"I can't think of another Hollywood figure who has had so much attention."
Peter, you seem surprised by this.
What do Welles fans have in common?
-
tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
I think of English directors, Welles has had the most books published about him. And Kane and Welles have jointly topped the Sight and Sound polls for 50 years. So there must be something driving all this...but it is NOT mass popularity and apeal, that's for sure. Most people I've talked to, if they've seen a Welles film at all, have only seen Kane, and they have found it very boring. (I showed Arkadin to my family once and have not been allowed to show another Welles film since: there was mass revulsion). So who are writing all these books and voting for him in the polls, and why? And who is posting on this site- and why? Are they the same kind of people?
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
-
tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
Glenn: your response to my question has nothing to do with my question, which was a serious one: "what do those who love Welles have in common, what do they share?". Nowhere did I say I was bored by Welles, and your insulting me and my family just reaffirms what I've always known about you: you are an intelligent man who unfortunately has little sensitivity towards others and a regrettable 'superiority' complex. Any reasonable person reading your above post would know that you have some problem, some aggressive tendency. I thought you had improved lately, but I guess you've had a relapse.
-
Skylark
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:27 pm
Hey thanks for supplying the Welles reference Keats - interesting piece - I actually think Steve Ditko suffers from the same type of public (mis)perception in the comic book field that Orson Welles suffers in mainstream US media -i.e. the perception of his decline methinks are predicated on similar mercantile mainstream criteria that Welles is judged by.
Ditko's own written creations, often done with independant publishers, even though I don't have an unconditional enthusiasm for, I do feel have a depth of thought and seriousness of intent that deserve a more academic analysis than it gets in this work (he has garnered a few more serious-minded articles here and there). Although I think that the comparison is apt - Ditko was doing commercial projects in order to finance his little-seen self-published personal works in the same way that Welles was doing commercials and such to finance his directing efforts; both being mavericks whose more personal efforts that did not garner widespread commercial success.
Ditko's own written creations, often done with independant publishers, even though I don't have an unconditional enthusiasm for, I do feel have a depth of thought and seriousness of intent that deserve a more academic analysis than it gets in this work (he has garnered a few more serious-minded articles here and there). Although I think that the comparison is apt - Ditko was doing commercial projects in order to finance his little-seen self-published personal works in the same way that Welles was doing commercials and such to finance his directing efforts; both being mavericks whose more personal efforts that did not garner widespread commercial success.
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
Tony:
I don't blame you for being angry at Glenn's reply, because you clearly state it was your friends and family who were "bored" by Welles, and not you.
However, in Glenn's defense, I can attest he is actually quite a humane person, and I doubt he meant to insult you or you family. But, having said that, I would also say he certainly owes you an apology for what I assume was merely a "mis-reading" of your post on his part...
Anyway, you comments about your friends and family "banning" Welles's movies from their sight struck me, as it goes to the heart of one of my own theories about Welles, and why his films were so rarely (i.e. almost never) successful at the box-office. They are usually quite difficult and complex to the average movie-goer - although in the end, they are extremely rewarding. But the point is, you have to be thinking and paying a great deal of attention when you are watching an Orson Welles film, especially if you want to enjoy it. I myself don't think I ever really "liked" any Welles movie on my first viewing (except THE STRANGER), in the sense that most people going to movies "like" them - as entertainments. Of course, directors like Hitchcock, Ford and Hawks could make movies that were accessible to a mass audience, but Welles never seemed to have that gift, even when he was working in a commercial genre. Naturally, when he was working with Shakespeare or Kafka, he was even farther in the realm of the art house audience. I myself recall falling fast asleep about half way through THE TRIAL, the first time I saw it.
No doubt that would mirror many people's reactions, especially those who go to movies primarily to be entertained, or who don't like to be challenged. Welles, of course, demands that an audience meet him at least half-way, which means for many people - and let's face it - the majority of moviegoers, you would have to see his pictures more than once to truly appreciate them. But most people don't want to sit through a picture they found boring for a second time - especially if they are paying for it! So while I don't agree with it, I can fully understand the viewpoint of people who don't care to see a Welles movie.
I don't blame you for being angry at Glenn's reply, because you clearly state it was your friends and family who were "bored" by Welles, and not you.
However, in Glenn's defense, I can attest he is actually quite a humane person, and I doubt he meant to insult you or you family. But, having said that, I would also say he certainly owes you an apology for what I assume was merely a "mis-reading" of your post on his part...
Anyway, you comments about your friends and family "banning" Welles's movies from their sight struck me, as it goes to the heart of one of my own theories about Welles, and why his films were so rarely (i.e. almost never) successful at the box-office. They are usually quite difficult and complex to the average movie-goer - although in the end, they are extremely rewarding. But the point is, you have to be thinking and paying a great deal of attention when you are watching an Orson Welles film, especially if you want to enjoy it. I myself don't think I ever really "liked" any Welles movie on my first viewing (except THE STRANGER), in the sense that most people going to movies "like" them - as entertainments. Of course, directors like Hitchcock, Ford and Hawks could make movies that were accessible to a mass audience, but Welles never seemed to have that gift, even when he was working in a commercial genre. Naturally, when he was working with Shakespeare or Kafka, he was even farther in the realm of the art house audience. I myself recall falling fast asleep about half way through THE TRIAL, the first time I saw it.
No doubt that would mirror many people's reactions, especially those who go to movies primarily to be entertained, or who don't like to be challenged. Welles, of course, demands that an audience meet him at least half-way, which means for many people - and let's face it - the majority of moviegoers, you would have to see his pictures more than once to truly appreciate them. But most people don't want to sit through a picture they found boring for a second time - especially if they are paying for it! So while I don't agree with it, I can fully understand the viewpoint of people who don't care to see a Welles movie.
Todd
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Tony: I've just re-read my response to your post, and you are absolutely correct. I don't exactly know what set me off, some reference to MR. ARKADIN, possibly. But I was absolutely, off the wall!
I apologize, profusely.
[I study your remarks, and study them anew. I think my response only deals with some misinterpretation of your last couple of sentences, after actually not being able to stay on long enough with Todd to go to The Ha-Ra Club. A couple of Carl's Gin Gimlets would have taken care of me, probably sent me off to bed before replying to you. I'm depressed, I think.]
[I think, now a little later, that I've figured it out. I was alternately conflating a response to a post by keats, switching back and forth. That still doesn't make much sense, but that's what seems to have happened in my noir-crazed brain that evening.]
In answer to your question, Tony, part of this rejection of Welles must be generational. Welles' films are almost all in black and white, stark, confrontational, dealing with big subjects, and full of performances which, today, may seem to modern audiences, "over the top." In other words, Welles does not appeal to the last couple of generations of hedonists, who sneer at the true "big picture," and are only concerned with black and white over-simplification, not black and white pictures, but little color-drained or crayon-colored "indies" about "relationships." It is Ayn Rand, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, comics, video games, and a return to "robber baronism" which, above and beyond the above concerns, have appealed to them. In other words, the New Fascism, not what are called now "progressive politics" and humane values.
Todd Baesen put it very well. ". . . most people don't want to sit through a picture they found boring for a second time - especially if they are paying for it! So while I don't agree with it, I can fully understand the viewpoint of people who don't care to see a Welles movie."
And especially, when people like us are insisting that it is a "masterpiece!" (if they will give it time to sink in), and that Welles foresaw everything from the Modern American Theater to the Colbert Report and the coming of 9/11 (even if it may be true).
Anyway, I apologize to Tony and everyone for this one!
Glenn
I apologize, profusely.
[I study your remarks, and study them anew. I think my response only deals with some misinterpretation of your last couple of sentences, after actually not being able to stay on long enough with Todd to go to The Ha-Ra Club. A couple of Carl's Gin Gimlets would have taken care of me, probably sent me off to bed before replying to you. I'm depressed, I think.]
[I think, now a little later, that I've figured it out. I was alternately conflating a response to a post by keats, switching back and forth. That still doesn't make much sense, but that's what seems to have happened in my noir-crazed brain that evening.]
In answer to your question, Tony, part of this rejection of Welles must be generational. Welles' films are almost all in black and white, stark, confrontational, dealing with big subjects, and full of performances which, today, may seem to modern audiences, "over the top." In other words, Welles does not appeal to the last couple of generations of hedonists, who sneer at the true "big picture," and are only concerned with black and white over-simplification, not black and white pictures, but little color-drained or crayon-colored "indies" about "relationships." It is Ayn Rand, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, comics, video games, and a return to "robber baronism" which, above and beyond the above concerns, have appealed to them. In other words, the New Fascism, not what are called now "progressive politics" and humane values.
Todd Baesen put it very well. ". . . most people don't want to sit through a picture they found boring for a second time - especially if they are paying for it! So while I don't agree with it, I can fully understand the viewpoint of people who don't care to see a Welles movie."
And especially, when people like us are insisting that it is a "masterpiece!" (if they will give it time to sink in), and that Welles foresaw everything from the Modern American Theater to the Colbert Report and the coming of 9/11 (even if it may be true).
Anyway, I apologize to Tony and everyone for this one!
Glenn
-
tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
Apology accepted, Glenn.
Todd and Glenn: My point, as I said, is a serious one: why are most people bored by Welles, but a few aren't? Are we an 'intellectual elite', or is there some quality which appeals to only a mnority, while leaving others cold? My family are an intelligent and well-educated bunch, but they do not like Welles. I have one friend who likes Welles, but only up to Chimes. Welles is hard-going for most people, as you mentioned,Todd. So why:
"... of English directors, Welles has had the most books published about him. And Kane and Welles have jointly topped the Sight and Sound polls for 50 years. So there must be something driving all this...but it is NOT mass popularity and apeal, that's for sure... So who are writing all these books and voting for him in the polls, and why? And who is posting on this site- and why? Are they the same kind of people?"
I think Welles was tortured by his lack of appeal to the masses as well; I recall in that college appearance he said "You are looking at a man who has always wanted a mass audience."
Was he ahead of his time? Does he only appeal to the intellectual elite? Does he only appeal to people with intellectual pretensions? Are we just pompous windbags, or something more?
What does Welles offer us that no other director offers us?
Todd and Glenn: My point, as I said, is a serious one: why are most people bored by Welles, but a few aren't? Are we an 'intellectual elite', or is there some quality which appeals to only a mnority, while leaving others cold? My family are an intelligent and well-educated bunch, but they do not like Welles. I have one friend who likes Welles, but only up to Chimes. Welles is hard-going for most people, as you mentioned,Todd. So why:
"... of English directors, Welles has had the most books published about him. And Kane and Welles have jointly topped the Sight and Sound polls for 50 years. So there must be something driving all this...but it is NOT mass popularity and apeal, that's for sure... So who are writing all these books and voting for him in the polls, and why? And who is posting on this site- and why? Are they the same kind of people?"
I think Welles was tortured by his lack of appeal to the masses as well; I recall in that college appearance he said "You are looking at a man who has always wanted a mass audience."
Was he ahead of his time? Does he only appeal to the intellectual elite? Does he only appeal to people with intellectual pretensions? Are we just pompous windbags, or something more?
What does Welles offer us that no other director offers us?
-
Harvey Chartrand
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
I direct your attention to several articles on Steve Ditko at Steve Bissette's excellent MYRANT blogsite – notably "Ditko Tales, Apocryphal and Otherwise…" at http://srbissette.com/?p=1751 – Bissette's column sprang from a reading of Blake Bell's "Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko" mentioned earlier on this thread.
MYRANT home page is at http://srbissette.com/
(Check August 2008 Archives for more articles referencing Ditko's work...)
I also recommend with unreserved enthusiasm Bissette's highly original, deeply researched and richly detailed genre film criticism.
Bissette's revelations about the conditions that prevailed in the mainstream American comic book industry during Ditko's heyday are very depressing. Great comic book artists like Ditko and Jack Kirby were disrespected by publishers/editors, underpaid and generally treated like serfs.
Reminds me of the fate of the vast majority of freelance writers; many realize too late that they should have stuck with the nine-to-five writing job that provided a regular salary and benefits, along with humane treatment and paid medical leave. A stable future, in other words...
Didn't maverick/freelancer Welles die broke or close to it? Not much to show for all those years of hard work except a lot of great memories. But try financing a movie project or paying the rent with pleasant memories. (And they weren't all pleasant by any means, as Welles demeaned himself in often fruitless attempts to self-finance his pictures.)
MYRANT home page is at http://srbissette.com/
(Check August 2008 Archives for more articles referencing Ditko's work...)
I also recommend with unreserved enthusiasm Bissette's highly original, deeply researched and richly detailed genre film criticism.
Bissette's revelations about the conditions that prevailed in the mainstream American comic book industry during Ditko's heyday are very depressing. Great comic book artists like Ditko and Jack Kirby were disrespected by publishers/editors, underpaid and generally treated like serfs.
Reminds me of the fate of the vast majority of freelance writers; many realize too late that they should have stuck with the nine-to-five writing job that provided a regular salary and benefits, along with humane treatment and paid medical leave. A stable future, in other words...
Didn't maverick/freelancer Welles die broke or close to it? Not much to show for all those years of hard work except a lot of great memories. But try financing a movie project or paying the rent with pleasant memories. (And they weren't all pleasant by any means, as Welles demeaned himself in often fruitless attempts to self-finance his pictures.)
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Very true, Harvey.
But if we go back before "The Age of Reagan," the majority of important writers and artists wanted to live on their own terms; they did not want "to sell out." They may not have known they were going against an historical tide, but they did know "where it was at," in an ethical sense. That new historical tide gradually led to an America where 80% of the citizenry bought the Bush & Co catastrophic Project for a New American Century, and where, according to a recent survey, over 71% of Americans who regard themselves as Christians (in themselves a majority of 75%) felt their faith in Jesus was reflected in their financial success.
[May they still be able to take that to the bank, if there is one, in the next couple of years.]
And there, you have it, Harvey. God predetermined Welles and some of us to be damned to impecuniousness.
*****
And Tony, we may be "pompous windbags," but I do think that Welles offers us and others (if we will sit still for it) a harsh, unflinching vision of honesty about the way the World works. It is hard to find in recent popular arts intelligent forms which reach out to us with that kind of truth. But most people don't find themselves "entertained" by such a vision.
I was just reading a chapter on Shakespeare by Harold Bloom (speaking of writers some, including myself occasionally, find a pompous windbag), who quotes Welles as saying that Hamlet did not die in Denmark but was spirited back to England, where he grew fat and changed his name to Falstaff. Bloom suggests that no more harsh and unsentimental self-criticism might be leveled by one who was once regarded as a romantic matinee idol, a hero of his people, and an example of American intellectual genius.
Many of us do not like to admit that we have gone somewhere else, grown fat, and become not romantic or even tragic heroes but increasingly unimportant buffoons.
Glenn
But if we go back before "The Age of Reagan," the majority of important writers and artists wanted to live on their own terms; they did not want "to sell out." They may not have known they were going against an historical tide, but they did know "where it was at," in an ethical sense. That new historical tide gradually led to an America where 80% of the citizenry bought the Bush & Co catastrophic Project for a New American Century, and where, according to a recent survey, over 71% of Americans who regard themselves as Christians (in themselves a majority of 75%) felt their faith in Jesus was reflected in their financial success.
[May they still be able to take that to the bank, if there is one, in the next couple of years.]
And there, you have it, Harvey. God predetermined Welles and some of us to be damned to impecuniousness.
*****
And Tony, we may be "pompous windbags," but I do think that Welles offers us and others (if we will sit still for it) a harsh, unflinching vision of honesty about the way the World works. It is hard to find in recent popular arts intelligent forms which reach out to us with that kind of truth. But most people don't find themselves "entertained" by such a vision.
I was just reading a chapter on Shakespeare by Harold Bloom (speaking of writers some, including myself occasionally, find a pompous windbag), who quotes Welles as saying that Hamlet did not die in Denmark but was spirited back to England, where he grew fat and changed his name to Falstaff. Bloom suggests that no more harsh and unsentimental self-criticism might be leveled by one who was once regarded as a romantic matinee idol, a hero of his people, and an example of American intellectual genius.
Many of us do not like to admit that we have gone somewhere else, grown fat, and become not romantic or even tragic heroes but increasingly unimportant buffoons.
Glenn
-
tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
Harvey and Glenn: thanks to both of you for your insights and info.
Glenn: Hamlet might have turned into Falstaff, but Welles didn't consider Falstaff a pompous windbag; as you know, he considered him not only Shakespeares best character but his best man, indeed the best man in English literature, whose vices were only christmas tree ornmants on a beautiful tree: indeed, Shakespeares's greatest hero.
Perhaps we are baby Christmas trees.
Glenn: Hamlet might have turned into Falstaff, but Welles didn't consider Falstaff a pompous windbag; as you know, he considered him not only Shakespeares best character but his best man, indeed the best man in English literature, whose vices were only christmas tree ornmants on a beautiful tree: indeed, Shakespeares's greatest hero.
Perhaps we are baby Christmas trees.
-
Skylark
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:27 pm
Some nice comments on Ditko on Steve Bissette's blog - here's an interesting revue from the LA Times -
http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/newBKla3.pdf
The artist himself is quite Wellesian - i.e. film noir elements, sense of the grotesque/ surreal, dystopic scenarios, moralistic outlook, started doing free-form essay type stories in the 70's, ...
http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/newBKla3.pdf
The artist himself is quite Wellesian - i.e. film noir elements, sense of the grotesque/ surreal, dystopic scenarios, moralistic outlook, started doing free-form essay type stories in the 70's, ...
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
What do Welles fans have in common?
Hey, Tony, you got it! I agree, my man.
But Bloom is putting Welles' remark in a more cutting context when he calls the observation a "harsh self-criticism." [That may be a paraphrase.] Welles did not say that, "Hamlet excaped, went to England, changed his name to Fallstaff, and became Shakespeare's (and England's) greatest hero." He does not say (not just right there, at least) that Fallstaff was "the best man in England." He says that Hamlet went to England, "grew fat," and and changed his name.
Perhaps, Welles [with Bogdanovich?] was having a bad night.
Twinkle, twinkle, Tony.
Glenn
But Bloom is putting Welles' remark in a more cutting context when he calls the observation a "harsh self-criticism." [That may be a paraphrase.] Welles did not say that, "Hamlet excaped, went to England, changed his name to Fallstaff, and became Shakespeare's (and England's) greatest hero." He does not say (not just right there, at least) that Fallstaff was "the best man in England." He says that Hamlet went to England, "grew fat," and and changed his name.
Perhaps, Welles [with Bogdanovich?] was having a bad night.
Twinkle, twinkle, Tony.
Glenn