Official OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND Thread - All things OSotW he

[Roger Ryan]

I'm wondering if it could be be John Carroll playing Frankl? I can only find photos of him from his heyday as an actor in the 40s, but it could be him unless someone knows of him playing another role.

Also, I should correct my post above: While Joseph McBride does play a critic/writer, it's the Howard Grossman character "Charles Higgam" that is clearly meant to represent biographer Charles Higham.

[ToddBaesen]

What is clear to me, is whoever the voices are in these scenes, they are quite fantastic. The sound is the key, but unfortunately, like in FALSTAFF it doesn't match the picture, at least on YouTube.

Listen to the 20 minutes without the picture (Fuck yes, turn it off) and you will get a much greater vision of what Welles wanted.

[Roger Ryan]

What you're hearing is actual on-location sound cut together very roughly in a work print then transferred to video (more than once), ending up on VHS and uploaded to YouTube. This is something Welles never would have wanted us to see in this form. Unlike CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, and most of Welles' European productions (where virtually all of the dialogue was dubbed after shooting), all of this is live sound recorded when the takes were being shot, although there are some examples of audio being dropped in from other takes. Given that there are so many cuts, we're hearing changes in volume and presence between almost every line which is quite jarring. A proper audio mix would solve many of these issues.

[mteal]

That was apparently Rich Little saying "I'll drink to that", another remnant of his footage. But of course, we can't check now, since the footage has been taken down already, due to some kind of copyright violation. As a long time Wellesnetter emailed me:

Something called Olpal Inc filed a copyright complaint. Olpal's only credit I could find was for Jaded, so apparently it's Oja.

[RayKelly]

Thanks Mike, I amended the news post and FB report. I wonder if she will go after the other OSOTW clips on YouTube and One Man Band bits?

[ToddBaesen]

Strange that Oja would ask that footage to be taken down, as she apparently hasn't done anything about all the other clips that are available on YouTube, including just the clips of Henry Jaglom and Paul Mazursky.

It's also interesting that the scene with Stafford Repp and whoever is playing Frankl (I don't know Jon Carroll, so maybe it is him) but it reminded me of the scene in Oliver Stone's NIXON, when President Nixon is meeting with the Texas oilmen lead by Larry Hagman. Certainly the references to the bugging were inspired by the Watergate scandal, and as we know Oliver Stone did see the rough cut of OSOTW, so maybe he was "inspired" by that scene for NIXON, just as Clint Eastwood "borrowed" a line from OSOTW for his WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART.

Of course as Jake says, "It's alright to steal from each other. What we must never do is borrow from ourselves."

[Jedediah Leland]

Firstly, 'evening all - I've been an avid reader of Wellesnet (and this thread) for years, but this is my first post!

The 22 minutes of "Other Side of the Wind" footage is back. See http://vimeo.com/55542349 , where it's been up since 13th December, posted by the "Rainbow Film Company" (Henry Jaglom's production company).

Even though it's taken from the same VHS source, it's much higher-quality than the version previously found on YouTube - particularly the .mov version.

[Jedediah Leland]

On a separate topic, I'd be interested to hear some other opinions on this: Assuming the film was completed, what would have been/should be cut from "The Other Side of the Wind" script?

Something Welles said fairly regularly, both about his films in general, and TOSOTW in particular, was that they should last under 2 hours, lest they risk boring the audience.

But when I was reading the published TOSOTW script, I was struck by it being seriously overlength for a 2-hour movie. A general rule of thumb with a script is 1 page = 1 minute of screentime, though the book's pages have a lot more text on them than a standard filmscript, making it difficult to judge.

Having seen the 22 minutes of leaked footage, I realise just how dense the script is. For instance, the second scene with Dr. Bradley Pease Burroughs clocks in at over 7 minutes; it mostly sticks to the script, but with a few extra improvised lines thrown in. But 7 minutes of film corresponds to just 2 pages of published script! At that rate, with a 52-page script, we're looking at a film already well in excess of 3 hours - and the published script doesn't contain *any* of the "film-within-a-film" scenes which go on forever, and which Oja Kodar is very keen to see making up 50% of the movie as they're inter-cut with the party scenes. Nor does the published script reflect any of the material improvised on set, i.e. the Jaglom/Mazursky/Hopper contributions.

There's over 10 hours of raw footage (including multiple takes), and so by the above rationale, a 4 or 5 hour movie would be conceivable!

Obviously, to fulfill Welles' wishes to complete the film under 2 hours, there'd be some pretty major cutting needed. I'm interested in what other people might think about this. When clips leak out, we might be getting very excited over material that's all or mostly headed for the cutting room floor!

[mteal]

Thanks for the link, Jedediah, and welcome to the board. I wish I could offer an informed judgement on what should or shouldn't be cut out of the film, but I haven’t seen nearly enough of the footage to do so (anyone?). Even after having read the script I find it almost impossible to decipher exactly what Welles was trying to say with this strange story. Therefore, I’m one of those who is skeptical that anyone besides Welles could turn this into a genuine Welles film, that offers a positive addition to his cinematic legacy (Bogdanovich would probably have the best chance). Jess Franco’s DON QUIXOTE has already offered an example of how good intentions can yield disappointing, even damaging results in this regard, so I would rather see a multi-part documentary made from the footage, similar to what was done with the IT’S ALL TRUE footage. By now the film's story has become almost irrelevant compared to the film's history. But I’m keeping an open mind either way. Who knows, maybe that two-and-a-half-hour rough cut Dominique Antoine claims to have will turn up. But at this point it would be nice to see anything at all.

Isn’t it both funny and tragic though, that Orson Welles's first picture is considered by many the greatest film in movie history, and his last picture, has become probably the greatest mess in movie history.

[Roger Ryan]

I've seen about an hour of footage now myself. If the goal is to try and approximate what was found in the script(s) then both the improvisational "Greek chorus" material and the "movie-within-the-movie" footage should be kept to a bare minimum. I believe the script even indicates that Hannaford's film appears in the background, projected in the home during the birthday party and, later, at the drive-in. If the screening room scene is indicative of how Welles intended to use this footage than it is not meant to stand on its own as much as play concurrently with the action: characters comment on it or it provides counterpoint to whatever conversations are going on. However it would have been worked into the film, 50% is way too much screen time; that's one of those things that makes for an interesting statement but would be completely impractical in execution. It reminds me of how Welles was quoted as saying that "long, documentary-like" sequences that showed the growth of the town were cut from AMBERSONS, leading some to believe that a significant portion of the original edit contained footage similar to what we see during George's last walk home. In reality, there was probably no more than two or three additional minutes of footage where we would have been shown the growth of the town; as important as that information was, it was primarily relayed through dramatic dialog cut from existing scenes or from scenes cut out completely.

[RayKelly]

The Jaglom footage is now on vimeo. We have an embedded copy at http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=3276

[ToddBaesen]

As noted the new video looks better on Viemo, but it is also obvious, the soundtrack is made up of many different voices, including parts dubbed by Welles, as was usual. But your can clearly hear Peter Bogdanovich's voice on some lines for Mr. Pister, as well as Rich Little as Brooks Otterlake. Welles himself would have dubbed in many of the lines, if he had lived to finish the film.

The point is, even on this very rough soundtrack, the sound is rather amazing. And it is very rough, as there is no music and the voices clearly need to be re-dubbed! Also for long stretches there is no music, and as pointed out many of these rushes would probably not even make it into the final cut of the film.

My printed copy for the script of OSOTW runs to 160 pages. Obviously, Welles would have edited it down to no more than two hours, or maybe a tad over that.

The point is, Welles is no longer with us, so it's fantastic to see these rushes and especially the actors voices in this footage, which are quite fantastic.

If only Welles had lived to make a film in stereo!

[RayKelly]

A great piece from Larry French on the main page: http://www.wellesnet.com/?page_id=1734

[Jedediah Leland]

Andrés Vicente Gómez, who worked as a Producer on TOSOTW in 1973-4, has written a short autobiography on his production company website, and there's a chapter on his association with Welles at http://www.lolafilms.com/en-us/who-we-a ... dream-andrés-vicente-gómez.aspx

For obvious reasons, we all need to be VERY careful in our choice of words discussing this.

There are some colourful details about 'Treasure Island' and 'F for Fake', but it's the TOSOTW details which are most interesting. Gómez writes:

Regarding the end of my relationship with Orson Welles some lies were told, although he assured me they did not come from him. Accordingly, I don't want to go into that matter. I don't deem it relevant to mention the details of our split considering that our relationship was always polite and amicable and we had wonderful moments and experiences together. However, I must make it clear that if I abandoned the project, I didn't do so for financial reasons. My agreement with Welles, written and signed by him, envisaged my work as a producer, not an investor...Certain people who were close to Welles and part of his inner circle - the same ones who are spoiling his works and making a living from them - tried to justify his difficulties by linking them to the fact that I pulled out. They have even gone so far as to say that I had pocketed some of the Iranian money which in fact never existed, beyond the funds that were spent appropriately.

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that Gómez has acknowledged in print that the accusations of embezzlement from TOSOTW levelled at an anonymous Spanish producer have been aimed at him.

For those who aren't fully up to speed on this, Welles himself outlined the story of an embezzler in some detail to his biographer, Barbara Leaming, on pp.476-80 of her 1985 biography. All the most relevant bits are quoted extensively at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_ ... on_history in the section starting "The first of the backers..." But for obvious legal reasons, the Spanish producer wasn't named.

French producer Dominique Antoine (who worked for the Iranian-owned production company) told the same story, in K.C. Brechner's 1986 piece in American Cinematographer 67 (7), pp.34-38, but without naming them.

The film's co-star Peter Bogdanovich also tells the same story about embezzlement of $250,000 by a producer, in the introduction of the 1998 edition of This is Orson Welles, but again, doesn't name them (although he does write "I recently saw the person on TV accepting an Oscar for coproducing the Best Foreign Film of the year", in an intro dated November 1997). (pp.xxviii - it should be noted that at the 1994 Academy Awards, Gómez picked up Best Foreign Film for coproducing the 1993 Spanish film Belle Époque)

AFAIK, the first time anyone linked Gómez in print with the alleged emezzling producer was in Jean-Pierre Berthomé and Francois Thomas's 2006 book on Welles (translated into English in 2008); p.289, and again on p.292.

Several points come to mind.

Firstly, Gómez says that Welles told him he wasn't the source of the stories - this seems to be contradicted by Welles directly making such accusations himself, regarding an unnamed producer, to Leaming. And doing so in some detail, over a four page account.

Secondly, the version of events as-told-by-Welles-to-Leaming does seem consistent with the timeframe and locations mentioned by Gómez in his recent piece. (Obviously, Josh Karp's book later this year should hopefully clear up many of the inconsistencies about when & where TOSOTW filming/production happened.) Leaming mentions Welles and Oja Kodar during "heavy rains and flooding in Spain...basically cooped up in their hotel" while "the Spaniard" shuttled back and forth to Paris on their behalf, negotiating with the Iranians and allegedly "pocketing" most of the money. Production was then moved to Arizona, with "the Spaniard" still shuttling back and forth, the process of alleged embezzlement continuing for a while there before the producer was eliminated from the film's shoot.

[My involvement in TOSOTW] started in Madrid. It was there that we devised the strategies to be followed. We did it at the Hotel Eurobuilding, where Welles stayed for five months, and continued working in Paris. There, we stayed for the whole summer at the Plaza Athenée trying to obtain the necessary finance.

and then Gómez records production moving to the States, where "We settled in the middle of the desert". It does appear that the geography (if not the details) of the version propounded by Welles, Bogdanovich and Antoine is consistent with Gómez's version. And Gómez's account gives more specific details about which hotel, for how long, etc.

Thirdly, I notice an embellishment at the start of the chapter. Of his friendship with Welles, Gómez writes

From the very first moment, a mutual feeling of friendship and interest between us was established and would continue almost until his death a few years later.

Gómez first met Welles c.1971-2, and withdrew from his involvement with TOSOTW in 1974, and this chapter (and the subsequent one) seem to make it clear he had little or no contact with Welles thereafter. Welles died 11 years later.

Thoughts? Please keep any comments on this emotive issue CAREFULLY phrased - Andrés Vicente Gómez is alive and well.

[Roger Ryan]

...My agreement with Welles, written and signed by him, envisaged my work as a producer, not an investor...

That quote says it all, really. The role of a producer who can manage the money and have it support all aspects of a production is an important one, but one that Welles appeared to have little interest in. He really saw himself as the producer and he needed people who would get him money that he could allocate as he saw fit. When the funding doesn't appear, or dries up, there is always a lot of blame to go around; I don't know that there is any one villain in this saga.