Welles's nephew editing TOSOTW

[Tony]

Really? I say it all the time and don't give anybody money!


My point is that we all would like to think we would have given Welles $15 million to make a movie, but the reality is that we probably wouldn't have.

[Store Hadji]

The Lucas reaction I remember was with him talking about Touch of Evil, so I'd guess it's from the Reconstructing Evil documentary from about a decade ago.

Since Tony's going to keep flogging the horse he already beat to death, I'll refrain from speculating as to why admitted Welles fans should invest in a Welles film.

[Tony]

Thanks, Terry, for that! And a Happy New Year to you too!

And all this time I thought healthy debate was an important point of a message board.

But let me beat that horse you say I've killed just a little bit longer, just for your personal pleasure!

You wrote:

"I'll refrain from speculating as to why admitted Welles fans should invest in a Welles film."

Well you see, Mr. Store, unfortunately in this case you are wrong, because history shows that no Welles film was funded in the last decade of his life. Have you asked yourself why? That's what I was trying to explain. I was speculating in a realistic way, not just demonizing those who didn't help our poor Orson.

Was I straying from the party line? Oooh, that evil Steve Speilberg! That callas George Lucas! They should all be...horsewhipped!

[Store Hadji]

Healthy debate? This forum is better known for its histrionic pissing contests, unfortunately.

The financing Welles found after leaving Hollywood has always seemed nebulous and sketchy to me. I don't recall ever reading who was contributing to the film pot from 1975 to 1985. Perhaps no one aside from Welles. I honestly don't know.

My only point was the irony of Lucas and Coppola saying America Zoetrope wanted to support Welles in either the late 60s or early 70s, yet neither choosing to do so later when they had they means to do so. I never mentioned obligation, so I don't where that point comes from - not from me.

Lucas also spoke of starting as a studio outsider not wanting to do things the studio way, and ultimately becoming the thing he once opposed after he built his own film empire.

I guess spending money on Howard the Duck was a better investment than a Welles screenplay which Tony doesn't like.

Christmas Merry!

[mido505]

Anyone wondering why The Young Turks (Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, et al) refused to get behind Welles financially should read Bloom's Anxiety of Influence (Wiki link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_anxiety_of_influence ). Sure, they acknowledged his greatness, but they were the hot shots now, on the cutting edge, surpassing the master. But I suspect there was always a nagging doubt that the dissolute old vagabond could shamble back into the ring and knock them all out with one punch. Hollywood is a small town, and it is inconceivable to me that the people who mattered there did not know what Welles was up to with TOSOTW. Perhaps there was a secret sigh of relief when it didn't get finished. I mean, these "great filmmakers" were still scared of TOSOTW years later, when they saw the incomplete footage. How easy it is to join in the "Poor Welles" chorus while you are stealing from a genius and getting aclaim for it!

Sorry Tony, but in this case your argument doesn't cut it. Welles' (false) reputation for financial profligacy might have scared off the suits (certainly a lie, if believed by enough people, can have as much effect as the truth), but it hardly can have mattered to a guy like the notoriously chaotic and manic-depressive Coppola, who pissed away more cash on the title sequence for One From the Heart (which I actually paid money to see) than Welles would need for a picture. As for Welles' health, that only became an issue in the early eighties. That gives us, from the completion of Chimes, 10-14 years where Welles' legendary stamina was at full throttle. The health issue was just another excuse not to deal with him, in a long litany of excuses.

I think it is fairly well documented that around the time Welles settled into his relationship with Oja, for better or for worse, he decided he would direct no picture that he had not initiated. He would be an author only, not a gun for hire. I have read several articles about Welles' later years that claim he was offered directing jobs all the time AND HE TURNED THEM DOWN. Look at Popeye. A huge multimillion dollar production that Dino De Laurentiis was willing to entrust to this supposed maniac. Why? Because Dino, a fellow maniac and maverick and monumental ego, probably felt he could keep Welles under control. We keep talking about money, folks, when we talk about Welles, but it's a smoke screen. Hollywood, which has elevated preening wastefulness into an art form, doesn't care about money, really, at least any more. It's about ego and control, period. And I think Welles was tired of playing that game.

Anyone on this board an Ayn Rand fan? Remember The Fountainhead, where Howard Roark, when he can't build 'em his way, takes a job in a quarry? Or Atlas Shrugged, where Rand's heroic creators go on strike, rather than spend one more second compromising with second-raters?
Perhaps we should stop bemoaning the wreckage of Welles' later career, and start celebrating it. It's heroic wreckage...

[NoFake]

Sure, they acknowledged his greatness, but they were the hot shots now, on the cutting edge, surpassing the master. But I suspect there was always a nagging doubt that the dissolute old vagabond could shamble back into the ring and knock them all out with one punch.

I speculated on that very possibility a year or so ago here. In fact, I suspect it may have been that very TOSOTW teaser at the awards ceremony that may have sealed the film's, and by extension Welles's, doom vis-a-vis the New Turk peacocks (and shameless old copycats) and their moneymen. It showed them, as nothing else, that the old magician still had a few tricks up his sleeve that could --- and would, if they weren't careful --- irreparably dull the sheen on their own magic wands...

[NoFake]

vis-a-vis the New Turk peacocks

I meant, of course, the Young Turk peacocks. (Must be the hangover from last might's pseudo-New York New Year's celebration... )

[Alan Brody]

I too think it's rather silly to blame people like Lucas, Spielberg, and Coppola for not helping Welles. Sure, they spoke highly of Welles, but they spoke highly of alot of the old masters that had inspired them, like Ford and Hitchcock, who also had trouble getting projects off the ground in their later years. Lucas, Spielberg and Coppola did help Kurosawa, but I think that's simply because Kurosawa probably meant more to them then Welles did. And I think Tony has some valid points about the Big Brass Ring screenplay. I wouldn't describe it as bad, but it is quite baffling and arcane, as if Welles had alot to say about alot of things, but was unwilling to say any of them clearly. Incidentally, as for Blake Pellerin being a Wasp, I would think that if Welles could have had Charlton Heston playing a Mexican, he could have found a way to make Deniro convincing as a Wasp.

Were the "young turks" frightened of Welles's prowess? Maybe, but if they saw F For Fake, they may have been frightened by his eccentricity too. Power and status can be pretty fleeting in Hollywood, and the ones who stay on top don't do so by taking too many chances. Hollywood is like the world's biggest crap game, and Welles had his chance at the table in the 1940's. He eventually lost his seat by taking too many chances. Why would somebody give him more chips to play with unless they thought his chances of actually winning were good?

[LamontCranston]

My only point was the irony of Lucas and Coppola saying America Zoetrope wanted to support Welles in either the late 60s or early 70s, yet neither choosing to do so later when they had they means to do so. I never mentioned obligation, so I don't where that point comes from - not from me.

I already covered this, Coppola couldn't. He was still in the 1990s trying to pay back the debt One from the Heart incurred (which wasn't his only commerical failure in the 1980s) with films like Godfather III, Jack, The Rainmaker! Maybe he could have provided the American Zoetrope studios and facilities, but not money.

Anyone on this board an Ayn Rand fan? Remember The Fountainhead, where Howard Roark, when he can't build 'em his way, takes a job in a quarry? Or Atlas Shrugged, where Rand's heroic creators go on strike, rather than spend one more second compromising with second-raters?

The randroid Robert A. Heinlein was well known for helping struggling writers whose work he admired; helped Philip K. Dick with money, medical bills, a new typewriter, etc without ever asking or expecting to be repaid.

[mido505]

Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, Eastwood, Scorsese and the rest of the now aging "Young Turks" are all very rich men. They could easily take a million out of the bank, bang out a script, round up some hero-worshipping film students, and head out to the hinterland with a trunkful of digital video equipment and give us their vision, their art. Any one of them at any time could pull a TOSOTW, and they would not have to act in degrading wine commercials to do so. But they don't. Why? Because they can't. They are afraid, afraid to expose themselves and their so-called art in such a naked fashion, because none of them really has anything interesting to say. THESE MEN WHO ARE AFRAID TO RISK INVESTING THEIR OWN MONEY IN THEMSELVES WERE CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO INVEST IT IN A GUY LIKE ORSON WELLES.

Don't get me wrong. These directors are extremely talented, some more than others. But they are not artists, in the strict sense of that term, although they desperately want the world to believe that they are. They need the Hollywood machinery. Without it, they are nothing. Even Coppola and Lucas, who were most critical of the Hollywood machine, HAD TO RECREATE IT IN SAN FRANCISCO IN ORDER TO FUNCTION. As Welles has pointed out, the Hollywood machinery does a great job of masking directorial ineptitude. Welles was a constant reminder of that. Welles could shoot a film with Gary Graver (RIP) and make it look vital and new; Coppola needs a Vittorio Storaro. Welles could write terrific scripts on his own; Scorsese needs a Paul Schrader. Welles could shoot scenes from The Dreamers in his back yard and make them look evocative and mysterious; Lucas needs an army of techno-geeks up at the Ranch to churn out the umteenth Star Wars sequel. Welles was self-contained, a true artist, and a complete refutation of everything these men, for all their rebel posturing, really believe in. Some of them set up their own companies, but they are company men all the same. Welles never was. As Oja has pointed out, Welles could have just as well been a great painter, or writer, or stayed in the theater. He didn't need the movies, he chose them, at great personal cost. The "Young Turks", on the other hand, need them desperately. Ultimately, that is why they refused to help him.

[tonyw]

Larry Cohen once told me that many of the big names admired his small, low-budget films and wished they could do the same. When challenged that all they would need was a million dollars they backed off stating that they would lose face in Hollywood if they attempted to do the same thing. Larry has also had his share of ideas being ripped off for film and/or television and sometimes he can prove it.

By contrast, these rich guys also faced a similar challenge. Had they funded Welles the possibility existed that they would be ashamed by the contrast between what he could have made and their previous efforts. Also, I do not regard THE BIG BRASS RING screenplay as a failure. It is highly imaginative, not Syd Field, but needed Welles to direct it as well as change things on the set. Also, Spielberg & Co had their fearful eyes on the "box-office" as well as the possible Hollywood humiliation of supporting something that would not bring in big bucks but would rather show what cinema was capable of achieving. So none of them dare take this risk.

[chipm]

FWIW, most of these guys NEVER invest in their own projects, much less projects of others. Out here in L.A. the catch phrase is never use your own money. So why would they change their tune with Orson? These guys aren't entrepreneurs. Coppola is the only one of the bunch that is - and he had a hell of a time making out. And really now, in the '70s these guys weren't as set up financial wise as they were in the mid to late '80s.

When you don't have a studio behind you or distribution locked up - making an indy film is a hard road to slog, whether you are Welles or a no name. It's certainly more acceptable to do this now than in the 70s when making films outside the studio system was rare and not fashionable like it became after Sex, Lies and Videotape. Welles would have had a MUCH easier time in the late 80s and early 90s raising money, that is for sure.

So while it would be great if it did happen, I can see why it didn't on pure financial reasons alone. I doubt their were very many Freudian considerations beyond the fact that these guys were looking at kissing their hard earned money away without the possibility of any return on investment.

C.

[Tony]

Lots of interesting ideas coming forth, many that I'd never thought of. For example, the notion that the young turks were, perhaps unconsciously, afraid of the 'old young turk' actually making a comeback and blowing them all away. So it's alright to help a foreign director, i.e. Kurosawa, bacause he'd never threaten them on their own turf. Easier to consign Welles to history, safe and at a distance, hermetically sealed. I think there may be something there.

Also that Hollywood is a big crap game and that Welles had his chance at the table. Though Welles DID have many chances, more than I'd remembered. For example, he told Bogdanovich (and who's to doubt him?) that Bob Evans at Paramount had offered him any picture he wanted in the lated sixties, but that he (Welles) didn't want to get up early in the morning and subject himself to studio controls and schedules. And he was offered Popeye, something that didn't interest him, so he turned it down. Altman ended up directing it and it took him years to recover professionally, so perhaps that was a wise Welles call, but when you haven't done a picture in 20 years, maybe it was a bad call, and maybe Welles could have made something out of it. But the one I'd really forgotten was BBR, when Deniro (DENIRO! c. 1982-at the peak of his artistic career!) offerred to do it, but Welles said he was the wrong ethnicity- "too ethnic". Sweet Jesus! So change Pellarin to an Italian politician! I think I begin to see a very stiff Welles, unbending regarding his directing from the 60s on, but unbending to the point that he put himself right out of work. You gotta keep working to keep working- remember The Stranger?

But the most haunting thought is what chipm expressed: "...Welles would have had a MUCH easier time in the late 80s and early 90s raising money, that is for sure." I think this is true, and that Welles was perhaps starting to see this change when he died. Oja Kodar said at his funeral service that he was very close to getting the funding for all of his projects, and perhaps this wasn't just emotional hyperbole. He came very close to getting funding for BBR, Cradle and Lear (though no one, it seems, wanted to take a chance on Dreamers: perhaps because the material was too esoteric for most, and the leading lady couldn't act?). And if Welles's health hadn't given out, and he'd lived another 10 years, we would have more movies from him.

So it wasn't just his health and bad reputation, it was many factors. And Welles himself said that he would've done better under the studio system than under the post-studio system, which seems ironic since he was perhaps the first as well as foremost independent in the American industry.

I'm always haunted by the letter he sent to one of his Iranian investors in 1977, when he stated in the most devastating, and devastated ways, how his career had sufferred a mortal blow when Wind didn't come out, and a blow from which he would not recover, and that in America there are rarely second acts, but the AFI show plus some other factors had afforded him the possibility of one, however that possibility had now been dashed. And of you look at Welles's health, it really starts to go down in 1977: the shaking, the infirm voice, the greyish palour: he just seems to fall apart.

I've always had a personal feeling that he died not only from an unhealthy lifestyle, but also from a broken heart.

[NoFake]

Heartbreaking indeed, and you’ve presented it so eloquently. I almost hate to say this, and hope nobody bounces me for blasphemy — but it almost sounds like the outline for a biopic. Actually, given the people and circumstances that would come into play, my head reels just thinking about it...

[LamontCranston]

At Rumble Fish's world premiere at the New York Film Festival, there were several walkouts and at the end of the screening, boos and catcalls.[1][6] Former head of production at Paramount Pictures remembers legendary producer Robert Evans' reaction to Coppola's film, "Evans went to see Rumble Fish, and he remembers being shaken by how far Coppola had strayed from Hollywood. Evans says, 'I was scared. I couldn't understand any of it.'"[3] Guess that's what they were afraid of.

mido505, does Scorsese have that kind of money? I've heard he's had his battles with the studios. The studio demanded a commerical film be made next in his contract for The Last Temptation of Christ, this of course resulted in the remake of Cape Fear. And his last three films, all commerical, seem like he's trying to build up clout and money for something big later (adapting the Shusaku Endo novel Chinmoku into the film Silence?). Eastwoods films aren't exactly playing in arthouses, but not every one of them has been a mainstream film either.

Wouldn't changing Pellarins background require changing the whole story?