email]
-
RayKelly - Site Admin
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:14 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
by Tony » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:23 pm
All I can say is, if you've read the book, you'll know what I'm talking about; my post above focusses on the character of the man, not his work. What's devastating is that this critique comes from a solid supporter of the artist, for McBride has supported Welles since the 60s. But personally, he had to break from the man, as he found it impossible to continue a relationship with any kind of independence, which means Welles could only really accept people who did not strongly express differing opinions, and bullied those who disagreed. This actually reinforces my opinion (Glenn) that the work is totally seperate from the person: for me, Welles's work towers above all other English filmmakers, but the man was full of extreme flaws, and definitely his own worst enemy, both personally and professionally. In fact, in Welles's case, the work towers over the man, as is illustrated when McBride questions how Welles could be so reductionist, dogmatic, and black and white about issues in conversation, while as a filmmaker he illustrated the fundamental ambiguity of realty. What I find odd is that McBride doesn't connect Welles's personality more strongly with his professional problems: doesn't it seem obvious that Welles sabatoged himself far more often than any studio or producer? In fact, far from the work representing the man (as Glenn and David Thomson would have it) I believe Welles (the man) kept sabatoging Welles (the artist), therby further illustrating my belief that the artist is totally separated from the man. I wish I could remember who it was that said "The further the man is seperated from the art, the purer the art."
And Welles's art was very pure. :;):
And Welles's art was very pure. :;):
- Tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
by Christopher » Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:56 pm
Tony,
I can assure you that in his essence, Welles was a good man who was capable of great kindness and generosity to those he loved and trusted. Unfortunately, their number dwindled as the years wore on and he admitted fewer and fewer people to his innermost circle. There are reasons for this, of course, such as the shabby way he was treated in Hollywood, the gross and malicious attacks on him personally and on his films -- at one point, Welles lamented, "They don't review my films anymore. They review me." In any event, McBride did not gain admittance to Welles's inner circle, and we will never know why exactly -- what it was in the chemistry or dynamics between them that made Welles behave as he did, but certainly his awareness that McBride would undoubtedly write another book about him would not have gained his confidence.
I think it is very much to McBride's credit that in spite of his personal disappointment in the way Welles treated him, he retained his respect for the man and his admiration for the work. The way I read McBride's book, he is narrating in a very honest and touching way his own experience with Welles, but he is not ever suggesting that this was the way Welles behaved with most people. Also, please remember that the man McBride met in 1970 was not the man he had been even a decade before. His glory years as a movie director were behind him and he had been the butt of scurrilous biographies, scathing reviews, and so on. Although, amazingly, he did not become bitter, he did become wary of anyone anxious to gain access to him, and with reaason, given how some of his so-called friends behaved. But that is another story.
What I mainly wanted to communicate to you, Tony, is that Orson Welles was a good man, which does not mean that he was perfect or that he behaved perfectly with everyone who crossed his path, but there wasn't a mean bone in him, his heart was in the right place, his values were impeccable, and if he did not always behave as well as we might wish, it was because, for all his sterling qualities, he was also flawed, as we all are.
I can assure you that in his essence, Welles was a good man who was capable of great kindness and generosity to those he loved and trusted. Unfortunately, their number dwindled as the years wore on and he admitted fewer and fewer people to his innermost circle. There are reasons for this, of course, such as the shabby way he was treated in Hollywood, the gross and malicious attacks on him personally and on his films -- at one point, Welles lamented, "They don't review my films anymore. They review me." In any event, McBride did not gain admittance to Welles's inner circle, and we will never know why exactly -- what it was in the chemistry or dynamics between them that made Welles behave as he did, but certainly his awareness that McBride would undoubtedly write another book about him would not have gained his confidence.
I think it is very much to McBride's credit that in spite of his personal disappointment in the way Welles treated him, he retained his respect for the man and his admiration for the work. The way I read McBride's book, he is narrating in a very honest and touching way his own experience with Welles, but he is not ever suggesting that this was the way Welles behaved with most people. Also, please remember that the man McBride met in 1970 was not the man he had been even a decade before. His glory years as a movie director were behind him and he had been the butt of scurrilous biographies, scathing reviews, and so on. Although, amazingly, he did not become bitter, he did become wary of anyone anxious to gain access to him, and with reaason, given how some of his so-called friends behaved. But that is another story.
What I mainly wanted to communicate to you, Tony, is that Orson Welles was a good man, which does not mean that he was perfect or that he behaved perfectly with everyone who crossed his path, but there wasn't a mean bone in him, his heart was in the right place, his values were impeccable, and if he did not always behave as well as we might wish, it was because, for all his sterling qualities, he was also flawed, as we all are.
-
Christopher - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
by Tony » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:57 pm
Christopher:
I know exactly what you mean, and since I had no personal contact with Welles, I can only go on personal testimony. However, there are enough horror stories in his history that I know I would have been very fearful of, and intimidated by, him. Do you recall when Robert Arden met Welles? He said "hi!" and Welles exploded in a temper tantrum. I recall Welles himself telling how he humiliated some man who had treated him badly during the RKO years; I think this was during the filming of Compulsion, and Welles said he wouldn't work unless the man left. Welles gloried in the revenge and what he perceived to be the humiliation of this individual. Do you recall the story of Welles in the cab? Someone accompanying him was giving detailed instructions to the cabbie when Welles interrupted and proclaimed: "Don't give them too much information- their brains can't handle it! Just say 'left' or 'right'!" And when Welles reduced some crew member to tears on a set so that finally the man said "You're not a very nice man, Mr. Welles!". Do you recall in the Maurice Bessy book, when Welles said that he had an affair (with Lea Padovani) and in three months she had paid him back for all the terrible things he had done to women over the years, but that in three days he paid her back for that. Do you recall on the set of TOSOTW, when what became known as the Saturday night massacre occurred? That was when Welles, in a pique, fired the entire crew. Of course, he had to hire them back the next day. And of course when Welles exploded at Houseman and threw the flaming can of sterno at him. Do you recall how Louis Dolivet sued Welles for drunkeness and unprofessional behaviour on the set of Mr. Arkadin? And what about Welles getting drunk and throwing the furniture of his hotel room out the window in Brazil? Do you recall on the set of David and Goliath, when Welles started off well, surprising everyone who had heard that he was a monster, but then slowly started to drink and become more and more sullen that people were afraid to even go near him? Unfortunately, there are many more stories just like those few examples.
Christopher, I have no doubt that Welles was a genius; I also have no doubt that, when in a good mood, he could charm the birds off of the trees. But I also have no doubt I would never have wanted to meet him. I like his charming part, and detest the cruel monster he could become. But this is insignificant to me in terms of his work, which is genius. This is where I differ from Glenn and Thomson: if they hold that the work and the man are the same, and that the man's deep psychology is embodied in the work, then they are in trouble, because the man was often a monster, and represented the opposite values of his work. I don't have this problem, because the work stands alone for me.
But it's still unerving to read McBride's account of his relationship with Welles. And disappointing. McBride is an observant, intelligent person, and his up-close account sent a chill through my soul. What always amazes me is that people have to turn Welles into an all-round nice guy, a "hero", in order to like his work; this whitewashing of his character has never rung true with me, and merely results in idol worship.
I know exactly what you mean, and since I had no personal contact with Welles, I can only go on personal testimony. However, there are enough horror stories in his history that I know I would have been very fearful of, and intimidated by, him. Do you recall when Robert Arden met Welles? He said "hi!" and Welles exploded in a temper tantrum. I recall Welles himself telling how he humiliated some man who had treated him badly during the RKO years; I think this was during the filming of Compulsion, and Welles said he wouldn't work unless the man left. Welles gloried in the revenge and what he perceived to be the humiliation of this individual. Do you recall the story of Welles in the cab? Someone accompanying him was giving detailed instructions to the cabbie when Welles interrupted and proclaimed: "Don't give them too much information- their brains can't handle it! Just say 'left' or 'right'!" And when Welles reduced some crew member to tears on a set so that finally the man said "You're not a very nice man, Mr. Welles!". Do you recall in the Maurice Bessy book, when Welles said that he had an affair (with Lea Padovani) and in three months she had paid him back for all the terrible things he had done to women over the years, but that in three days he paid her back for that. Do you recall on the set of TOSOTW, when what became known as the Saturday night massacre occurred? That was when Welles, in a pique, fired the entire crew. Of course, he had to hire them back the next day. And of course when Welles exploded at Houseman and threw the flaming can of sterno at him. Do you recall how Louis Dolivet sued Welles for drunkeness and unprofessional behaviour on the set of Mr. Arkadin? And what about Welles getting drunk and throwing the furniture of his hotel room out the window in Brazil? Do you recall on the set of David and Goliath, when Welles started off well, surprising everyone who had heard that he was a monster, but then slowly started to drink and become more and more sullen that people were afraid to even go near him? Unfortunately, there are many more stories just like those few examples.
Christopher, I have no doubt that Welles was a genius; I also have no doubt that, when in a good mood, he could charm the birds off of the trees. But I also have no doubt I would never have wanted to meet him. I like his charming part, and detest the cruel monster he could become. But this is insignificant to me in terms of his work, which is genius. This is where I differ from Glenn and Thomson: if they hold that the work and the man are the same, and that the man's deep psychology is embodied in the work, then they are in trouble, because the man was often a monster, and represented the opposite values of his work. I don't have this problem, because the work stands alone for me.
But it's still unerving to read McBride's account of his relationship with Welles. And disappointing. McBride is an observant, intelligent person, and his up-close account sent a chill through my soul. What always amazes me is that people have to turn Welles into an all-round nice guy, a "hero", in order to like his work; this whitewashing of his character has never rung true with me, and merely results in idol worship.
- Tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
by Christopher » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:38 pm
Tony,
I know what you mean, too. There are a great many stories about Welles that cast him in a poor light, and I could add to their number. So I am not trying to excuse Welles or "whitewash" his behavior. He was, as I have already said, deeply flawed, but he was not really cruel or a monster. Rather, he was a child who never grew up, capable of throwing a tantrum when something upset him, of behaving in hurtful ways without realizing the consequences of his behavior. And what makes him so complex is that this child-man was also a genius, a supreme artist, an exceptionally brilliant man with a fascinating personality. Just look at the number of books that have been written about him. I can't think of any other figure who has inspired as many, can you? That in itself is remarkable. So I think you would have wanted to meet him, Tony, and you would have been surprised at how humble and unintimidating he could be. Think of his soliloquy in front of Chartres cathedral in F FOR FAKE. That was spoken from his heart. That was the true Welles.
I know what you mean, too. There are a great many stories about Welles that cast him in a poor light, and I could add to their number. So I am not trying to excuse Welles or "whitewash" his behavior. He was, as I have already said, deeply flawed, but he was not really cruel or a monster. Rather, he was a child who never grew up, capable of throwing a tantrum when something upset him, of behaving in hurtful ways without realizing the consequences of his behavior. And what makes him so complex is that this child-man was also a genius, a supreme artist, an exceptionally brilliant man with a fascinating personality. Just look at the number of books that have been written about him. I can't think of any other figure who has inspired as many, can you? That in itself is remarkable. So I think you would have wanted to meet him, Tony, and you would have been surprised at how humble and unintimidating he could be. Think of his soliloquy in front of Chartres cathedral in F FOR FAKE. That was spoken from his heart. That was the true Welles.
-
Christopher - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
by tonyw » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:06 pm
All the above discussion merely reveals that Welles was a very complex human being full of bad, as well as good, traits very similar to his conception of Falstaff as the llst "good man" in Merrie England who was also a rogue but far more preferable to the future King Henry V and his court circle.
Had McBride not mentioned these problematic aspects of Welles's personality then his book would have laid itself open to being a 100% artificial whitewash of the director and its findings open to the charge of personal bias. Quite often great directors are not nice human beings as the characters of Ford, Mizoguchi, Peckinpah and many others show. Sometimes, personal contact is not necessary. The biographer (and executor of the estate) of Cornel Wolorich once mentioned to me that if he had met the aithor while he was alaw student at Columbia University, New York during the late 60s, he would probably never have devoted his energies to promoting his work.
"Woolrich began life as a nasty young man and he died a nasty old man."
Fortunately, this was not true of Welles. But by mentioning these negative features, McBride has avoided the pitfall of making a director he admires into the stereotype of an innocent martyred saint and presented us with further evidence of a complex personality, another piece of the jigsaw puzzle that Alland's reporter refers to in the concluding scenes of a film very well known to all of us.
Had McBride not mentioned these problematic aspects of Welles's personality then his book would have laid itself open to being a 100% artificial whitewash of the director and its findings open to the charge of personal bias. Quite often great directors are not nice human beings as the characters of Ford, Mizoguchi, Peckinpah and many others show. Sometimes, personal contact is not necessary. The biographer (and executor of the estate) of Cornel Wolorich once mentioned to me that if he had met the aithor while he was alaw student at Columbia University, New York during the late 60s, he would probably never have devoted his energies to promoting his work.
"Woolrich began life as a nasty young man and he died a nasty old man."
Fortunately, this was not true of Welles. But by mentioning these negative features, McBride has avoided the pitfall of making a director he admires into the stereotype of an innocent martyred saint and presented us with further evidence of a complex personality, another piece of the jigsaw puzzle that Alland's reporter refers to in the concluding scenes of a film very well known to all of us.
- tonyw
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:33 pm
by mteal » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:33 pm
I've always suspected that this statement about Welles by Michael Macliamior was pretty close to the truth:
"His courage, his ruthlessness, his generosity, and his egotism were all magnificently out-of-proportion."
I've also always wondered what Welles thought of McBride's first book on him, ORSON WELLES. A good, scholarly look at the directorial efforts, and not at all unflattering, as I remember. Anybody have any info on what he may have said about it?
"His courage, his ruthlessness, his generosity, and his egotism were all magnificently out-of-proportion."
I've also always wondered what Welles thought of McBride's first book on him, ORSON WELLES. A good, scholarly look at the directorial efforts, and not at all unflattering, as I remember. Anybody have any info on what he may have said about it?
-
mteal - Site Admin
- Posts: 1170
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
by Glenn Anders » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:31 am
Ray: I've been gathering material for a little comparative review of these latest books by McBride and Callow. Nothing may come of that project, given my circumstances, but I can tell you how balanced I found the assessments from both these authors, one formerly very much a critic, the other a fairly longtime colleague. Both matched Welles' personal flaws against Studio fears or jealousies, and then, with national politics, in explaining the destruction of his Hollywood career.
I think your review is fair and thoughtful.
----------------
Tony: We are agreed that Welles was a difficult man, but I can also guarantee that if you and I had been given the incredible build-up Welles had, if we had abetted the build-up, and things had gone wrong for us, later in life, there would be dozens and dozens of acquaintances and co-workers, when interviewed, who could come forward with "funny" or angry stories about how we had either freaked them out or been cruelly indifferent to them. Neither of us was Orson Welles, and so neither Time Magazine, Acess Hollywood, nor "E" will be seeking those people out for interviews, articles and books.
If we had such a career, it might have gone like this:
---------------
INTERVIEWER: And so Glenn, about Tony, who is in the news again,
attacking Orson Welles: What can you tell us?
GLENN ANDERS: Well, Mr. King, I don't really know Tony, but he is
a strange kind of guy.
INTERVIEWER: How so, Glenn?
GLENN ANDERS: Tony has an obsession about me and my twin
brother, who went by the pseudonym of "Thomson
Anders" on the Internet. You remember him as the
guy who wrote some stuff on Orson Welles. Tony is
convinced Thomson and I believed that Welles was
"Charles Foster Kane," that he was "Franz Kindler,"
in THE STRANGER, that kind of thing.
INTERVIEWER: Obsessive-compulsive?
GLENN ANDERS: I wouldn't say that, Larry, but he wouldn't admit to
the possibility that Orson Welles, more than most
artists, used autobiographical references in his
creations. It really disturbed my poor brother.
INTERVIEWER: Whatever happened to old "Thomson Anders"? I
had him on the program a couple of times. He
used to be as famous as you or Tony. Some said
he was better known in Frisco than Todd Baesen.
GLENN ANDERS: It's very sad, Larry. There were rumors that Tony
was writing a peer-reviewed study, "The Symptoms
and Psychopathology of Autobiographicalism."
Thomson fell under a delusion that he was the
book's subject.
INTERVIEWER: [leaning forward] Would you say that Autobiogra --
I can't pronounce it. [chuckles] The condition
bugged him?
GLENN ANDERS: Tony couldn't have known. What did he care? He's
an Anti-Autobiographicalist . . . [wipes tears from
his eyes] But when Thomson saw CITIZEN KANE at
the Tooting Bec Classic one rainy Sunday in 1955,
he suffered a "loss of connectedness fugue," which
conflated with Labour Socialist Politics to haunt
him the rest of his life.
INTERVIEWER: And?
GLENN ANDERS: [beginning to weep] He began to get into violent
confrontations with cab drivers, especially female
cab drivers. He thought that they were cheating on
him, taking him "around the block." He would
shout, "Left -- no, Right, I said Right! RIGHT!"
Then, he would begin to curse.
INTERVIEWER: [chuckles sympathetically] I don't get it.
GLENN ANDERS: It was the "political thing," you see? Thomson
never recovered from the end of the Cold War!
INTERVIEWER: And where is Thomson now, Glenn?
GLENN ANDERS: [weeping uncontrollably] After the book on Nicole
Kidman, we had to commit him. Thomson Anders is
in the sub-cellar of the Lima State Hospital for the
Criminally insane in Ohio. With treatment, he now
is able to shout, "Right, Right!" consistently, but he
can never be allowed in the general population
again.
INTERVIEWER: That's the story of Thomson Anders, folks, a poor
devil who fell prey to "Autobiographicalism." We'll
be back in our closing moments with his brother,
Glenn Anders. Don't go away!
------------------
Seriously, Tony: Orson Welles' Art was not very pure, as you claim. It was drawn from the Literature, History and the Nations of the World, in a time when only a few American Artists might say that. But it was also very much wrenched from within himself. He did not follow your dictum of "Art for Art's sake," though he was very much an Artist.
Anyone who wishes to be an artist, a dramatic artist, at least, had better be prepared to understand in his or her own life the nature of conflict, and what the World calls Sin. Otherwise, he is relegating himself to dramas on "The Lives of the Saints" -- and there will be some surprises there, too.
Welles, after all, in his young manhood, was very close to Thornton Wilder.
We should do well to agree with the wisdom of Christopher and tonyw.
[Sorry, it has taken me a long time to finish anything this week. I see you agree with me, Tony. GOOD!]
-----------------
Christopher: What a beautiful summing up of Orson Welles as a man and as an artist! It strikes me that a number of his later completed works follow, or move toward, the same theme as his magnificent soliloquy before Chartres -- in CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, for instance, and in a strangely different way, in TOUCH OF EVIL.
BTW, I have not forgotten my promise to you. I just have a lot on my plate, in recent weeks.
Glenn
I think your review is fair and thoughtful.
----------------
Tony: We are agreed that Welles was a difficult man, but I can also guarantee that if you and I had been given the incredible build-up Welles had, if we had abetted the build-up, and things had gone wrong for us, later in life, there would be dozens and dozens of acquaintances and co-workers, when interviewed, who could come forward with "funny" or angry stories about how we had either freaked them out or been cruelly indifferent to them. Neither of us was Orson Welles, and so neither Time Magazine, Acess Hollywood, nor "E" will be seeking those people out for interviews, articles and books.
If we had such a career, it might have gone like this:
---------------
INTERVIEWER: And so Glenn, about Tony, who is in the news again,
attacking Orson Welles: What can you tell us?
GLENN ANDERS: Well, Mr. King, I don't really know Tony, but he is
a strange kind of guy.
INTERVIEWER: How so, Glenn?
GLENN ANDERS: Tony has an obsession about me and my twin
brother, who went by the pseudonym of "Thomson
Anders" on the Internet. You remember him as the
guy who wrote some stuff on Orson Welles. Tony is
convinced Thomson and I believed that Welles was
"Charles Foster Kane," that he was "Franz Kindler,"
in THE STRANGER, that kind of thing.
INTERVIEWER: Obsessive-compulsive?
GLENN ANDERS: I wouldn't say that, Larry, but he wouldn't admit to
the possibility that Orson Welles, more than most
artists, used autobiographical references in his
creations. It really disturbed my poor brother.
INTERVIEWER: Whatever happened to old "Thomson Anders"? I
had him on the program a couple of times. He
used to be as famous as you or Tony. Some said
he was better known in Frisco than Todd Baesen.
GLENN ANDERS: It's very sad, Larry. There were rumors that Tony
was writing a peer-reviewed study, "The Symptoms
and Psychopathology of Autobiographicalism."
Thomson fell under a delusion that he was the
book's subject.
INTERVIEWER: [leaning forward] Would you say that Autobiogra --
I can't pronounce it. [chuckles] The condition
bugged him?
GLENN ANDERS: Tony couldn't have known. What did he care? He's
an Anti-Autobiographicalist . . . [wipes tears from
his eyes] But when Thomson saw CITIZEN KANE at
the Tooting Bec Classic one rainy Sunday in 1955,
he suffered a "loss of connectedness fugue," which
conflated with Labour Socialist Politics to haunt
him the rest of his life.
INTERVIEWER: And?
GLENN ANDERS: [beginning to weep] He began to get into violent
confrontations with cab drivers, especially female
cab drivers. He thought that they were cheating on
him, taking him "around the block." He would
shout, "Left -- no, Right, I said Right! RIGHT!"
Then, he would begin to curse.
INTERVIEWER: [chuckles sympathetically] I don't get it.
GLENN ANDERS: It was the "political thing," you see? Thomson
never recovered from the end of the Cold War!
INTERVIEWER: And where is Thomson now, Glenn?
GLENN ANDERS: [weeping uncontrollably] After the book on Nicole
Kidman, we had to commit him. Thomson Anders is
in the sub-cellar of the Lima State Hospital for the
Criminally insane in Ohio. With treatment, he now
is able to shout, "Right, Right!" consistently, but he
can never be allowed in the general population
again.
INTERVIEWER: That's the story of Thomson Anders, folks, a poor
devil who fell prey to "Autobiographicalism." We'll
be back in our closing moments with his brother,
Glenn Anders. Don't go away!
------------------
Seriously, Tony: Orson Welles' Art was not very pure, as you claim. It was drawn from the Literature, History and the Nations of the World, in a time when only a few American Artists might say that. But it was also very much wrenched from within himself. He did not follow your dictum of "Art for Art's sake," though he was very much an Artist.
Anyone who wishes to be an artist, a dramatic artist, at least, had better be prepared to understand in his or her own life the nature of conflict, and what the World calls Sin. Otherwise, he is relegating himself to dramas on "The Lives of the Saints" -- and there will be some surprises there, too.
Welles, after all, in his young manhood, was very close to Thornton Wilder.
We should do well to agree with the wisdom of Christopher and tonyw.
[Sorry, it has taken me a long time to finish anything this week. I see you agree with me, Tony. GOOD!]
-----------------
Christopher: What a beautiful summing up of Orson Welles as a man and as an artist! It strikes me that a number of his later completed works follow, or move toward, the same theme as his magnificent soliloquy before Chartres -- in CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, for instance, and in a strangely different way, in TOUCH OF EVIL.
BTW, I have not forgotten my promise to you. I just have a lot on my plate, in recent weeks.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Glenn Anders » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:49 pm
Glad you liked it, Tony.
Well, you know how we Autobiographicalists are . . . .
Glenn
Well, you know how we Autobiographicalists are . . . .
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
24 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests