‘My Lunches with Orson" from Henry Jaglom

[Wellesnet]

Interesting article on the new book in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jun ... tars-tapes

[mido505]

Looks like Jaglom was not the only person lunching with Orson at Ma Maison in the early 80's. I was pleasantly surprised to find online this typically perceptive and idiosyncratic reminiscence by Gore Vidal in the form of a review of Brady's biography, and the published script of BIG BRASS RING: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

If you read between the lines, Vidal's portrait appears somewhat similar to the one taking form as more of the content's of Jaglom's book become known.

[Christopher]

Hello Swell,
I was most interested to read your post since you have confirmed what I was told at the time by someone close to Welles: that he had never authorized Jaglom to tape their luncheon conversations and that when he found out about the taping, he was extremely upset and felt "betrayed" by Jaglom.

[mido505]

A lengthy, sympathetic review of MY LUNCHES WITH ORSON, that somewhat successfully gets beyond the superficial and sensational aspects of the book that have dominated the reviews and reports thus far. http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/waiti ... the-dough/

[tonyw]

I remember an interview Welles gave once that was included in the Andrew Sarris anthology, INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS. Welles mentioned that he did not make any negative remarks about directors in interviews any longer since they were all colleagues working in the same area. When the subject is alive, it is customary to send them a copy of the interview (which I do) and ask for any corrections or emendations they wish to make. Obviously, Jaglom did not do this with Welles as the convenient late publication of this book shows.

[mido505]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Welles asked Jaglom not to publish until after he and most of the people discussed on the tapes had passed?

Or that Welles wanted the tapes to be published after he was gone as a means for a sinecure for Oja in her later years?

Note that Jaglom claims he has no financial interest in the book, but that he wants Biskind to give his "share" to Oja, because that was what Orson would have wanted.

A handshake deal over royalties? Really? In this day and age? Because it is "what Orson would have wanted"? Forgive me if I am dubious.

Strange that Oja, and Beatrice for that matter, are so silent, given their readiness to jump on anything that either infringes on their rights, or damages Orson's image. Was something worked out ahead of time?

Given what Jaglom has stated, that Welles asked him to tape their conversations for a possible autobiography, wouldn't that mean that Orson had some ownership interest in the tapes, even if Jaglom was in possession?

If that is the case, rights to Orson's part of this "unfinished project" would have passed to Oja.

Before people accuse me of reaching here, remember that Oja, outraged at Franco's cut of DQ, swore that she would not allow and English language release, because she controlled the rights. Then a couple of years later the English language DVD came out.

There is more to this thing than meets the eye. There is something very "Clifford Irving" about it, if I may say so.

[Le Chiffre]

Given what Jaglom has stated, that Welles asked him to tape their conversations for a possible autobiography, wouldn't that mean that Orson had some ownership interest in the tapes, even if Jaglom was in possession?

If that is the case, rights to Orson's part of this "unfinished project" would have passed to Oja.

Interesting point, Mido. You would think Welles would have informed Oja of the plans to have Jaglom tape their lunches, so she could collect the tapes if something happened to him, which it did. Also, given how crappy the sound on the tapes is said to be, would Welles have done the torturous transcribing himself? Or would he have trusted that all-important duty to someone else?

One interesting question might be to ask the transcriber what percentage of the recordings were too poor to be transcribable. If it was a high percentage, then that would be evidence that Welles didn't know about the taping, because if he was doing it for his memoirs, as Jaglom maintains, they would have taken steps to make sure everything was at least transcribable.

I remember an interview Welles gave once that was included in the Andrew Sarris anthology, INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS. Welles mentioned that he did not make any negative remarks about directors in interviews any longer since they were all colleagues working in the same area.

Of course, it's debatable whether these conversations qualify as interviews, even if Welles was aware of them being taped. The excerpts I've read so far come across as two guys just shooting the bull over lunch.

[Christopher]

I find it deplorable that Jaglom's book is coming out 28 years after OW's death which raises the question of why Jaglom has waited all this time to publish the edited transcriptions. Of course there are a number of other questions: how would OW have edited the transcriptions if he'd been given the chance? What has Biskind edited out and how has his editing altered the context? In addition, the book is being published under the cloud of not knowing if OW gave Jaglom permission to tape their conversations and having to take Jaglom's word for it that he did. In my view, Jaglom's motives are highly suspect and self-serving, but I won't speculate about this totally unimportant person. The fact that Jaglom, claiming to be OW's "friend," has published this book under these circumstances is enough to damn him to hell and back.

[mido505]

We now have two major contradictions in the MY LUNCHES WITH ORSON narrative that cannot be ignored, both arising from the interviews with Jaglom and Biskind posted here at Wellesnet.

Jaglom says that Welles acknowledges, on the tapes, that he is aware that he is being recorded.

Biskind says that there is no such acknowledgement.

Jaglom says that the only restriction he placed on Biskind was that all references to Orson's relationship to Oja Kodar were off limits.

Biskind says that Jaglom placed no restrictions on his authorship.

These are basic points, fundamental. We are not debating whether Orson said "here" or "hear".

This is troubling, to say the least.

[Eve]

... only something in between...

... as to be found in "This is Orson Welles"...
"Dear Peter,
[...]
Of course, I hate those movies we were talking about the other day, but I don't hate the men who made them. Or want to distress them even a little bit. You told me on the phone it was very funny when I said that [name deleted] ought to be put in jail. Well, let's commute the sentence. The book doesn't need it.
Always remember that your heart is God's little garden.
Yours ever,
Louisa Mae [sic] Alcott"

Welles obviously liked this little phrase very much and used it often...over the years...for example
... when writing to Norman Foster,
"... Also may I remind you that your heart is god's little garden. Ever lovingly.'" ("Hello Americans", Simon Callow)
Suzanne Cloutier (according to the interview in "Souvenirs d'Othello")
and Bernard Hermann (http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=497)
"This letter is also to tell you that I love you truly and that your heart is God’s little garden.
Always,
Orson"

[Wellesnet]

Ray Kelly interviews the author Peter Biskind on the Wellesnet Main Page:

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=7350

*

Also, a Southern California Public Radio article on the book, with a 9-minute audio interview with Jaglom and Biskind, featuring excerpts from the tapes themselves:

http://www.scpr.org/programs/offramp/20 ... cumenting/

*

Former Wellesnet contributor Peter Tonguette weighs in on the book for the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle

[Le Chiffre]

Welles left a message on Jaglom's phone the night of his death, inquiring about Jaglom's mother. He wouldn't have done that if he was angry with him. Jaglom never produced the proof of that phone message, as far as I know, but Welles did dedicate his "Whamming" card trick on Merv Griffin to a lady in the hospital, and Jaglom's mother had recently had an operation. According to Jaglom, that is.

As Ray notes on the Facebook page, "The question of whether or not Welles knew of the recordings has been pretty much ignored in the mainstream press." They appear to be accepting Jaglom's version of the story at face value. Again, Jaglom has not produced proof that Welles knew about the tapings. But on the other hand, there's no real evidence that he didn't know about the tapings either.

Jaglom says that the only restriction he placed on Biskind was that all references to Orson's relationship to Oja Kodar were off limits.

Biskind says that Jaglom placed no restrictions on his authorship.

I suppose it's possible that Jaglom did not provide Biskind with any transcripts concerning Oja. I picked up a copy of the book yesterday and have yet to find her name mentioned. But that might be another good question for the transcriber.

[Jeff Wilson]

I suppose it's possible that Jaglom did not provide Biskind with any transcripts concerning Oja. I picked up a copy of the book yesterday and have yet to find her name mentioned. But that might be another good question for the transcriber.

Oja is mentioned a couple times in relation to The Dreamers and F for Fake.

As for the book, I finished it yesterday, and it's...interesting. The behind the scenes stuff about KING LEAR and whatnot got a bit boring after a while, though it does illustrate the difficulties Welles had in getting projects started. The demolition jobs on Chaplin and Hedda Hopper, among others, were entertaining, but the books feels like about half substantial, worthwhile stuff, and half frivolous bitchiness.

[Wellesnet]

Review of the book by Glenn Kenny, with a very interestingesponse by Jonathon Rosenbaum: http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some ... orson.html

with a very interesting response by Jonathon Rosenbaum:

Many people who were close to Welles during the last week or so of his life--and that includes Oja Kodar, Gary Graver, Barbara Leaming, and Alessandro Tasca de Cuto--have avowed (in Tasca's case, publicly and at length in Andre S. Labarthe's semidocumentary for French TV, The Big O; in Gary's case, in at least one interview) that Welles reported to them having discovered that Jaglom had been recording their conversations without his knowledge. Whether or not Welles confronted Jaglom with this discovery is less clear (it appears that he didn't), and whether it can be accepted without any head-scratching (i.e., how could Welles have been in the dark about this for so long, over so many lunches?) is also worth discussing. But there's no question that this is what Welles reported to his immediate circle, along with an expression that he felt utterly betrayed by the taping. (In his interview, Gary Graver even compared it to what Menzies does to Quinlan in the closing sequence of Touch of Evil.)

Seeing the palpable glee with which Welles' nastiest comments are being received by his ambivalent "fans," it isn't hard to see why Jaglom held back the tapes and transcripts for so long--and if he really does have recorded evidence that Welles was aware of the taping (and, according to Jaglom, actually requested it), as he has repeatedly claimed, Biskind has admitted that he still hasn't heard or read this evidence, nor has Jaglom offered it in any form (as Tasca challenged him to do in the Labarthe film).

[Le Chiffre]

...the books feels like about half substantial, worthwhile stuff, and half frivolous bitchiness.

You're right, Jeff. There are a lot of substantial observations by Welles in the book about history, politics, culture, etc., stuff that's being pretty much ignored by the reviews so far, which prefer to concentrate on all the frivolous bitchiness. I will admit, though, that some of that is pretty fucking hilarious.

My favorite review title so far: "Orson Welles Talks Shit From Beyond the Grave in My Lunches With Orson" by Kevin McFarland of the A/V Club. This article seems to have inspired the liveliest discussion too.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/read-thi ... the,99663/