New works on Welles - Two new (anyway, new to me!) books on OW

[allegra]

Has anyone read "The Encyclopedia of Orson Welles" (2003, part of the Great Filmmakers series by Checkmark Books), or "Orson Welles Cineaste: Un Camera Visible" (forgive the missing accents over the "e"s! :0)? I'm reading the first, and ordered the second (billed as a 2,000-page work by Youssef Isaghpour, who spent 37 years researching it!), and would love to share impressions with anyone who's read either or both.

[Jeff Wilson]

Here's my review of the Encyclopedia of Orson Welles:

The latest addition to the Great Filmmakers series, this reasonably heft tome on Orson Welles contains some useful information, and a fair bit of fluff. The book is set up like a standard reference work, with entries arranged alphabetically. The writers (eight all told) attempt to cover the breadth and depth of Welles' multifaceted artistic life, but still manage to leave holes and add useless material.

The book seems not to have been concisely edited; entries are not always cross-referenced, perhaps because different people were writing different entries that might have been linked. For example, the entry on the Mercury Summer Theater radio series mentions that the opening show, "Around the World in 80 Days," uses some of the Cole Porter music from the stage production Welles was mounting at the same time. The entry on the stage production makes no mention of this fact, which is an odd exclusion, given that one can actually hear the original cast members peforming on the radio show, making it one of the few fragments of a Welles theater production we have in any form.

Also, excessive space is dedicated to topics not deserving of it; Carole Lombard gets about a column's worth of material-her connection to Welles? Being unable to take a role in Smiler With a Knife (as well as the Campbell Playhouse, though this latter fact goes understandably unmentioned). The rest of her entry is dedicated to covering her career, which is fine, but is this really worth covering? How many other stars turned down or were unable to accept roles in Welles' projects? Warren Beatty was among those who refused The Big Brass Ring, yet he doesn't merit an entry. Why then Lombard? And why give an entry not only to The Dean Martin Comedy Show, but to ol' Deano himself? Were Welles' appearances on the show really that important?

And why spend almost two pages on Steven Spielberg, whose connection to Welles consists of buying one of the Rosebud sleds from Kane and refusing to fund The Cradle Will Rock? Aren't these bits of trivia best mentioned in the respective entries on those terms? Instead we get a lengthy recap of Spielberg's career that is unnecessary in the context of this book, and made ridiculous by discussing Spielberg and his generation of filmmakers as profoundly influenced by Welles, but never really going into exactly how that influence worked, beyond giving them the desire to make movies. Was the four page entry on Francis Ford Coppola necessary, which spends much of its space enunciating the differences between Welles' Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now?

Finally, there are the omissions, chief amongst them the lack of any mention of the Lear sponsored commentary show Welles made from September 1945 to October 1946, which included one of Welles' most notorious and noteworthy incidents, the Isaac Woodard case. The predecessor to Lear, a series to be sponsored by Eversharp Pens, goes likewise unmentioned. In another bizarre omission, the entry on Don Quixote fails to mention the Jess Franco edited release of 1992, and most of Welles' unfinished/lost projects, like The Merchant of Venice, are left out as well. There are small errors as well, such as the brief entry for Confidential Report, which the book states as an alternate title for Mr. Arkadin, rather than an alternate version, a rather large difference. The Lady From Shanghai entry describes Welles as overseeing new music being added to the film, which if true certainly doesn't explain why Welles wrote a lengthy memo to Columbia detailing the myriad ways in which the music of Heinz Roemheld and the sound design overall were awful.

Lest I come off as being completely down on this book, let me state a few positives, namely some of the smaller elements of Welles' career that were covered, such as Diana Bourbon, the ad agency rep Welles worked with on The Campbell Playhouse, and The Lady in the Ice, the little known ballet that Welles staged in London in 1953. Overall, the book covers virtually all of the main actors who worked with Welles in his various pursuits (although no Glenn Anders?), and even covers the biographers and critics that have written about him as well. (Though it should be mentioned that the use of line drawings on many occasions instead of photos, presumably a budget-related choice, was not a particularly good one.)

While not as exhaustive as one would hope, The Encyclopedia of Orson Welles is an even-handed look at a confusing, complicated career. By no means perfect, the book is still of use as a quick reference tool, though many topics will require further investigation for a deeper understanding.

[allegra]

I am sitting here absolutely dumbfounded -- line by line, point by point, nodding in complete and appreciative agreement with your critique. The book seems to have had "too many cooks and no master chef" -- but Welles' life and works were such a combination smorgasbord-and-epicurean-feast, it's almost too much ask, to expect a five-star encyclopedia. (Ouch! ???)

Can't wait to get the three-volume Isaghpour. Are you familiar with that one? (I found out about it, thanks to the "Encyclopedia"...)

[Jeff Wilson]

I've thought about ordering the Isaghpour books, and probably will at some point, but my French isn't good enough to make it worth my while at this point. Of course, that didn't stop me from ordering a couple other French Welles titles, so... If anybody else has read them, do let us know what they're like.

[jaime marzol]

the french books you refer to is a huge collection put together by a few writers, not available in english?

[Jeff Wilson]

The French books we're speaking of are by one guy, Youssef Isaghpour. One book covers his American films, another his "nomad" period, and the third volume features general essays, I think. But someone correct me if that's wrong.

[jaime marzol]

..............

i just found out about that set of welles books a week ago, and that so far they have not been translated from french.

the unthinking lobster i received was also in french.

[allegra]

I just know what I read in the "Encyclopedia," to wit: "Volume I, concerning 'The Works,' takes its title from a comment by Welles: 'For our dependence on the image is enormous...' Volume II covers 'The films of the American Period,' and Volume III 'The films of the Nomadic Period,' as Welles traveled the world while seeking funds to complete his projects." Isaghpour (according to the Encyclopedia) apparently has a wide range of interests and areas of expertise, including painting (six books published), philosophy, literature, and cinema (eight books). Does whet the appetite (if the length of his three-volume magnum opus threatens to overwhelm it...! Anyway, I'll know in a couple of weeks, and will post my impressions.)

[allegra]

I started reading the Isaghpour books (“Orson Welles Cinéaste”), and from the first few pages, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be easy to categorize. (Unfortunately, it also doesn’t look like I’ll have time to read them through. It would be easier, bien sûr, if they were in English. Anyone out there with connections to an English-language publisher...?)

Anyway, here are my first impressions. He seems to regard Welles alternately (and sometimes concurrently) from a historical, philosophical, psychological, and even metaphysical perspective (I haven’t even gotten to the cinematic!). He also seems to have read the Welles canon pretty thoroughly, with occasional references to, or comments on, what others have said. To give you an example, here’s something that struck me. It’s from page 13 of Volume I (and I apologize in advance for any awkwardness or translation errors – corrections welcome!!!):

“Welles, not simply a director of Hollywood movies, but one of the few American filmmakers of world stature (which is why he is placed, even in America, beside Melville, Whitman, Pollock, Faulkner, and not at all with Ford, Capra or Hawks), coming as he did from the outside, encountered in Hollywood a rigidly elaborate aesthetic system that had itself become a ‘reflection of the world.’ But it was, too, and above all, the first time a filmmaker had approached the cinema having already been completely formed, and proven himself, in another art. This also explains the violent reaction that greeted his arrival” [there’s more in that sentence, but I think I got the flavor of it]. “Not from nothing, but only relative to a history, a constituted system – indeed, through rupture, deconstruction, displacement and reversal – can something completely new begin.

“It demands a brawling gigantism that matches America, manufacturer of media events, but also, a veritable act of sovereignty, to claim that Citizen Kane represented a work of art. To make this possible, Welles had to have already internalized this sovereignty upon arriving in cinema, and in Hollywood. It produced something which no other filmmaker has had unleashed against him: a mixture of fascination and hatred, much like the love and hatred Welles himself feels for the personages he incarnates and their desire for sovereignty, which he idealizes and destroys at the same time.”

Whew! I wish these books were available in English...

[colwood]

I found the Encyclopedia of Orson Welles the other day and was flipping through it in my spare time and came to a small item that I hadn't heard before.

Assuming I read it right, in his bio it says that Everett Sloane was the original choice to play Iago in the film version of Othello before he dropped out. Is this true and, if so, is there any specific reason why he dropped out?

[mteal]

Thanks for the translation, Allegra. I especially like the part where the author compares Welles to Mellville or Whitman rather then Ford or Capra. Welles was a great filmmaker, sure, but to consider him merely as a great filmmaker is to almost belittle the immense scope of his life and career. I remember when Welles died, one American headline said, "Actor Orson Welles dies at 70". If that was all he was, I doubt there'd be much interest in him now.

Based on your excerpt, the Isagphour sounds like a pretty daunting read, even if I could understand French. If you come across any other particularly noteworthy passages, any translation you could make would be greatly appreciated. I wonder how many other key writings about Welles there are in foreign languages. I know there are some written works by Welles that could use an English translation, including the articles on his parents that he wrote (in French) for Vogue magazine, as well as the political novel, UNE GROSSE LEGUME. How long it will it be before someone decides that English translations of these have any commercial viability? Of course, then there's always The Estate to deal with.

[Jeff Wilson]

I had been working on a translation of The Unthinking Lobster, but put it aside for other things; the problem with doing a translation of something like that or Une Grosse Legume is that the translator is taking something originally in English (I presume), that was translated to French, and then translating it again back to English. So it's two generations removed from Welles' original version. Granted, having any version is worthwhile, one supposes, but the limitations must be recognized. Has anyone ever heard if the original Welles manuscripts of those works survive anywhere? If the estate holds them, it seems like a no-brainer to have them published, but it is the estate we're talking about.

When I get to doing the web site page for the play, I'll post what I've translated of Lobster, as it is reasonably amusing stuff. Dated in terms of what it parodies, but still worth a look.

[Harvey Chartrand]

Colwood asks: "Assuming I read it right, in his bio it says that Everett Sloane was the original choice to play Iago in the film version of Othello before he dropped out. Is this true and, if so, is there any specific reason why he dropped out?"

Same reason Rich Little dropped out of The Other Side of the Wind. Sloane figured the shoot would take weeks, not years. He agreed to work on Othello while in Italy shooting Henry King's Prince of Foxes with Welles. One project would segue into the next. A few scenes of Sloane-as-Iago were shot, until Welles halted production to raise money from acting jobs and Sloane returned to the United States to co-star in The Men, Marlon Brando's first film. Apparently, there was a nasty falling-out between Sloane and Welles and the two never spoke to each other again. Welles made catty remarks about Sloane in interviews after Sloane's suicide. A few rapid-fire long shots of Sloane survive in Othello.

Welles thought that Sloane would have been perfect as Iago, as he was Iago-like in real life. Sloane's relations with Welles were blighted by deep envy of Welles' good looks at that time. Sloane despaired over his own ugliness, and became the Michael Jackson of his time, begging plastic surgeons to improve his appearance. His nose was whittled down to a pencil. Check out his later appearances and you'll see that Sloane no longer resembles Mr. Bernstein, and it's not just because 20 years have passed. Poor Sloane killed himself with barbiturates in 1965. He was only 56. Sloane feared the onset of blindness, but the fact that his career was in the crapper might also have had something to do with his self-willed end.