Norman Lloyd Appearance and Reunion Screening of "The Jar"

[Harvey Chartrand]

Wish I'd been there.
Check out this thread at the Classic Horror Film Board – HOLLYWOOD LEGEND NORMAN LLOYD SHARES SHOW-BUSINESS MEMORIES AT UNA (University of North Alabama).
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/18746
It is remarkable (perhaps unique in the history of showbiz) how supporting player (later producer/director) Norman Lloyd was able to befriend and work with so many Hollywood Royalty club members, including of course Orson Welles. Lloyd also co-starred in John Garfield's last picture – He Ran All the Way.
Lloyd must have Personality Plus. And he certainly has plenty of pep for a 94-year-old!

[Glenn Anders]

A Great Find, Harvey.

Norman Lloyd . . . now there's the man to feature as one of the jewels of our often planned, never realized, Orson Welles in the 21st Century Festival.

Where are Todd Baesen and Nick Badseed when we need them?

Glenn

[MartynH]

I could be wrong but in my distant memory I recall Norman Lloyd in a interview about twenty years ago being very anti Welles. I think he made some remark about having left Welles he went to work on 'real movies'.

I think he was more of a Houseman supporter.

Anybody else recall this?

[Harvey Chartrand]

Norman Lloyd never belittled Welles. He explains his mixed feelings about Welles in Peter Tonguette's excellent interview posted at http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue9/lloyd.html
Lloyd expresses sincere regret that Welles was considered "too rich for Hollywood's blood" and admits to a fascination for Welles's later films, even if they bored him (Mr. Arkadin and The Trial were tedious, in Lloyd's estimation, and yet there was something wonderful about them).
I find this "enemy camp" attitude against those who dare to chastise Welles rather wearisome. Even if Lloyd hated Welles's guts, this animosity would not have invalidated his views or the significance of Lloyd's history with the Great One (a rather brief history due to the cancellation of Heart of Darkness, as I discovered upon reading Mr. Tonguette's "Remembering Welles: A Conversation with Norman Lloyd" (first published in 2004).

[MartynH]

I do recall him saying 'he (I) went off to make real movies' and it wasn't said in a postive way. I don't really know how he thought in detail about Welles but from that remark I deduced a certain amount of disdain towards Welles.

[Glenn Anders]

A fine and revealing interview, Harvey. Thank you.

No doubt, Norman Lloyd had some (perhaps, occasional) regret, even bitterness, that Welles was not able to bring off Heart of Darkness, and kept him along with some other Mercury Players uprooted from the New York stage, on the hook in Hollywood, when they were unestablished and not getting paid. And certainly, over the years, it is likely that he was, or became, closer to John Houseman because Lloyd was in Hollywood, and Houseman was a force in Hollywood.

However, to grant that Lloyd may have said that he "went off to make real movies" [like Hitchcock's SABOTEUR, rather than patiently wait for more proposals after the failure of the Heart of Darkness or Smiler with a Knife projects] is not to say that Lloyd devalued Welles, his work, or his career.

In fact, he says the opposite, again and again, in his interview with Peter Tonquette.

To maintain that an attitude of animosity between Welles and Lloyd existed, in the face of the professional praise and considerable warmth he lavishes on Welles in Tonquette's interview, is like saying: "Don't believe Norman Lloyd's words. Believe my notion of an intepretation of what Lloyd might have said somewhere."

As you suggest, Harvey, such arguments "do not lead to edification."

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

The fact that Lloyd even remembered MR. ARKADIN fifty years later demonstrates he remains a fan of Welles' work. How often do we hear of contemporaries who supposedly adore Orson, but can't name a film he did after KANE? Here's someone who associated with greats like Chaplin, Hitchcock and Renoir, but still has a good working knowledge of Welles' career long after the two had ceased to work together professionally.

[MartynH]

I made my comments on the basis of an interview I saw with Lloyd a while ago. I can't recall when exactly - but he looked very old - or even the show it was on but I more than got the impression there was some negative feeling in there. Now, if Lloyd said something different about Welles in another interview then all I can say is I didn;t hear that one.

I dare say there are a load of examples of this. Kenneth Williams came across Welles in England in the 50's 0r 60's and wrote a note in his diary that was completely different in tone to the one he wrote the day after Welles died.

[Glenn Anders]

Marty: All Harvey, Roger and I are saying is that Norman Lloyd has provided ample interviews on Radio, TV, in the Movies, and in Print which display, if not unconditional affection for Welles, certainly great personal and professional regard for him. When you say, "Now, if Lloyd said something different about Welles in another interview then all I can say is I didn;t hear that one," it's almost as if you hadn't read the interview Lloyd gave to Peter Tonquette (a distinguished occasional contributor here, btw).

Have you read it? Harvey provided a link:

http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue9/lloyd.html

And here are a few excerpts:

Norman Lloyd: "Orson was, in my view, the most talented director that our theatre ever had. He was the first American director to bring a totality to a production."

"NL: [His opinion of Welles' CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT] It's a wonderful picture. There's no question about Orson's gifts. He was the best. I mean, he was the most talented that we've had. The tragedy, as far as Hollywood is concerned, is that they thought he was too rich for their blood. It's unfortunate."

NL: [Speaking of Hollywood's fear that Welles was too extravagant.] "They had this fear that he would in financial ways get them into a bind, which is a laugh when you consider what's happening today."

NL: [Remembering AFI's dinner honoring Welles] ". . . MCA, (was) my agency at that time. They had a table and they knew I had worked with Orson, so they invited me. And we had a little chat, very nice, and that was it."

NL: [On the last time he saw Welles, at a Director's Guild week honoring Welles, and the reasons for any difficulty with their relationship] ". . . And then after it, I went over to greet him and he embraced me in an enormous bear hug and whispered in my ear, "You son of a bitch." [Laughs] And that was the last time I saw him . . . . Not a bad good-bye. You see, Orson was a jolly fellow when he had humor. He was a temperamental fellow. He was difficult to discipline. I always regretted that my relationship with him always had a kind of tension in it. Now part of that is due to the fact that we were very young at the time. We were 22, then became 23 during that period. There was this enormous success and there were jealousies involved, maybe not on his part, but I think on my part I was cocky-not jealous so much as I had a chip on my shoulder. I always regretted that I didn't have a warmer relationship with him . . . ."

I could go on, but Lloyd sums up: "Well, my memory of Orson-at this instance, which is sixty-seven years later-my memory of him is of a very vital, enormous gift to the theatre. The rehearsals and so forth. The richness of his personality. The energy, the vitality, the bigness, full of ideas, and laughing all the time . . . ."

All of this, Martyn, doesn't call up Lloyd as a man who has utter disdain for the work and talents of Orson Welles. He does admit here, and in some passages I have not quoted, that they both had temperamental differences, which is almost a commonplace among artistic people.

So nearly as I can figure from the internal evidence of the transcript, and Tonquette's commentary, this interview took place about five years ago, when Lloyd was 89. It is possible that he has become terminally embittered toward Welles and his work in the time since -- but rather unlikely.

Glenn

[MartynH]

I admit I don't read everything on the this site. How many other people are there out there that do? I don't have time, it''s as simple as that. I made a comment based on what I recalled from years ago. The thing is, as a three times published author, I have come across so many quotes from one person that basically could be deemed nonsense as a whole, and, therefore, could be used in various ways.

I don't know everything about Welles and nobody can either. There are facts and there intangibles. A few years ago I tried to work out why I had done a couple of big things in my life. I couldn't really work it out. So I reasoned that applied to everybody. How could a someone extraploate motives of a complete stranger if the person him/herself couldn't do it? I knew my own work was compromised so I stuck to the facts and less of, as Welles once said 'whether momma loved him or not'

ps, the use of my feeling that Lloyd had 'utter' disdain for Welles is totally unfair and has been distorted.

[Glenn Anders]

Okay, Martyn, I apologize. Your exact words were, "I deduced A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DISDAIN towards Welles."

If you read Peter Tonquette's interview, now we've pointed it out to you, you will see -- five years ago, at least -- Norman Lloyd didn't show distain toward Welles at all. On the contrary, only admiration, and considerable personal regret, which of course, after a point, becomes irrevocable.

if you say, "I don't know everything about Welles," we can accept that. But if you add, "and nobody can either," you are going to get a lot of disagreement on this board. That would be my guess.

Why don't we leave it at that, and resolve to learn whatever more we can?

Regards.

Glenn

[MartynH]

Who's 'we'?

'we've have pointed it out to you'

'we can accpet that'

I can safely say this will be my last post I don';t like the sound of the above at all.

[Glenn Anders]

Too bad.

I speak as some one who made a mistake . . . once -- maybe twice -- and as a person who has often been undiplomatic. I just like to deal in facts, and when I'm wrong, there are those here who can be as brutal toward me as you think I've been to you.

My advice is, don't let any perceived insult on my part (certainly not in intended) rob you of good camaraderie and learning experiences with others here.

But that is your choice. There is no collective judgment at wellesnet.

Last word from me on the subject.

Glenn

[tonyw]

Glenn is a good guy at heart. A diamond with rough edges.

Please remain.

[mido505]

Don't mind Glenn, MartynH, he's been a little cranky since they let him out out of Guantanamo. Always the contrarian, Glenn has had trouble adjusting to the wholly unanticipated fizzling of the Bushitler fascist takeover of America, against which he took such a dangerous and principled stand at great personal risk; and to the subsequent election of the first genuinely Marxist candidate for the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Now that a complete Communist takeover of the last evil citadel of Capitalism/Imperialism/Fascism in the world seems imminent, Glenn is a bit out of sorts, as he is not used to the victor's role. Who would have thought we would see it in our lifetime - the complete destruction of the worst, most oppressive, most destructive, most war-mongering, most freedom-obliterating administrations in the history of the United States, in the span of an afternoon at the voting booth? The fact that Satan himself might have been vanquished as well is certainly too much for any single human being to comfortably assimilate, no matter how fervently he posted about it at Wellsnet after a brutal waterboarding session at the hands of the demonic CIA.

So relax, MartynH, and give Glenn his due - he is probably more than a little battle-scarred, weary, and emotionally fragile after having suffered the horrendous consequences over the last eight years of having fought the good fight against a Satanic regime that would stop at nothing to achieve its blasphemous goal of Armageddon and the complete eternal destruction of all that is Good and Holy in the world. As for that royal "we" that so disturbed you in Glenn's post - get used to it because, despite Glenn's modest demurral, we are all, to paraphrase Newsweek, collectivists now. As Glenn correctly implies, in the future the truth will be something told to you, by the collective, despite your best recollection, and if you can't reconcile yourself to that then, well, I guess you had better silence yourself, which I suppose brings us back to the beginning of this entire matter. Then again, better you silence yourself than others do it for you...