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.