Welles at Yale

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:02 pm

Unlike the young Charlie Kane, they aren't interested in "philanthropic enterprises." Lucas has become the sort of corporate entity which American Zoetrope opposed, and I love that quote in Reconstructing Evil where he calls Touch of Evil an "odd film," with a look of confoundment and disapproval on his face. And Spielberg, who knows, maybe he's still pissed off about that fraudulent Rosebud sled he bought, or that apocryphal dinner he had with Welles, when he walked out and stuck Welles with the bill.

Actually, the NEA should be the one to fund the fucking thing. I'd love to see those creatures in Congress on C-Span debate a $4 million dollar spending bill to complete a 1970s Orson Welles film.

Glenn Anders · Post by **Glenn Anders** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:14 am

Hadj: I don't think we need to bring Congress into this discussion, at least not until January.

But I think you are right about Lucas and Spielberg, in general. They seem to have been for the great directors only because they were not sitting around with Jack Warner and L.B. Mayer. Once they warmed those seats, they have looked upon creative directors just as the Moguls did.

Let's hope some people at the the Yale conference have some juice.

I think we can forget George and Steve, at this point.

Glenn

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am

I was being polite when I called them creatures, no matter which tribe is in charge. Still, I would think that the NEA should be interested in preserving an American treasure. With its mission "to enrich our Nation and its diverse cultural heritage by supporting works of artistic excellence" and its annual budget of $121 million, I don't see why not. Maybe Wellesnet could draft a letter to chairman Dana Gioia.

ToddBaesen · Post by **ToddBaesen** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:54 pm

The thing about Lucas and Spielberg is they wouldn't even have to spend any of their own money. For instance, Lucas convinced Fox to back Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA when that film was in financial trouble. FOX having made a bundle with STAR WARS naturally found it easy enough to come up with a few million to buy the U.S. rights.

Likewise, Spielberg could go to Paramount, epecially now that Dreamworks movies are being distributed by them and say, "why don't we put out this Orson Welles movie that Showtime is trying to buy." Then he wouldn't have to keep buying Welles memorablia. He could be the presenter, or even owner of an actual Orson Welles movie.

Maybe he'd even want to get involved creatively and add a new "happy ending" to the movie... I'm sure that would make it much more commercial. After all, look how much he "improved" Stanley Kubick's bleak vision in A.I.

Actually, Spielberg apparently got quite a thrill just from seeing his name alongside Stanley Kubrick's on the posters for A.I., so imagine what it would be like for such an egomaniac to be able see a poster that says:

"Steven Spielberg presents A FILM BY ORSON WELLES."

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:46 pm

That's just evil, Todd. I hope not ever to see that.

What did Spielberg do to AI? He's credited with writing the screenplay, and I was always curious whether Kubrick had written one, one which Spielberg didn't use. Things do get sappy in the last act, and there are some truly dreadful things in that movie, but some very good things as well.

Roger Ryan · Post by **Roger Ryan** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:10 pm

Reportedly, Spielberg's "A.I." screenplay was based on a lengthy treatment concocted by Kubrick and Ian Watson. According to Kubrick right-hand man (and brother-in-law) Jan Harlan, Spielberg did soften some aspects such as the character of Gigolo Joe (originally conceived as a much darker, sexual character), but the general story arc is mostly Kubrick's. There was the published account (prior to the film even being made) of Kubrick and Watson arguing over the inclusion of the "Blue Fairy" with Kubrick insisting on it even though Watson felt it was overly sentimental. The art design is mostly what Kubrick had developed for the film and, apparently, even the choice of using Ministry as the futuristic rock band was Kubrick's. Personally, I think Spielberg did a commendable job with his adaptation and would disagree that he forced a "happy ending" on the film (the fact that the human race is extinct by film's end kind of puts a damper on the supposed "feel good" denouement).