Glenn:
Of course RKO wanted to make a profit off of Welles work, but the point is, by the time he was sent to Brazil to make IT'S ALL TRUE, nobody knew that AMBERSONS was going to have those infamous bad previews in Pomona. KANE had the best reviews any film could have ever wished for, which under ordinary circumstances would have spelled a big hit for RKO. But the film was not a success for RKO, because of the Hearst boycott. But with AMBERSONS it was resonable for Schaefer to think Welles might not only deliver a critical success, but a box office success as well. Here's what Schaefer wrote to Welles about AMBERSONS before the bad previews:
GEORGE SCHAEFER TO ORSON WELLES:
February 9, 1941
PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR NOT HAVING WIRED YOU IMMEDIATELY ON MY RETURN FROM THE COAST TO TELL YOU OF MY HAPPINESS AS A RESULT OF WHAT I HAVE SEEN OF YOUR CURRENT PICTURE. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE SEEN ONLY A PART OF IT, THERE IS EVERY INDICATION THAT IT IS CHOCK FULL OF HEART THROBS, HEARTACHES AND HUMAN INTEREST. FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT IT IS STARTLING AND I SHOULD NOT FORGET TO MENTION ESPECIALLY THAT AGNES MOOREHEAD DOES SOME OF THE FINEST PIECES OF WORK I HAVE EVER SEEN ON THE SCREEN. ALTHOUGH I SAW ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE HER WORK IN PARTICULAR MADE A TREMENDOUS IMPRESSION ON ME. AGAIN I AM VERY HAPPY AND PROUD OF OUR ASSOCIATION.
CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES,
GEORGE SCHAEFER
Of course, after a few bad previews, Schaefer was obviously more concerned about his job, which suddenly was in jeopardy, since RKO was once again close to bankruptcy. So obviously Schaefer was not going to go to bat for Welles over AMBERSONS. especially after the bad previews and the box office failure of KANE.
On top of this, IT'S ALL TRUE would be a documentary film which had been approved at a budget of $1.2 million dollars, on the assumption that the CIAA would be giving RKO a reimbursement of $300,000, making RKO's budget $900,000 - still a hard figure to recoup for a documentary feature.
So it's not hard to imagine this kind of set-up leading to a complete and total fiasco in regards to what we know happened to both AMBERSONS and IT'S ALL TRUE.
The point is, should Welles bear the blame for creating art that dosen't make money? Should we blame Welles for creating a dark masterpiece that the uncut AMBERSONS obviously was?
Should we blame Orson Welles for trying to make a artistic liberal pro-black documentary which would be hard pressed to make a profit under any circumstances, especially in the America of 1942?
Or should we praise Welles independent spirit for standing up to the kind of mentality that wants to make safe films and commercial movies?
It's quite obvious that RKO wanted Welles movies to be hits. But the point is, when push comes to shove who to you side with, when the movies are not considered commercial?
RKO or Orson Welles?
In other words, do you say RKO was justified in cutting AMBERSONS to 88 minutes, because it was a dark movie?
And was RKO justified in pulling the plug on IT'S ALL TRUE, when it was not over budget, but because there was not a script, and the CEO at RKO knew he was about to lose his job?
IT'S ALL TRUE
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Todd: I think we are entering another one of our dances around the mulberry bush again.
It's not a case of America's racism, or its reflection in RKO's business decisions, that is in question. It is not one's loyalty to the spirit, idealism and memory of Orson Welles. I have been an admirer and student of Welles' work probably longer than you have been alive.
The problem is that, in 1942, Orson Welles undertook to make three motion pictures for RKO, which had hired and supported him (in the person of George Schaefer) to help them get out of bankruptcy. The fact is that, in his capacity as Producer/Director/Head of the Mercury Unit, he did not see two of these films, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and JOURNEY INTO FEAR, through post production in a timely fashion. A third, IT'S ALL TRUE, the picture we are speaking of, was projected as a modest documentary, even "a little travelogue," in the minds of U.S. Government officials, RKO executives, and Technicolor Corporation. But instead of staying six weeks to two months top in Rio, Welles stayed six months, in order to create a cultural hisory of the Americas, which doesn't seem to have jelled much until the end of that period. For much of the time, he had a Mercury contingent, an RKO crew and line supervision, and Technicolor technicians on salary and expenses, plus a plane-load and ship cargo of equipment tied up down in South America, thousands of mile from Hollywood. [It appears that almost everyone concerned thought that the Carnival footage would be shot, that people and material would be brought back to Hollywood to complete this little film, but Welles launched instead into imagining his "Epic of the Americas."
The personel above arrived, without very much instruction, three weeks before Welles. From the time of his eventual arrival, though Welles was a great success as a Goodwill Ambassador, dissention began to build. He had the cynical Lynn Shores supervising the filming, as he went off to the favelas or into the back country to scout his elusive story. Obviously, a number of men (and a few women) who had families back in Hollywood began to complain after four or five months away from home.
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS had essentially been taken away from both Welles and Schaefer in Mid-March, when Robert Wise reported to Welles that he had been asked to give an uncustomary screening of the picture to Schaefer, one Charles Koerner and "four other men," prior to the Pomona Preview. Wise was ordered to cut three scenes, 17 minutes, from the screening version (148 minutes down to 131), and the picture never recovered from the subsequent infamous preview.
Welles proposed that a "tag" for JOURNEY INTO FEAR be shot in Buenas Aires, which would have required flying Joseph Cotten and Everett Sloane down there, and at another point, that Sloane and Eustace Wyatt be flown to New York for re-takes. Koerner forebade either, and ordered that every penny the Mercury was over-budget be deducted from Welles' salary. At the time (May 1942), according to Simon Callow, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, alone, was $150,000 over budget.
I say again, Todd, that "Bonito the Bull," a mere segment of IT'S ALL TRUE, had already cost $400,000, and it was only 40 percent complete. Can you not see that, extrapolated, this one quarter or one third of the project might well have eaten up the whole "budget" of which you speak? That is just one of the factors Schaefer drives home in that letter he wanted hand delivered by Phil Reismann (evidently Welles' best buddy in the RKO Rio contingent).
[Tony: My guess the explanation for Reismann being sent down to Rio is that he had been down there in the beginning. There were any number of line managers at RKO, but Robert Wise was becoming an important editor. Welles knew his capabilities, and might have set him to work on IT'S ALL TRUE as well as THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. The Studio would not want Wise stuck down in South America for months, when he might be doing what Charles Koerner considered more productive work. By May, Wise was cutting SEVEN DAYS LEAVE, a comic romance featuring Victor Matue and Lucille Ball. He would soon join Koerner's own little "Art Unit" -- Val Lewton's, which was charged with making original films, so long as they did not exceed a budget of $150,000, nor exceed 75 minutes in length.]
I am not attacking Welles' films nor his idealism. Both were and are admirable, no matter how tattered now. What I'm saying is that Orson Welles signed a contract to create three pictures with his Mercury Productions Unit at RKO. He took the responsibiliy to deliver these films, and to his own detriment and that of his loyal unit, he did not fulfill his responsibility.
We should note here that for over seven years, Welles had the competence of John Houseman at his disposal, and his departure may be sorely weighed in Welles career afterwards, when he was without him.
On the day Schaefer resigned, Welles was angrily telegraming Reismann that Shores had served him with a writ demanding payment for damages. Welles did not come back to the United States for another six weeks, after a leisurely tour of half a dozen Latin Americn countries, presumably to pick up more ideas for expanding IT'S ALL TRUE, a picture he would never get to touch again.
I find Welles' actions as what would be called today, "the CEO of Mercury Productions," not as a great director, humanitarian, or Goodwill Ambassador, hard to defend. He seems to have so willfully sacrificed all the prestige the Mercury Theater had gained over the last nearly ten years previous.
Glenn
It's not a case of America's racism, or its reflection in RKO's business decisions, that is in question. It is not one's loyalty to the spirit, idealism and memory of Orson Welles. I have been an admirer and student of Welles' work probably longer than you have been alive.
The problem is that, in 1942, Orson Welles undertook to make three motion pictures for RKO, which had hired and supported him (in the person of George Schaefer) to help them get out of bankruptcy. The fact is that, in his capacity as Producer/Director/Head of the Mercury Unit, he did not see two of these films, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and JOURNEY INTO FEAR, through post production in a timely fashion. A third, IT'S ALL TRUE, the picture we are speaking of, was projected as a modest documentary, even "a little travelogue," in the minds of U.S. Government officials, RKO executives, and Technicolor Corporation. But instead of staying six weeks to two months top in Rio, Welles stayed six months, in order to create a cultural hisory of the Americas, which doesn't seem to have jelled much until the end of that period. For much of the time, he had a Mercury contingent, an RKO crew and line supervision, and Technicolor technicians on salary and expenses, plus a plane-load and ship cargo of equipment tied up down in South America, thousands of mile from Hollywood. [It appears that almost everyone concerned thought that the Carnival footage would be shot, that people and material would be brought back to Hollywood to complete this little film, but Welles launched instead into imagining his "Epic of the Americas."
The personel above arrived, without very much instruction, three weeks before Welles. From the time of his eventual arrival, though Welles was a great success as a Goodwill Ambassador, dissention began to build. He had the cynical Lynn Shores supervising the filming, as he went off to the favelas or into the back country to scout his elusive story. Obviously, a number of men (and a few women) who had families back in Hollywood began to complain after four or five months away from home.
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS had essentially been taken away from both Welles and Schaefer in Mid-March, when Robert Wise reported to Welles that he had been asked to give an uncustomary screening of the picture to Schaefer, one Charles Koerner and "four other men," prior to the Pomona Preview. Wise was ordered to cut three scenes, 17 minutes, from the screening version (148 minutes down to 131), and the picture never recovered from the subsequent infamous preview.
Welles proposed that a "tag" for JOURNEY INTO FEAR be shot in Buenas Aires, which would have required flying Joseph Cotten and Everett Sloane down there, and at another point, that Sloane and Eustace Wyatt be flown to New York for re-takes. Koerner forebade either, and ordered that every penny the Mercury was over-budget be deducted from Welles' salary. At the time (May 1942), according to Simon Callow, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, alone, was $150,000 over budget.
I say again, Todd, that "Bonito the Bull," a mere segment of IT'S ALL TRUE, had already cost $400,000, and it was only 40 percent complete. Can you not see that, extrapolated, this one quarter or one third of the project might well have eaten up the whole "budget" of which you speak? That is just one of the factors Schaefer drives home in that letter he wanted hand delivered by Phil Reismann (evidently Welles' best buddy in the RKO Rio contingent).
[Tony: My guess the explanation for Reismann being sent down to Rio is that he had been down there in the beginning. There were any number of line managers at RKO, but Robert Wise was becoming an important editor. Welles knew his capabilities, and might have set him to work on IT'S ALL TRUE as well as THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. The Studio would not want Wise stuck down in South America for months, when he might be doing what Charles Koerner considered more productive work. By May, Wise was cutting SEVEN DAYS LEAVE, a comic romance featuring Victor Matue and Lucille Ball. He would soon join Koerner's own little "Art Unit" -- Val Lewton's, which was charged with making original films, so long as they did not exceed a budget of $150,000, nor exceed 75 minutes in length.]
I am not attacking Welles' films nor his idealism. Both were and are admirable, no matter how tattered now. What I'm saying is that Orson Welles signed a contract to create three pictures with his Mercury Productions Unit at RKO. He took the responsibiliy to deliver these films, and to his own detriment and that of his loyal unit, he did not fulfill his responsibility.
We should note here that for over seven years, Welles had the competence of John Houseman at his disposal, and his departure may be sorely weighed in Welles career afterwards, when he was without him.
On the day Schaefer resigned, Welles was angrily telegraming Reismann that Shores had served him with a writ demanding payment for damages. Welles did not come back to the United States for another six weeks, after a leisurely tour of half a dozen Latin Americn countries, presumably to pick up more ideas for expanding IT'S ALL TRUE, a picture he would never get to touch again.
I find Welles' actions as what would be called today, "the CEO of Mercury Productions," not as a great director, humanitarian, or Goodwill Ambassador, hard to defend. He seems to have so willfully sacrificed all the prestige the Mercury Theater had gained over the last nearly ten years previous.
Glenn
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
Glenn:
Since I'm going to see you tonight, I won't go into a detailed reply, but will hand you a copy of Richard Wilson's detailed Sight and Sound article on IT'S ALL TRUE which was written to correct many of the errors in Charles Higham's book, and which you seem to subscribe to in your views, which is at the heart of our disagreement. Once you read this article, I think you'll get a much better idea of the facts surrounding IT'S ALL TRUE.
For example where did you get the idea that IT'S ALL TRUE was going to be a modest little low-budget film?
Richard Wilson indicates it was always going to be a major big-budget film, costing $1.2 million from the start. That is why RKO was going to be reimbursed $300,000 from the CIAA, since it was not going to be a commercial film, but a documentary film. Wilson says it was understood as such, by everyone involved. In fact any film that was going to be shot in Technicolor in 1942, would have to be considered a major big-budget film, especially if it was to be shot on location.
RICHARD WILSON: I stress that no script was possible until Welles had actually seen the carnival. May I bring out what is ever more pertinent? RKO and the CIAA understood this, and these were the ground rules accepted by all.
You say BONITA was only 40% finished and cost $400,000 Where does that mis-information come from? Here's what Richard Wilson says, who no doubt knows a bit more about the facts than either you or I, or anyone else who has written about IT'S ALL TRUE.
RICHARD WILSON: At the the end of June, with all the filming completed on CARNIVAL, the main subject; with most of the BONITO segment shot; with the full $10,000 budget included for the then shooting JANGADEIRO sequence, the total money spent was $531,910. RKO added to this an overhead charge of 27% or $146,275, making a total of $678,185 for a picture cancelled on the grounds of Welles reckless extravagance.
So at this point, I contend there was still more than enough money to finish the film properly, under the original budget of $1.2 million. You say BONITA cost $400,000 alone, which if true means that Welles had only spent $131,910 for all the filming he did in South America over a four month period. If that's the case, I'd say he was nowhere near going over budget!
And, according to Wilson, everyone clearly understood this was not going to be a commercial film, and would not make it's money back. The problem reallys seems to have come in March with the bad AMBERSONS preview, and Schafer suddenly realizing Orson Welles had make a second picture that wouldn't make RKO any profit. That's when Schafer started writing to Welles about making more commercial pictures, even though he had approved AMBERSONS and IT'S ALL TRUE and their high budgets.
So halfway through Welles third RKO picture Schafer gets pressure to start making films that were profitable and gets cold feet about backing Welles, since he's about to lose his job. Of course when Schafer resigns in June, RKO's new regime cancels IT'S ALL TRUE and Welles contract.
So it seems to me that you may be getting your information from what I would say were faulty sources. Mine comes directly from the Welles RKO/Memos in the Lilly Library collection, an unfiltered account of what happened, unlike the work of Welles biographers such as Higham, Thomson, etc. who tend to twist the facts to reach unsupportable conclusions, as long as it fits their own thesis.
This is most recently demonstrated by Richard Schickel who claims Welles was mostly drunk and throwing RKO's money away in Rio.
Since I'm going to see you tonight, I won't go into a detailed reply, but will hand you a copy of Richard Wilson's detailed Sight and Sound article on IT'S ALL TRUE which was written to correct many of the errors in Charles Higham's book, and which you seem to subscribe to in your views, which is at the heart of our disagreement. Once you read this article, I think you'll get a much better idea of the facts surrounding IT'S ALL TRUE.
For example where did you get the idea that IT'S ALL TRUE was going to be a modest little low-budget film?
Richard Wilson indicates it was always going to be a major big-budget film, costing $1.2 million from the start. That is why RKO was going to be reimbursed $300,000 from the CIAA, since it was not going to be a commercial film, but a documentary film. Wilson says it was understood as such, by everyone involved. In fact any film that was going to be shot in Technicolor in 1942, would have to be considered a major big-budget film, especially if it was to be shot on location.
RICHARD WILSON: I stress that no script was possible until Welles had actually seen the carnival. May I bring out what is ever more pertinent? RKO and the CIAA understood this, and these were the ground rules accepted by all.
You say BONITA was only 40% finished and cost $400,000 Where does that mis-information come from? Here's what Richard Wilson says, who no doubt knows a bit more about the facts than either you or I, or anyone else who has written about IT'S ALL TRUE.
RICHARD WILSON: At the the end of June, with all the filming completed on CARNIVAL, the main subject; with most of the BONITO segment shot; with the full $10,000 budget included for the then shooting JANGADEIRO sequence, the total money spent was $531,910. RKO added to this an overhead charge of 27% or $146,275, making a total of $678,185 for a picture cancelled on the grounds of Welles reckless extravagance.
So at this point, I contend there was still more than enough money to finish the film properly, under the original budget of $1.2 million. You say BONITA cost $400,000 alone, which if true means that Welles had only spent $131,910 for all the filming he did in South America over a four month period. If that's the case, I'd say he was nowhere near going over budget!
And, according to Wilson, everyone clearly understood this was not going to be a commercial film, and would not make it's money back. The problem reallys seems to have come in March with the bad AMBERSONS preview, and Schafer suddenly realizing Orson Welles had make a second picture that wouldn't make RKO any profit. That's when Schafer started writing to Welles about making more commercial pictures, even though he had approved AMBERSONS and IT'S ALL TRUE and their high budgets.
So halfway through Welles third RKO picture Schafer gets pressure to start making films that were profitable and gets cold feet about backing Welles, since he's about to lose his job. Of course when Schafer resigns in June, RKO's new regime cancels IT'S ALL TRUE and Welles contract.
So it seems to me that you may be getting your information from what I would say were faulty sources. Mine comes directly from the Welles RKO/Memos in the Lilly Library collection, an unfiltered account of what happened, unlike the work of Welles biographers such as Higham, Thomson, etc. who tend to twist the facts to reach unsupportable conclusions, as long as it fits their own thesis.
This is most recently demonstrated by Richard Schickel who claims Welles was mostly drunk and throwing RKO's money away in Rio.
Todd
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Todd: I am getting my "facts" from the now highly balanced Simon Callow, who is quoting the letter he had Phil Reismann deliver personally to Welles in Rio. You should know that I am not depending upon Higham or the others you cite, but in this area, they seem to be largely correct.
You speak as if RKO had shipped Welles a pile of silver dollars from which he was drawing a hundred thousand dollars here, and a hundred thousand dollars there. You must know that is not how it works.
Whatever Richard Wilson believed was on paper. The important figures were those George Schaefer was being given, and more important still, the figures the RKO stockholders and the bankruptcy referees were being given in New York City.
I wish, Todd, that you would not imply that because Richard Wilson or someone you credit writes an article, it must necessarily be so.
Glenn
You speak as if RKO had shipped Welles a pile of silver dollars from which he was drawing a hundred thousand dollars here, and a hundred thousand dollars there. You must know that is not how it works.
Whatever Richard Wilson believed was on paper. The important figures were those George Schaefer was being given, and more important still, the figures the RKO stockholders and the bankruptcy referees were being given in New York City.
I wish, Todd, that you would not imply that because Richard Wilson or someone you credit writes an article, it must necessarily be so.
Glenn
-
Roger Ryan
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:09 am
Glenn Anders wrote:THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS had essentially been taken away from both Welles and Schaefer in Mid-March, when Robert Wise reported to Welles that he had been asked to give an uncustomary screening of the picture to Schaefer, one Charles Koerner and "four other men," prior to the Pomona Preview. Wise was ordered to cut three scenes, 17 minutes, from the screening version (148 minutes down to 131), and the picture never recovered from the subsequent infamous preview.
Welles proposed that a "tag" for JOURNEY INTO FEAR be shot in Buenas Aires, which would have required flying Joseph Cotten and Everett Sloane down there, and at another point, that Sloane and Eustace Wyatt be flown to New York for re-takes. Koerner forebade either, and ordered that every penny the Mercury was over-budget be deducted from Welles' salary. At the time (May 1942), according to Simon Callow, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, alone, was $150,000 over budget.
Glenn - I'm assuming you're getting this info from Callow's second volume as well (Sorry, I haven't gotten the book yet). You imply that Koerner and his henchmen were the ones to order three scenes cut from "Ambersons" prior to its Pomona preview. This must be inaccurate. The 148 min. running length can only apply to the initial rough cut Wise assembled for Welles to view in Miami, or possibly that was the running time of the film after Welles and Wise worked on it in Miami for three days prior to Welles leaving for Rio. Following Welles' specific instructions, Wise prepared the completed 131 min. cut which is documented in the March 12th cutting continuity. Importantly, this is very much a completed cut including music, optical effects and titles (more complete, in fact, than some films that are previewed today which can be missing credits, scores and even optical effects like dissolves). This version was shipped to Welles in Rio, but before it arrived on March 15th, Welles had already requested that all of the scenes between Isabel reading Eugene's letter and the family gathered outside her bedroom be removed and replaced by a newly shot scene where George finds Isabel unconscious in her bedroom. As drastic as this seems, Welles was apparently trying to cut the film down to under two hours for its first preview in Ponoma on March 17th. According to a March 19th memo sent to Schaefer from Ross Hastings (RKO Legal Counsel), "Orson Welles has the right to make the first rough cut of the picture or to cut the picture in the form of the first sneak preview". Hastings goes on to say that since Welles' preferred cut played in Ponoma, RKO is now within their legal right to recut the picture on their own. This seems to clearly state that the version shown in Ponoma is the preferred Welles' cut (or at least how he thought it should be cut given that he hadn't actually seen the "full" 131 min. version he had initially requested). For the record, in addition to asking that Lucy's walk with George, the poolhall scene, Fanny and Major on the porch, Jack's visit to the Morgans and Isabel returning home all be cut, Welles apparently asked for the first porch scene to be dropped along with Eugene and Lucy in the garden and the auto accident. Following the disasterous Pomona preview, much of the material Welles asked to be cut was reinstated (although other changes were made) for the Pasedena preview on March 19th. I don't believe Koerner directly ordered the cutting during these mid-March previews.
Regarding "Journey Into Fear": I can't comment on Welles' supposed request to fly Sloane and Wyatt to New York for retakes except that this makes little sense since virtually all of their existing scenes involve many other cast members (also, wouldn't they be flown from New York to RKO Studios in Culver City for retakes?). As for the "tag", the only one I could find that Welles scripted while in Brazil clearly states that shots featuring himself as Colonel Haki would be shot in Rio and "matched" with shots featuring Joseph Cotten and Ruth Warrick to be shot in Hollywood (he specifically notes that characters surrounding Haki could be played by Richard Wilson and Robert Meltzer who were both already in Rio assisting him). While this initial Welles' scripted ending doesn't come across as an example of great writing, it very logically presents how the footage shot in two different countries could appear to take place in the same hotel. There is no mention in Welles' notes of flying actors to Rio to act alongside him.
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Roger: I know your expertise in this period, and so I hesitate to disagree. The matter of Koerner's involvement has come up, in another context, somewhere previously, I know. I can only quote Callow:
"Welles had had exactly a day's notice of the preview. Robert Wise wired on 16 March to inform him that George Schaefer had unexpectedly requested running AMBERSONS for himself and Charles Koerner and four other men: PROBABLY EASTERN EXECUTIVES. [Caps in text] Following the showing, Schaefer asked about the possibilities of reducing the length of the film. 'He ordered me to prepare the picture for sneak preview Tuesday nite with the following cuts: both porch scenes and factory.' Wise did not say it , but there was no question about it: they had taken Welles' film away from him . . . The active hand of Charles W. Koerner is evident in this manoeuvre; George Schaefer was losing the power struggle . . . The print that Wise showed to Koerner, Schaefer and the executives lasted 148 minutes; the one seen at Pamona was 131 minutes. The process of attrition had begun." [pp 86-87; Source listed: 'Telegram from Robert Wise to Orson Welles, 16 March 1942']
Callow may be wrong about Koerner's early involvement, but if so, he backs it up in at least half a dozen other references to Koerner, between March and his formal taking charge in June 1942.
Regarding the other matter, I have made at least one mistake, as you will note.
In the material on a "tag" for JOURNEY INTO FEAR, I have conflated different solutions Welles came up with, according to Callow. This tag was first mentioned in conjunction with a premiere Welles was to attend in Buenas Aires. [I suppose he might have thought Mercury and RKO personnel could logically be justified in attending.] One tag certainly involved Colonel Haki (Welles) and Josette (Dolores Del Rio), some reporters and other players in a train station. Just as you say, Callow quotes Welles that it could be done in Rio: "'This is just a corner of the lobby such as comes within the capacities of Brazillian set builders.'" [p. 104; identified as a stage direction in Welles new script pages.]
And Welles refers to Richard Wilson as one of the reporters in that lobby.
I confess that, in May 1942, Welles did not want Everett Sloane and Eustace Wyatt flown from Hollywood to New York but the other way about, as you suggest. The bottom line is that Koerner had decreed, well over a month before Schaefer's resignation, that there would be no more re-shoots on JOURNEY INTO FEAR of any kind, anywhere, and further expenditures over budget (already amounting "to some $150,000") would be deducted from Welles' salary. The Studio's position was stated in a memo from Reg Armour to Jack Moss: 'We have decided to complete the picture with the film we have on hand without incurring any further expenses of any nature whatever.' [p. 107; Memorandum from Reg Armour to Jack Moss, 24 April 1942.]
I hope that may clarify somewhat my latter report.
BTW, you mention Robert Meltzer, who has a part in JOURNEY INTO FEAR, and was in Rio as a kind of right or left hand Mercury assistant (and buddy) to Welles. After entering the Service, Meltzer died on June 6, 1944 -- D-Day. There is reference to a eulogy by Welles for Meltzer in the Lilly. Do you have any further details? I had hoped that Joseph McBride's book might give some further information, but if I am to believe its (very sketchy) index, Meltzer is not mentioned at all.
Glenn
"Welles had had exactly a day's notice of the preview. Robert Wise wired on 16 March to inform him that George Schaefer had unexpectedly requested running AMBERSONS for himself and Charles Koerner and four other men: PROBABLY EASTERN EXECUTIVES. [Caps in text] Following the showing, Schaefer asked about the possibilities of reducing the length of the film. 'He ordered me to prepare the picture for sneak preview Tuesday nite with the following cuts: both porch scenes and factory.' Wise did not say it , but there was no question about it: they had taken Welles' film away from him . . . The active hand of Charles W. Koerner is evident in this manoeuvre; George Schaefer was losing the power struggle . . . The print that Wise showed to Koerner, Schaefer and the executives lasted 148 minutes; the one seen at Pamona was 131 minutes. The process of attrition had begun." [pp 86-87; Source listed: 'Telegram from Robert Wise to Orson Welles, 16 March 1942']
Callow may be wrong about Koerner's early involvement, but if so, he backs it up in at least half a dozen other references to Koerner, between March and his formal taking charge in June 1942.
Regarding the other matter, I have made at least one mistake, as you will note.
In the material on a "tag" for JOURNEY INTO FEAR, I have conflated different solutions Welles came up with, according to Callow. This tag was first mentioned in conjunction with a premiere Welles was to attend in Buenas Aires. [I suppose he might have thought Mercury and RKO personnel could logically be justified in attending.] One tag certainly involved Colonel Haki (Welles) and Josette (Dolores Del Rio), some reporters and other players in a train station. Just as you say, Callow quotes Welles that it could be done in Rio: "'This is just a corner of the lobby such as comes within the capacities of Brazillian set builders.'" [p. 104; identified as a stage direction in Welles new script pages.]
And Welles refers to Richard Wilson as one of the reporters in that lobby.
I confess that, in May 1942, Welles did not want Everett Sloane and Eustace Wyatt flown from Hollywood to New York but the other way about, as you suggest. The bottom line is that Koerner had decreed, well over a month before Schaefer's resignation, that there would be no more re-shoots on JOURNEY INTO FEAR of any kind, anywhere, and further expenditures over budget (already amounting "to some $150,000") would be deducted from Welles' salary. The Studio's position was stated in a memo from Reg Armour to Jack Moss: 'We have decided to complete the picture with the film we have on hand without incurring any further expenses of any nature whatever.' [p. 107; Memorandum from Reg Armour to Jack Moss, 24 April 1942.]
I hope that may clarify somewhat my latter report.
BTW, you mention Robert Meltzer, who has a part in JOURNEY INTO FEAR, and was in Rio as a kind of right or left hand Mercury assistant (and buddy) to Welles. After entering the Service, Meltzer died on June 6, 1944 -- D-Day. There is reference to a eulogy by Welles for Meltzer in the Lilly. Do you have any further details? I had hoped that Joseph McBride's book might give some further information, but if I am to believe its (very sketchy) index, Meltzer is not mentioned at all.
Glenn
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
Glenn:
From what your are quoting from Callow's book, my guess is he may be selectively reporting on the facts to suit his own conclusions, which is why, in my opinion the best conclusions are to be reached by a simple reading of ALL of the memos, not just the select few that a biographer choses to include, which can be very misleading. They in effect become spin doctors, telling readers what to believe, which is true whether it's Callow, Higham, Leaming or whoever.
For instance you quote this memo from Callow's book:
The Studio's position was stated in a memo from Reg Armour to Jack Moss: 'We have decided to complete the picture with the film we have on hand without incurring any further expenses of any nature whatever.' [p. 107; Memorandum from Reg Armour to Jack Moss, 24 April 1942.]
So if Callow doesn't follow it up in his book (and maybe he does - I don't know - does he?) But if he doesn't, the reader would assume that JOURNEY INTO FEAR was completed without any further imput from Welles. But the facts are that Welles convinced RKO to let him re-shoot scenes much later, after he met with RKO's new boss, N. Peter Rathvon in New York and came to an agreement that would allow him to finish the final editing on JOURNEY INTO FEAR, but only under the very stringent conditions outlined in this memo:
RKO STUDIO TO ORSON WELLES (excerpt):
Oct. 19, 1942
Dear Mr. Welles:
This will confirm our agreement as follows: You will go to Hollywood, to arrive there not later then Oct. 23rd, to do recutting on Journey Into Fear. This work shall be finished within 14 days after your arrival in Hollywood and during this period you shall have the use of an office and a cutting room and the exclusive services of one cutter, or two if necessary. It is understood that you shall make no retakes or additional scenes except for one additional scene to be made in one day. This scene shall require the services of no actors except Joseph Cotten and a bit player, and no set expenses shall be involved in excess of $800. The making of this scene is conditioned upon your securing gratis the services of Mr. Cotten. Your work at the studio shall be under the supervision of Mr. Charles Koerner. The cutters, cameramen and others whose services shall be used shall be people assigned by Mr. Koerner. You shall be allowed reasonable travel and living expenses, but shall receive no compensation for this work. A press release acceptable in form to you and to us shall be issued by us, and otherwise no statements or publicity shall be given out by you or us unless by mutual agreement.
There exists a controversy over your employment by us in the making of the picture It's All True. It is expressly understood between us that the additional work on Journey Into Fear herein contemplated, shall in no way affect this.
____
Tony:
I think you have hit the nail right on on the head, when you note that RKO claimed Robert Wise couldn't go to Brazil due to wartime travel restrictions (a convient excuse), but somehow Phil Reisman could fly right down to Rio, simply to deliver a letter to Welles from Schafer.
This is another answer to the Welles overspending myth arising from IT'S ALL TRUE spread by RKO after Schafer resigned. And it's not that I don't agree that Welles was not acting totally professionally while he was in Rio. Clearly he was sometimes out of control. But the truth is that if RKO actually supported Welles, and he retained final cutting rights on AMBERSONS, obviously a way would have been found to send Robert Wise to Rio. But, as stated above, and as Glenn himself quotes, Schafer WANTED to cut AMBERSONS after the screening of the 148 min. rough cut. And by mid-march, Schafer knew which way the wind was blowing, and if he didn't come up with some hits, he would be out the door, which of course happened on June 12th. But after Welles actually threatened to sue Schafer over releasing KANE, Schafer presumably knew Welles would never produce a 90 min. studio acceptable version of AMBERSONS. So why would he dream of letting Robert Wise fly down to Rio and edit the the film with Welles? He knew the results might be another masterpiece, but one which would never make a profit for RKO. The result: Don't send Robert Wise to Rio, and cut the film in Hollywoood the best way to sell it to audiences. But of course, RKO VP of foreign affairs, Phil Reisman can easily fly down to Rio in May on the pretext of hand delivering a letter to Welles!! Really, this is got to be the most overlooked flaw in the whole AMBERSONS story. Of course Reisman was really sent there to close down production on IT'S ALL TRUE, but still managed to get a flight. And even if Robert Wise really couldn't get a flight, he could have easily taken a boat to Rio from Miami.
One begins to suspect something is rotten with the "official" RKO statements, as well as those of Robert Wise.
From what your are quoting from Callow's book, my guess is he may be selectively reporting on the facts to suit his own conclusions, which is why, in my opinion the best conclusions are to be reached by a simple reading of ALL of the memos, not just the select few that a biographer choses to include, which can be very misleading. They in effect become spin doctors, telling readers what to believe, which is true whether it's Callow, Higham, Leaming or whoever.
For instance you quote this memo from Callow's book:
The Studio's position was stated in a memo from Reg Armour to Jack Moss: 'We have decided to complete the picture with the film we have on hand without incurring any further expenses of any nature whatever.' [p. 107; Memorandum from Reg Armour to Jack Moss, 24 April 1942.]
So if Callow doesn't follow it up in his book (and maybe he does - I don't know - does he?) But if he doesn't, the reader would assume that JOURNEY INTO FEAR was completed without any further imput from Welles. But the facts are that Welles convinced RKO to let him re-shoot scenes much later, after he met with RKO's new boss, N. Peter Rathvon in New York and came to an agreement that would allow him to finish the final editing on JOURNEY INTO FEAR, but only under the very stringent conditions outlined in this memo:
RKO STUDIO TO ORSON WELLES (excerpt):
Oct. 19, 1942
Dear Mr. Welles:
This will confirm our agreement as follows: You will go to Hollywood, to arrive there not later then Oct. 23rd, to do recutting on Journey Into Fear. This work shall be finished within 14 days after your arrival in Hollywood and during this period you shall have the use of an office and a cutting room and the exclusive services of one cutter, or two if necessary. It is understood that you shall make no retakes or additional scenes except for one additional scene to be made in one day. This scene shall require the services of no actors except Joseph Cotten and a bit player, and no set expenses shall be involved in excess of $800. The making of this scene is conditioned upon your securing gratis the services of Mr. Cotten. Your work at the studio shall be under the supervision of Mr. Charles Koerner. The cutters, cameramen and others whose services shall be used shall be people assigned by Mr. Koerner. You shall be allowed reasonable travel and living expenses, but shall receive no compensation for this work. A press release acceptable in form to you and to us shall be issued by us, and otherwise no statements or publicity shall be given out by you or us unless by mutual agreement.
There exists a controversy over your employment by us in the making of the picture It's All True. It is expressly understood between us that the additional work on Journey Into Fear herein contemplated, shall in no way affect this.
____
Tony:
I think you have hit the nail right on on the head, when you note that RKO claimed Robert Wise couldn't go to Brazil due to wartime travel restrictions (a convient excuse), but somehow Phil Reisman could fly right down to Rio, simply to deliver a letter to Welles from Schafer.
This is another answer to the Welles overspending myth arising from IT'S ALL TRUE spread by RKO after Schafer resigned. And it's not that I don't agree that Welles was not acting totally professionally while he was in Rio. Clearly he was sometimes out of control. But the truth is that if RKO actually supported Welles, and he retained final cutting rights on AMBERSONS, obviously a way would have been found to send Robert Wise to Rio. But, as stated above, and as Glenn himself quotes, Schafer WANTED to cut AMBERSONS after the screening of the 148 min. rough cut. And by mid-march, Schafer knew which way the wind was blowing, and if he didn't come up with some hits, he would be out the door, which of course happened on June 12th. But after Welles actually threatened to sue Schafer over releasing KANE, Schafer presumably knew Welles would never produce a 90 min. studio acceptable version of AMBERSONS. So why would he dream of letting Robert Wise fly down to Rio and edit the the film with Welles? He knew the results might be another masterpiece, but one which would never make a profit for RKO. The result: Don't send Robert Wise to Rio, and cut the film in Hollywoood the best way to sell it to audiences. But of course, RKO VP of foreign affairs, Phil Reisman can easily fly down to Rio in May on the pretext of hand delivering a letter to Welles!! Really, this is got to be the most overlooked flaw in the whole AMBERSONS story. Of course Reisman was really sent there to close down production on IT'S ALL TRUE, but still managed to get a flight. And even if Robert Wise really couldn't get a flight, he could have easily taken a boat to Rio from Miami.
One begins to suspect something is rotten with the "official" RKO statements, as well as those of Robert Wise.
Todd
-
tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
Todd: thanks for expanding on my observation: it really just came to me as I was reading the posts above; wasn't Ambersons important enough to get a flight for Wise? I agree with you, and would further add that Schaefer must have been panicking; in a calmer frame of mind, perhaps he would have released Welles's Ambersons cut. I guess we should also remember that wartime conditions meant a lot of the European markets were gone, which meant that Ambersons had to perform better in America, primarily (then and now) a teenage market (as Schaefer mentions in one of his memos to Welles: "In Pomona we played to the younger element. It is the younger element who contribute the biggest part of the revenue. If you cannot satisfy that group, you just cannot bail yourself out with a $1,000,000. investment—all of which, Orson, is very disturbing to say the least.") Disturbing on many levels, I would add. And finally, the war mood of course meant that razmataz pics were overperforming, and serious pictures were underperforming.
All of which put a lot of pressure on RKO to try and make Ambersons "play" to a young middlebrow audience. Of course, the problem was that no matter how you cut a Welles picture, it's never young middlebrow: it just becomes a hacked up piece of adult highbrow.
I have always felt that it was primarily the war ("and the end of civilization as we knew it" [Welles to Bogdanovich]) which doomed the complete Ambersons. Still, the mutilated Ambersons garnered enough respect in Hollywood that it earned 4 academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Cinematography and a Best Supporting Actress nomination for Moorehead; it seems the complete picture would have at the least been recognized as a masterpiece even in 1942.
But would the teenagers agree, then or now? ???
All of which put a lot of pressure on RKO to try and make Ambersons "play" to a young middlebrow audience. Of course, the problem was that no matter how you cut a Welles picture, it's never young middlebrow: it just becomes a hacked up piece of adult highbrow.
I have always felt that it was primarily the war ("and the end of civilization as we knew it" [Welles to Bogdanovich]) which doomed the complete Ambersons. Still, the mutilated Ambersons garnered enough respect in Hollywood that it earned 4 academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Cinematography and a Best Supporting Actress nomination for Moorehead; it seems the complete picture would have at the least been recognized as a masterpiece even in 1942.
But would the teenagers agree, then or now? ???
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Todd: Yes, your surmise is correct. Callow records how, after Koerner was formally in charge, and they still did not have a workable ending for JOURNEY INTO FEAR, they let Welles do post production work on the film, under the conditions the company memo states. In fact, he credits Welles with the sequencing of the finale in which Banat stalks Howard Graham in the rain along that building ledge, which he says is the best thing left in the picture.
So we have no argument there, Todd, though I must say that the fog of paranoia becomes thick here at times. Reading a hundred memos, minutes of conversations (which the Reismann-Armour speculations were, BTW), or copies of telegrams -- all a hodge-podge, out of context -- leaves any conclusions open to systems of logic. I'm amused, my friend, that you who hold on grimly to the idea that Welles carefully observed the budgets of his projects, and all the RKO Executives were Byzantine bastards, see whole flocks of biographers and critics unreliable because they do not agree with your interpretations. If all biographers are "spin doctors" (a term everyone in 1942 would have publicly abhorred), does this mean that only your interpretations are valid?
Have not enough variables been turned up to suggest that, given circumstances, accounting practices, the business climate, the War, and volatile personalties, several "truths" are possible here? May only your assertions be accepted?
In your last line, you suggest a new villain to add to the RKO's Devils Brigade: Robert Wise. Aha! You may have something. Is it possible, in addition to his own duties, the company's wishes, he had personal reasons for not making the lonely flight to Rio? Most of the RKO crew down there were confused, fed up and disheartened; aside from a few who had "gone native" (as they liked to put), they felt trapped; they wanted to come home. The Government of Brazil and many of the people who had welcomed them were turning against them -- shouting at them, throwing beer bottles at them. Wise no doubt heard these reports from his colleagues. He was primarily a sound editor (why Welles liked him so much), new to film editing. His prospects for continuing as a film editor were precarious. His name was attached already to two controversial failures.
And, O yes, he was engaged to be married. In fact, on May 25, 1942, he married Patricia Doyle, the lady who would be his wife for over thirty years. It is unlikely that cost-cutting Koerner would have paid for a honeymoon in Rio.
You see, Todd, it is easy -- for anyone -- to bandy around pieces of paper without fully understanding the people underneath. And even there, we do not have a full record, no matter how many cables and memos are in the Lilly. (Callow says that fewer than forty cables survive, and that, according to Cy Enfield, Jack Moss regularly threw away batches of cable traffic daily without bothering to read them because he felt Welles was so out of touch.)
Todd, Tony: In the matter of the editing of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, all you say may be true. If Wise had flown down to Rio, been able to find Welles, sat down with him, and worked out the "finish" on the picture, it might be the masterpiece we imagine when we look at its muddled form today. Yes, Reismann was a flunky, but he was a flunky that both Schaefer and Welles trusted. In early May, when Schaefer sent birthday greetings to Welles, a man he had placed immense trust in, he cabled: "DEAR ORSON MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY I KNOW YOU HAVE PROBLEMS BUT BE YOUR AGE." [Callow: pp 106-107.] In other words, the CEO of RKO was saying, you are no longer a boy. Take some responsibility for all of these unfinished undertakings.
That was clearly the message that Schaefer was having Reismann deliver personally. He was giving Welles one last chance to rap matters up and come home to deal with the other Mercury Unit problems. Reismann did have the authority to close out IT'S ALL TRUE. That's what his conversation with company man Armour was all about. But neither he nor Schaefer relished publicly humiliating Welles, whom both of them liked and admired.
Yes, Tony, I can tell you personally that you are justified in your consideration of "the youth market." That was really unknown in 1942, as we know it today, but suddenly 10,000,000 more or less mature men, out of a total American population of 110,000,000, were heading overseas. Tens of millions of other American men and women were at work, off the farm, out of the home, in war work. The people left behind were probably no more receptive to experimental films than they are today (even without the huge teen market). It was a sea change, which altered American Society forever after.
But even if that had not been the case, neither CITIZEN KANE, nor THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (in any version), would have been easily accepted fare. JOURNEY INTO FEAR would have been thought a little odd. AMBERSONS, in most people's estimation, would have fallen somewhere between that (what we would call today) thriller and THE LOVES OF EDGAR ALLAN POE (1942) -- I bet you've forgotten that one. Most people have.
I've often told the story of seeing CITIZEN KANE in 1941, at the age of ten. Afterward, nearly the whole audience (a good cross section then of the 2500 souls in my little Ohio town) was milling around in the lobby. Some were laughing and shaking their heads, some were angry and wanted their money back, but most were asking each other: "What was that all about." Identifying with the logic of little Charlie Kane, my explanation of "Rosebud" made quite a splash.
But people generally don't like what they don't understand, and that was the problem Welles understood all his life. He insisted on his standards, his conditions, and he strove to educate the populace. He obviously did not succeed sometimes, and only now can we see what a golden age he ushered in, how immense his influence was.
It's easy now for us Leonardo's
I would suggest, however, gentlemen, that in 1942, you two might have been arguing with others who was getting it right -- The Nation, The New York Times or Screenland?
Glenn
So we have no argument there, Todd, though I must say that the fog of paranoia becomes thick here at times. Reading a hundred memos, minutes of conversations (which the Reismann-Armour speculations were, BTW), or copies of telegrams -- all a hodge-podge, out of context -- leaves any conclusions open to systems of logic. I'm amused, my friend, that you who hold on grimly to the idea that Welles carefully observed the budgets of his projects, and all the RKO Executives were Byzantine bastards, see whole flocks of biographers and critics unreliable because they do not agree with your interpretations. If all biographers are "spin doctors" (a term everyone in 1942 would have publicly abhorred), does this mean that only your interpretations are valid?
Have not enough variables been turned up to suggest that, given circumstances, accounting practices, the business climate, the War, and volatile personalties, several "truths" are possible here? May only your assertions be accepted?
In your last line, you suggest a new villain to add to the RKO's Devils Brigade: Robert Wise. Aha! You may have something. Is it possible, in addition to his own duties, the company's wishes, he had personal reasons for not making the lonely flight to Rio? Most of the RKO crew down there were confused, fed up and disheartened; aside from a few who had "gone native" (as they liked to put), they felt trapped; they wanted to come home. The Government of Brazil and many of the people who had welcomed them were turning against them -- shouting at them, throwing beer bottles at them. Wise no doubt heard these reports from his colleagues. He was primarily a sound editor (why Welles liked him so much), new to film editing. His prospects for continuing as a film editor were precarious. His name was attached already to two controversial failures.
And, O yes, he was engaged to be married. In fact, on May 25, 1942, he married Patricia Doyle, the lady who would be his wife for over thirty years. It is unlikely that cost-cutting Koerner would have paid for a honeymoon in Rio.
You see, Todd, it is easy -- for anyone -- to bandy around pieces of paper without fully understanding the people underneath. And even there, we do not have a full record, no matter how many cables and memos are in the Lilly. (Callow says that fewer than forty cables survive, and that, according to Cy Enfield, Jack Moss regularly threw away batches of cable traffic daily without bothering to read them because he felt Welles was so out of touch.)
Todd, Tony: In the matter of the editing of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, all you say may be true. If Wise had flown down to Rio, been able to find Welles, sat down with him, and worked out the "finish" on the picture, it might be the masterpiece we imagine when we look at its muddled form today. Yes, Reismann was a flunky, but he was a flunky that both Schaefer and Welles trusted. In early May, when Schaefer sent birthday greetings to Welles, a man he had placed immense trust in, he cabled: "DEAR ORSON MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY I KNOW YOU HAVE PROBLEMS BUT BE YOUR AGE." [Callow: pp 106-107.] In other words, the CEO of RKO was saying, you are no longer a boy. Take some responsibility for all of these unfinished undertakings.
That was clearly the message that Schaefer was having Reismann deliver personally. He was giving Welles one last chance to rap matters up and come home to deal with the other Mercury Unit problems. Reismann did have the authority to close out IT'S ALL TRUE. That's what his conversation with company man Armour was all about. But neither he nor Schaefer relished publicly humiliating Welles, whom both of them liked and admired.
Yes, Tony, I can tell you personally that you are justified in your consideration of "the youth market." That was really unknown in 1942, as we know it today, but suddenly 10,000,000 more or less mature men, out of a total American population of 110,000,000, were heading overseas. Tens of millions of other American men and women were at work, off the farm, out of the home, in war work. The people left behind were probably no more receptive to experimental films than they are today (even without the huge teen market). It was a sea change, which altered American Society forever after.
But even if that had not been the case, neither CITIZEN KANE, nor THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (in any version), would have been easily accepted fare. JOURNEY INTO FEAR would have been thought a little odd. AMBERSONS, in most people's estimation, would have fallen somewhere between that (what we would call today) thriller and THE LOVES OF EDGAR ALLAN POE (1942) -- I bet you've forgotten that one. Most people have.
I've often told the story of seeing CITIZEN KANE in 1941, at the age of ten. Afterward, nearly the whole audience (a good cross section then of the 2500 souls in my little Ohio town) was milling around in the lobby. Some were laughing and shaking their heads, some were angry and wanted their money back, but most were asking each other: "What was that all about." Identifying with the logic of little Charlie Kane, my explanation of "Rosebud" made quite a splash.
But people generally don't like what they don't understand, and that was the problem Welles understood all his life. He insisted on his standards, his conditions, and he strove to educate the populace. He obviously did not succeed sometimes, and only now can we see what a golden age he ushered in, how immense his influence was.
It's easy now for us Leonardo's
I would suggest, however, gentlemen, that in 1942, you two might have been arguing with others who was getting it right -- The Nation, The New York Times or Screenland?
Glenn
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
Glenn:
I agree totally that several truths can be deduced by a reading of the memos. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
I disagree with biographers like Higham who have read and presented portions of those memos and claim that Welles was over budget when he was fired from IT'S ALL TRUE. This point is also made by McBride in his new book.
Now, I believe that you claim RKO was justified in pulling out of the project, because Welles was going over budget, partially basing this on Schaefer's letter to Welles saying they had already spent $400,000 on BONITA. However the hard facts in RKO's record books, and also the final budget figures quoted by Richard Wilson simply do not agree with that.
So you can choose to believe Schaefer, or you can believe Wilson and the actual studio budget records. I chose to believe the latter.
Also, I never said Welles carefully observed his budgets. The same RKO records clearly indicate he did go over budget on both KANE and AMBERSONS.
But perhaps this kind of playing loosely with the facts is why you embrace David Thomson's work so eagerly, since it's a trait Mr. Thomson can do so imaginatively.
I agree totally that several truths can be deduced by a reading of the memos. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
I disagree with biographers like Higham who have read and presented portions of those memos and claim that Welles was over budget when he was fired from IT'S ALL TRUE. This point is also made by McBride in his new book.
Now, I believe that you claim RKO was justified in pulling out of the project, because Welles was going over budget, partially basing this on Schaefer's letter to Welles saying they had already spent $400,000 on BONITA. However the hard facts in RKO's record books, and also the final budget figures quoted by Richard Wilson simply do not agree with that.
So you can choose to believe Schaefer, or you can believe Wilson and the actual studio budget records. I chose to believe the latter.
Also, I never said Welles carefully observed his budgets. The same RKO records clearly indicate he did go over budget on both KANE and AMBERSONS.
But perhaps this kind of playing loosely with the facts is why you embrace David Thomson's work so eagerly, since it's a trait Mr. Thomson can do so imaginatively.
Todd
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
I'm afraid, Todd, you've granted the fatal point in debate and rhetoric.
Because you choose to accept what you concede may not be the complete record, you sacrifice your position of omniscience.
Actually, I do not think any of the biographers I've read so far are above reproach in their presentation of records and sources. Callow, in Hello Americans, comes closest.
You do not recognize still the incontrovertible principle that, no matter what were the facts, RKO had reason, by the haphazard way the Mercury Unit was being run from February to August 1942, to have fears that their bankruptcy position was going to be much worse as a result of its association with Orson Welles.
This conclusion has nothing to to with my belief in the aims and nobility of Orson Welles' work.
At least, I find you more reasonable and compassionate than Larry French.
But then . . .
You might require that I ply you with more expensive Gin.
Glenn
Because you choose to accept what you concede may not be the complete record, you sacrifice your position of omniscience.
Actually, I do not think any of the biographers I've read so far are above reproach in their presentation of records and sources. Callow, in Hello Americans, comes closest.
You do not recognize still the incontrovertible principle that, no matter what were the facts, RKO had reason, by the haphazard way the Mercury Unit was being run from February to August 1942, to have fears that their bankruptcy position was going to be much worse as a result of its association with Orson Welles.
This conclusion has nothing to to with my belief in the aims and nobility of Orson Welles' work.
At least, I find you more reasonable and compassionate than Larry French.
But then . . .
You might require that I ply you with more expensive Gin.
Glenn
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
Glenn:
Now I know what may be at the root of our problem... you are trying to write these posts like Orson Welles when he was doing his infamous champange commercial. Only instead of too much champange you've been imbibing too much Gin and Scotch. I'm sure are distingushed moderator, Mr. French will chastise you for being drunk online. But it's alright. As OW as Winston Churchill says, "tomorrow morning I'll be sober..."
Seriously, though, you say that I "do not recognize the incontrovertible principle that, no matter what were the facts, RKO had reason, by the haphazard way the Mercury Unit was being run from February to August 1942, to have fears that their bankruptcy position was going to be much worse as a result of its association with Orson Welles."
I'm afraid you've not been paying attention, because that, once again is a point we agree on. This is why I think Schaefer changed his mind about AMBERSONS. He was initially quite impressed by AMBERSONS (see my post about his first response to the film). I suggest that it was only after the bad previews of AMBERSONS that Schaefer realized RKO was in serious trouble with AMBERSONS and IT'S ALL TRUE.
Since Welles was in Rio and IT'S ALL TRUE might easily spiral out of control, that was certainly another red flag for Schaefer, since as we agree, Welles HAD gone over budget on both KANE and AMBERSONS and Schaefer realized IT'S ALL TRUE was certainly the most non-commercial film of the trio.
So Schaefer naturally wanted to pull the plug on IT'S ALL TRUE. But my main point is the simple fact which you cannot or will not accept: When Schaefer pulled the plug on IT'S ALL TRUE Welles was NOT over budget. So if you want to say Welles was throwing away money in Rio, or was drunk, or was sending back unusable footage, fine. But based on my reading of the facts, Welles was NOT over budget.
However, RKO spent quite a bit of time and energy promoting that story, and it's a story that essential haunted Welles the rest of his life. That is why, in my opinion, it is quite important to discredit this story. We know and agree that Welles went over budget on both KANE and AMBERSONS. But RKO didn't cancel either of those pictures and put out press stories that they were over budget. But they did do that about IT'S ALL TRUE, since it wouldn't make sense for RKO to not complete a film that was under budget. But it would make make sense to cancel it if it was a film that was over budget. Sadly Welles own escapades in Rio allowed RKO to make this story seem like it was true. But by this time, when Schaefer was gone, RKO's ultimate goal was simply to "get rid of Orson Welles" and this non-commercial film, whatever the cost.
Now I know what may be at the root of our problem... you are trying to write these posts like Orson Welles when he was doing his infamous champange commercial. Only instead of too much champange you've been imbibing too much Gin and Scotch. I'm sure are distingushed moderator, Mr. French will chastise you for being drunk online. But it's alright. As OW as Winston Churchill says, "tomorrow morning I'll be sober..."
Seriously, though, you say that I "do not recognize the incontrovertible principle that, no matter what were the facts, RKO had reason, by the haphazard way the Mercury Unit was being run from February to August 1942, to have fears that their bankruptcy position was going to be much worse as a result of its association with Orson Welles."
I'm afraid you've not been paying attention, because that, once again is a point we agree on. This is why I think Schaefer changed his mind about AMBERSONS. He was initially quite impressed by AMBERSONS (see my post about his first response to the film). I suggest that it was only after the bad previews of AMBERSONS that Schaefer realized RKO was in serious trouble with AMBERSONS and IT'S ALL TRUE.
Since Welles was in Rio and IT'S ALL TRUE might easily spiral out of control, that was certainly another red flag for Schaefer, since as we agree, Welles HAD gone over budget on both KANE and AMBERSONS and Schaefer realized IT'S ALL TRUE was certainly the most non-commercial film of the trio.
So Schaefer naturally wanted to pull the plug on IT'S ALL TRUE. But my main point is the simple fact which you cannot or will not accept: When Schaefer pulled the plug on IT'S ALL TRUE Welles was NOT over budget. So if you want to say Welles was throwing away money in Rio, or was drunk, or was sending back unusable footage, fine. But based on my reading of the facts, Welles was NOT over budget.
However, RKO spent quite a bit of time and energy promoting that story, and it's a story that essential haunted Welles the rest of his life. That is why, in my opinion, it is quite important to discredit this story. We know and agree that Welles went over budget on both KANE and AMBERSONS. But RKO didn't cancel either of those pictures and put out press stories that they were over budget. But they did do that about IT'S ALL TRUE, since it wouldn't make sense for RKO to not complete a film that was under budget. But it would make make sense to cancel it if it was a film that was over budget. Sadly Welles own escapades in Rio allowed RKO to make this story seem like it was true. But by this time, when Schaefer was gone, RKO's ultimate goal was simply to "get rid of Orson Welles" and this non-commercial film, whatever the cost.
Todd
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
You see, Todd? You ARE much more amenable after receiving that quart of Ha-Ra Club Deluxe English Dry Gin I sent you!
We have now ginned this argument down to damp sawdust, or that rasp which comes occasionally from the "Voice of Cornstarch." [He must have read McBride's book, huh?] Anyway, I do NOT say that Welles was throwing away money down in Rio. I do say that if he had continued to film IT'S ALL TRUE as he eventually conceptualized it, dealing with at least half a dozen countries in South America, he would have spent a sum considerably over any budget projected when his film armada flew and sailed off for points south.
I do NOT say that Welles was always drunk in Rio, although he was some of the time. I do say that his filming methods appear to have been something like the colonizing of the Conquistadores. He rented, leased, borrowed or commandeered sites, set part of his crew in one, two to three of them, and then marched away to conquer new worlds, leaving the technicians, assistant directors, and minor execs to deal with the details, and many of them bitterly complaining about how little was being accomplished, the time it was taking, the lousy weather, and that they did not understand what they were in Brazil for.
I do NOT say he was sending back unusable footage. But I do say, since there does not seem to have been a coherent scenario until near the end the six months, and much of the shot footage was with Welles in Rio, what he had sent back may not have SEEMED usable.
And so, if we may add the $150,000 that JOURNEY INTO FEAR was over budget to your accounting, plus an estimate of what costs were encurred by the the other Mercury Unit Personnel back in Hollywood during Welles' unexpectedly long absence, we shall have come into almost perfect agreement.
Ole! [or whatever they say in Brazil.]
Glenn
We have now ginned this argument down to damp sawdust, or that rasp which comes occasionally from the "Voice of Cornstarch." [He must have read McBride's book, huh?] Anyway, I do NOT say that Welles was throwing away money down in Rio. I do say that if he had continued to film IT'S ALL TRUE as he eventually conceptualized it, dealing with at least half a dozen countries in South America, he would have spent a sum considerably over any budget projected when his film armada flew and sailed off for points south.
I do NOT say that Welles was always drunk in Rio, although he was some of the time. I do say that his filming methods appear to have been something like the colonizing of the Conquistadores. He rented, leased, borrowed or commandeered sites, set part of his crew in one, two to three of them, and then marched away to conquer new worlds, leaving the technicians, assistant directors, and minor execs to deal with the details, and many of them bitterly complaining about how little was being accomplished, the time it was taking, the lousy weather, and that they did not understand what they were in Brazil for.
I do NOT say he was sending back unusable footage. But I do say, since there does not seem to have been a coherent scenario until near the end the six months, and much of the shot footage was with Welles in Rio, what he had sent back may not have SEEMED usable.
And so, if we may add the $150,000 that JOURNEY INTO FEAR was over budget to your accounting, plus an estimate of what costs were encurred by the the other Mercury Unit Personnel back in Hollywood during Welles' unexpectedly long absence, we shall have come into almost perfect agreement.
Ole! [or whatever they say in Brazil.]
Glenn
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
-
Roger Ryan
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:09 am
First off - I have no additional info on Robert Meltzer (sorry Glenn).
As to "Ambersons", I've revised my prior post to clarify that I don't think Koerner directly altered the film during its initial previews; Koerner's influence on Schaefer may definitely have played a role. Looking at the existing documents, however, I have to think that Callow or his sources have the information wrong regarding the initial cutting and previewing of the film. Wise had already completed a finished 131 min. version of "Ambersons" prior to Thursday, March 12th. He wires Welles on Monday, March 16th to say that Schaefer had requested a surprise screening for Koerner and other executives. Why does Callow claim the running time for the private screening is 148 min. when the 131 min. version had already been completed? Did Wise screen an earlier rough cut for some reason? If Schaefer then asked about cutting the film down, wouldn't Wise's response be that he and Welles had already cut the film down by 17 minutes? I think Callow must be mistaken about the 148 min. running time in the same way he mistakenly claims that the Ponoma preview version was 131 minutes. According to Callow, Wise claims that Schaefer asked him to prepare an edit of "Ambersons" for Tuesday, March 17th (the Ponoma preview date) removing both porch scenes and the factory scene. But according to Jack Moss' telegram to Welles on Monday, March 23rd, that's the version that played in Pasedena on Thursday, March 19th (this version was also missing the scene between George and Jack in the bathroom, had its final third resequenced and had part of the closing boarding house scene removed). The same telegram reports that the Tuesday night Ponoma version contained the factory scene, but removed the first porch scene and all of the scenes between Isabel receiving Eugene's letter and the night of her death according to Welles' wishes, making the running time around 110 minutes. By comparison, the Pasedena version running time is estimated to be around 117 minutes, so Schaefer was actually requesting Wise to put more footage back into the film than Welles was requesting earlier that week! Supposedly the preview comments report lists the Ponoma version running time to be 131 min. (which is probably where Callow got this statistic), but this information had already been declared erroneous by Robert Carringer back in 1993.
As to the climax on the hotel ledge in "Journey Into Fear", Welles may have had a hand in directing it, but he did not edit or re-edit the scene as is evidenced by the existing early version of the film released in August, 1942. The scene is cut the same in both the early version and in the Welles-reworked version which saw release in February, 1943. Personally, I feel the climax is poorly cut and does little justice to the way the scene is described in the shooting script.
Ultimately, I guess these posts are more about the unreliability of Welles' biographers than anything. It would be nice if a book like Callow's could build on what has been uncovered before instead of repeating old errors or creating new ones. At the same time, perhaps only fanatics like myself are troubled by these kind of lapses; I'm sure Callow's book is a good read overall and I look forward to actually purchasing it!
As to "Ambersons", I've revised my prior post to clarify that I don't think Koerner directly altered the film during its initial previews; Koerner's influence on Schaefer may definitely have played a role. Looking at the existing documents, however, I have to think that Callow or his sources have the information wrong regarding the initial cutting and previewing of the film. Wise had already completed a finished 131 min. version of "Ambersons" prior to Thursday, March 12th. He wires Welles on Monday, March 16th to say that Schaefer had requested a surprise screening for Koerner and other executives. Why does Callow claim the running time for the private screening is 148 min. when the 131 min. version had already been completed? Did Wise screen an earlier rough cut for some reason? If Schaefer then asked about cutting the film down, wouldn't Wise's response be that he and Welles had already cut the film down by 17 minutes? I think Callow must be mistaken about the 148 min. running time in the same way he mistakenly claims that the Ponoma preview version was 131 minutes. According to Callow, Wise claims that Schaefer asked him to prepare an edit of "Ambersons" for Tuesday, March 17th (the Ponoma preview date) removing both porch scenes and the factory scene. But according to Jack Moss' telegram to Welles on Monday, March 23rd, that's the version that played in Pasedena on Thursday, March 19th (this version was also missing the scene between George and Jack in the bathroom, had its final third resequenced and had part of the closing boarding house scene removed). The same telegram reports that the Tuesday night Ponoma version contained the factory scene, but removed the first porch scene and all of the scenes between Isabel receiving Eugene's letter and the night of her death according to Welles' wishes, making the running time around 110 minutes. By comparison, the Pasedena version running time is estimated to be around 117 minutes, so Schaefer was actually requesting Wise to put more footage back into the film than Welles was requesting earlier that week! Supposedly the preview comments report lists the Ponoma version running time to be 131 min. (which is probably where Callow got this statistic), but this information had already been declared erroneous by Robert Carringer back in 1993.
As to the climax on the hotel ledge in "Journey Into Fear", Welles may have had a hand in directing it, but he did not edit or re-edit the scene as is evidenced by the existing early version of the film released in August, 1942. The scene is cut the same in both the early version and in the Welles-reworked version which saw release in February, 1943. Personally, I feel the climax is poorly cut and does little justice to the way the scene is described in the shooting script.
Ultimately, I guess these posts are more about the unreliability of Welles' biographers than anything. It would be nice if a book like Callow's could build on what has been uncovered before instead of repeating old errors or creating new ones. At the same time, perhaps only fanatics like myself are troubled by these kind of lapses; I'm sure Callow's book is a good read overall and I look forward to actually purchasing it!