Working on novel about Welles and politics

[Count Cagliostro]

I was interested to gather some thoughts from fellow Welles watchers on Orson's statement that towards the end of the WW2 he was approached by the Democrats to see if he would be interested in running for office in his home state of Wisconsin - especially since his rival for the seat turned out to be one Joe McCarthy.

Welles said later that he just "did not believe the American people would ever vote for a divorced Hollywood actor."

I'll declare an interest here in that I am currently writing a novel in which Welles did go to Politics and went on to secure the highest office. The novel is set in contemporary times and portrays a world where Welles utilised his power both in and out of office to further his passion for internationalism and of course without McCarthy the Cold War may have lost a lot of its chill.

I wanted to see if anyone had any views on what they though Welles may have been like as a politician? What influence could his ineffable charm and charisma have had when for him the whole world literally became his stage? Would he have returned to his arts after office or would his Internationalism draw him to say the UN?

If this is not a subject fit for the discussion board then I completely understand. But I do find it fascinating.

My other somewhat pipe dream is for the possibility of having a Welles Day akin to the highly successful Bloomsday that is now such a fixture in global literature culture.

The idea of having a global day of Welles inspired celebration, screenings, specific talks, site visits etc. The man made such a huge impact on so many aspects of the arts it seems a shame it is not justly celebrated

[GlennandersFraser]

Dear Count: Welcome to Wellesnet!

I think we have a motto here, something like, "All Things Wellsian," and so I don't see why research for your proposed novel would not fit into our discussions. See what the others say.

Meanwhile, if your research has not turned it up (and it no doubt has), you can certainly find political speeches Welles delivered in the late 1930's and 1940's (not to mention his newspaper columns and radio commentaries). He had a strong bias toward the Democratic Party, Progressive Wing, and he was particularly proud of his relationship with FDR, especially in the 1944 Campaign. He devoted a good deal of his time to the re-election of Roosevelt that year, and to FDR's Vice Presidential partner, Henry Wallace.

Also, as you may know, he was a certified official correspondent to the convention which created the United Nations, at San Francisco, in 1945.

I rather think Welles became a bit cynical and ironic concerning politics later in his life. He seems to have counted so much upon the spread of Democracy around the World in the Post-War Period. The Cold War and creeping Fascism in the United States must have been a great disappointment to him.

There's a start, and wiser heads than mine, at this point, may fill in the holes.

Glenn Anders

[Le Chiffre]

I wanted to see if anyone had any views on what they though Welles may have been like as a politician? What influence could his ineffable charm and charisma have had when for him the whole world literally became his stage? Would he have returned to his arts after office or would his Internationalism draw him to say the UN?

Not long ago we discussed Welles’s draft status during WWII, and how not serving in uniform during the war would have damaged his future opportunities as a politician. Welles said later in an interview that McCarthy would have beaten him for the senatorial race in Wisconsin because he was a war hero and Welles was not.

The UN would have been a much more intriguing possibility, and Welles was reportedly put forth by Louis Dolivet for consideration as General Secretary. But Welles lost his enthusiasm for the UN after it’s formation, when he saw that the partnership between the US and the Soviet Union – a partnership which had defeated Hitler and on which the political credibility of the UN largely depended – was crumbling and being replaced by suspicion and animosity between the two countries. As a result, the UN became merely a toothless humanitarian organization, a spokesman for all the third world countries that would become pawns in the giant, deadly chess game known as the “Cold War”.

One can’t help but think that MR. ARKADIN was intended to be Welles and Dolivet’s political/artistic response to what they saw as a dire situation. Unfortunately, that turned out to be one of the biggest disasters of Welles’s career and ended the friendship between the two men. Robert Arden blamed Welles for getting bored with the Arkadin project. It’s not hard to imagine him getting bored with political office as well.

Of course, Welles's close association with Henry Wallace, which Glenn mentioned, didn't do him much good either. This excellent article by Alex Ross, music critic for The New Yorker, does a much better job of explaining Wallace and his political downfall then I could:
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2013/10/h ... llace.html

[GlennandersFraser]

Le Chiffre: What a splendid article by Alex Ross! The Count may readily see the idealistic appeal of Progressivism for Orson Welles. Indeed, as you suggest, MR. ARKADIN contains a disillusionment with making Progressivism work as a political practicality in the face of its totalitarian enemies. Welles intimated in different places that Gregorie Arkadin was based on the acts of master capitalist plutocrat, international arms dealer Sir Basil Zaharoff, and on the other hand, as a portrait of Joseph Stalin. An American application of his disappointment would no doubt have emerged from THE BIG BRASS RING, had he been able to realize that project as his big, original comeback film.

I might speculate that Welles' growing cynicism toward the possibility of defeating totalitarianism and plutocracy may also be seen in most of his works, accomplished or planned, from THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI onward.

Of course, in many of his public causes and speeches, Orson Welles remained an idealist, championing such things as civil rights and self-determination, showing a courage in expressing those democratic ideals that Henry Wallace did on his best days.

All of those things which, however they may mouth to the contrary, many politicians hate now, as they did in 1930's and 1940's America

Once again, Count, thanks to Le Chiffre, you have an excellent, very humanistic theme with which to underlay your novel.

Glenn Anders

[Count Cagliostro]

Thank you for your excellent and considered thoughts. They certainly provide much for me to muse upon.

I was aware Welles conceded he would probably have lost to McCarthy, but I have had to imagine him pulling a rabbit from the hat, a dramatic, barn-storming, bravura stump speech that sees him squeak across the finishing line and gives him the confidence to use his gift for magniloquence to propel him even further up the greasy pole.

I'm afraid I must confess to having had to take one even greater liberty with reality, I hope you'll at least give thought to what I'm trying to do?

Had he entered politics I imagined Welles would come under heavy and fairly sustained fire from many powerful groups, certain sections of the press would no doubt have hounded him remorselessly and I can imagine various strands of the Republican party would see him as potentially low-hanging fruit for attacks on his appetites and personal life.

To this end I have Welles' initial Presidential campaign being thwarted via attacks on his choice of running mate. After his third choice has been rejected his bid is seen to be in serious crisis. Criticised for being too arty or high brow or out of touch with the common man Welles pulls out another rabbit in persuading the home spun genius of Buckminster Fuller to be his Vice President.

I'd hope you can see a method in this narrative madness? I wanted Welles to have the 'biggest paintbox in the world' and Bucky's imagination and vision provided the ways and means for me to explore the potential of their idealism to the fullest.

I'm aware that Bucky Fuller had a somewhat long-winded style, I have Welles jocularly remarking that his VP is 'capable of continuing his campaign speech four hours after the vote has been declared'

I've envisaged a power split with Welles semi-seriously advising staff 'Anything with numbers in it give it to Bucky, if it involves words it's mine'

I'm very aware this is all very simplified stuff but the novel is set in the present (well a present where Welles did two terms of office, Fuller another two whilst Welles did take the UN role.) so for now I need more of a reasonably coherent thumb sketches which I can flesh out as the series continues - (It's outlined as a four book arc)

I think Welles capacity for boredom is an issue, I'd like to think I have him in a position of power with his fingers permanently in so many pies his boredom trait is not given time to manifest itself.

Welles attitude to growing expansion of police and state surveillance is another topic I have touched upon - with him establishing the D.I.A The Decentralised Intelligence Agency with the aim of spreading American ideas of freedom, democracy competition and co-operation throughout the globe through huge displays of soft power.

A final flight of fantasy - One of those exportation of soft powers is Welles establishing the Global Theatre - a huge worldwide Shakespearean festival involving million of schools and communities - a sort of bardic Fitzcarraldo - which proves so popular and enduring that by our present day 21st century many, especially the younger generation are able to communicate in a lingua franca known as Shakes-speil.

Apology if this lacks coherence and I genuine welcome any and all comments, critiques on any of the above.

Regards

Count

[GlennandersFraser]

Dear Count: The proof of your novel will be in the writing and verisimilitude.

You keep saying that you are moving your plot into "modern times," but if you mean the present, the book becomes a work of science-fiction or obvious fantasy. To appeal to me at least, the timeline needs to be as close to reality as possible.

Let's say that you find a way around Welles' own objections to a political career, I think there is a psychological moment when he might have pulled it off. No doubt Louis Dolivet would have urged him to take on McCarthy or run for Governor of California (another suggestion which was made along the way). He runs for two terms as Senator from Wisconsin, supported by the powerful Farm-Labor Progressive Movement there at the time. He serves from 1946 to 1958, dealing with complications, such as McCarthyism without McCarthy in the Republican Party. Perhaps, then, he goes back to Hollywood to make TOUCH OF EVIL. The Assassination of JFK in 1963 acts as a catalyst to bring him back to politics, urged to make a run for the Presidency in 1968, secretly vowing to expose a conspiracy in JFK's death involving elements of both political parties, and dealing with the environmental and humanistic causes, etc, you have laid out.

Now, whether he succeeds in becoming President or not, despite a wonderful cast of friends and potential enemies, from there matters become much more murky and confused, as we can see they have become in real life, right down to the present day. I don't think, unless you possess a Wellsian genius, I would press "reality" beyond 1970, even extending your "what if" premise.

To my mind, you have the premise of a kind of 18th Century "philosophical novel." But that's just how I would try to do it.

Good luck, Count.

Keep us informed.

Glenn Anders

[Le Chiffre]

I have to confess I'm not a big fan of "what if" novels, but your ideas sound amusing, Count. Problem is, there's really no evidence that Welles and Fuller ever met, I'm not aware of any statements or opinions Welles ever gave of Fuller, and I don't remember ever coming across any Fuller reference in any Welles book. Marshall McLuhan, whose concept of a "Global Village" seems inspired by Fuller's "Spaceship Earth", was a Welles admirer though, and the ideas of Alvin Toffler, another futurist, did intrigue Welles enough to host a TV program on his bestseller, FUTURE SHOCK. I wonder if Welles wouldn't have concurred to some extent with this 2009 WSJ article on Fuller by Terry Teachout, who criticizes Fuller as having dreams that were too extravagant to be practical, which is why he's mostly forgotten by the public today:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0725525407

However, Welles might have agreed with Fuller's statements about over-specialization being bad for society. Good luck on the book (or books?), Count.