The Tartars (1961)

[catbuglah]

12 more Tartar frames

Some parallels with David and Goliath -Both have a rainstorm sequence (Wellesian gothic atmosphere?) - Both have a tawrrrgit practice scene (A Wellesian idea to add visual interest?) - both have exotic (and gracefully filmed) dance sequences.

[Glenn Anders]

Tony: Your theory is a sad and brilliant one. [Sorry to take so long to get back to it, and glad we agree on LAST SUMMER AT THE HAMPTONS.] I agree fully with the first part of it your theory. At least, the evidence is there. And it's clear that he was pretty crazy for Oja Kodar, but I do not have the impression that he left Paola Mori for her. He simply adopted the French tradition of a man of means (even imaginary means) in maintaining a wife AND a mistress. When in Las Vegas, he was a family man; around the World, Oja Kodar was at his right hand. I would guess that Mrs. Welles, from the Italian aristocracy, understood that. Ms. Kodar would accept the tradition. Beatrice Welles would not.

[For those inclined, it is another parallel with the life of William Randolph Hearst.]

Much as I like Ms. Kodar for her loyalty to Welles, it really is time for her and other worthies to get THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND on screens. If they do, all will be forgiven. If not, the litter of uncompleted, mediocre or just plain bad projects will damn them as part of the problem they've been decrying for twenty years, and Welles' personal/professional associations in his last years will be seen as a greater part of his tragedy as an artist.

Certainly, as you say, Harvey, the loss of Jeanne Moreau (and the retreat of other established players he had nurtured) is part of that tragedy. No other modern theatrical or media figure ever brought to public prominence in the theater, movies or television so many talented individuals. And most of them were dedicated to Welles' theories of company and ensemble production. Excepting Bogdanovich and Jaglom, what his latter closest associates have produced since his death does not put them in the same category.

Catbuglah, your grabs of THE TARTARS suggest the depth of Welles' career tragedy more than anyone's words could.

In the end, Oja Kodar cannot be blamed for being the beauty she was when she met Welles, and at the moment, for what she has done to promote his reputation since his death. The proof will be in the release of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, should that ever come about.

If that does not occur, perhaps we shall have to say, with a certain compassion, that "'twas Beauty killed the Artistic Beast."

Glenn

[catbuglah]

Catbuglah, your grabs of THE TARTARS suggest the depth of Welles' career tragedy more than anyone's words could.

I did not know that. Thanks for the interest, Glenn - although I'm just trying to pick out some interesting screen shots; I can't say that I'm overly preoccupied with with any inherent tragic ramifications.

I've uploaded an article that might be relevant to the discussion, over at the 'Oja Yoko Linda Susan?' string, by the way.

[catbuglah]

24 new screen grabs

There's an original scene where the vikings vote by throwing an axe into a pole - a Welles idea to add visual interest?

[NoFake]

Glenn, regarding your "Much as I like Ms. Kodar for her loyalty to Welles, it really is time for her and other worthies to get THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND on screens," at Locarno, she was adamant that the only thing holding back its completion is money -- the Iranian connection apparently is still holding out for it -- and, once that's resolved, a distributor. (If I'm not dreaming this, I seem to recall the board's once having entertained the possibility of taking up a collection. Whatever happened to that?)

[catbuglah]

Just to let you know, NoFake - that particular offshoot of the main topic has moved on to its own string. i.e. :

Oja Yoko Linda Susan?

[Glenn Anders]

As you indicate, catbuglah, the discussion has scattered to other rooms. [In fact, here in this thread, Tony, is the reply to your Oja Kodar theory explanation you requested.] These grabs of yours from THE TARTARS, to me at least, catbuglah, are evidence of a tragedy. You show us this magnificent talent, this accomplished artist, a man who changed every form of major American media, much admired in the greater world, staggering around wearing padded silks, and strange hats, in a spurious costume drama, so he can finance his own projects and keep himself afloat.

That is some kind of tragedy. Not unique, but a tragedy, all the same.

I would like to believe that a few million dollars would bring THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND out of the vault. It seems absurd that such a relatively small sum is the problem. My observation, made in the past, is that a party of Hollywood executives might lose money in the figures mentioned during a few junkets to Las Vegas.

Yes, I do remember that option, to open a fund dedicated to the completion of the picture. I said that I would contribute. In my case, the donation would have necessarily been small, along the lines of what I give to, say, the Wildlife Federation. (My finances now are not what they were, but I still could still give a small amount.) But, after a lot of boisterous talk, no one came forward, that I can remember. Such an undertaking requires an address, a bank account, a dedicated tax status, a treasurer, someone competent in charge to make sure that the money doesn't quietly go, in aggregate. to finance a couple of condos for somebody. Although I am not one of those persons, there were several members who suggested that it could be easily done.

Evidently, it isn't because nothing has ever come of the idea. So far as I know, the thread just quit, when a couple of us suggested an actual course of action.

The picture presumably is out there, still in need of the kind of money which now might be required to support a couple of small film festivals.

Glenn

[catbuglah]

As you indicate, catbuglah, the discussion has scattered to other rooms.

I did not know that. I didn't mean to give you that impression. My understanding is that Tony very graciously and properly transferred an offshoot of the main topic that had gained momentum and veered too far from the main topic. I was merely trying to be helpful and point that out for those who were not aware of this, as it seemed that that pursuing a conversation where that conversation is formally taking place would be the preferable option. I invite you to read the first sentence in the aforementioned string, for further clarification. In the same spirit, allow me to point out that there is an OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND discussion thread, that might better suit your purposes.

staggering around wearing padded silks, and strange hats, in a spurious costume drama,

I've noticed while surfing the net, that there are a certain number of people who like to cast aspersions on Welles by making fun of his appearance. Not my cup of tea. I find it puerile and distasteful, to be frank.

To dismiss a film with a one-word unflattering adjective is not really my cup of tea. I find it too vague and negative to convey any substancial consideration of the film.

so he can finance his own projects and keep himself afloat. That is some kind of tragedy.

I think there's a bit of a question of the cup being half full or half empty. I admire Welles' tenacity, integrity, and courage to embark on such an enterprise, and to have completed several major motion in such circumstances, I find to be a very remarkable feat. But I do disagree with the picture of a disheartened Welles, listlessly meandering through laughably shoddy projects in a downward spiral of deterioration that is being implied. In fact, part of what I was trying to get across is that contrary to what some believe, such a film is an example of Welles getting energetically involved with the film with a motivation that goes beyond acting and that his contributions have yielded some positive esthetic dividends.

These grabs of yours from THE TARTARS, to me at least, catbuglah, are evidence of a tragedy.

Thank you for sharing your opinion of the Tartars with us, Glenn. A few opinions of my own come to mind in this regard, not necessarily in agreement with your point of view.

1- Just to reiterate that my original intention was to highlight the most interesting quality scenes in order to celebrate the positive aspects of Welles' artistry.
2- The latter part of Welles' career deserves a more in-depth study. There are many interesting, positive experiences in all phases of his career that would be interesting to see investigated.
3- With new developments technology, it's possible to make available many of Welles' films and vast array of other projects available. Any Welles project is worthy of investigation and re-evaluation, I'm loathe to reject something out-of-hand, due to it's dubious reputation.
4- The Tartars deserves attention artistically and historically because as I've tried to convey, Welles made significant and interesting contributions as actor as well as director and also an example of how Welles managed to keep his skills sharp and how he manage to continue to experiement and grow. I believe his experiences with the Tartars and David and Goliath were important in developing the battle sequence in Chimes.
5- I'm not into the Higham et al negative school of thinking. I have no desire to pay lip service to such views.

[Tashman]

Maybe the tragic aesthetic view can be dampered a bit by asking what is the distance between Welles in THE TARTARS and Welles in JOURNEY INTO FEAR. That's not to malign the latter, but Welles was happy to court the ridiculous pretty much from the get-go. I haven't seen THE TARTARS beyond Cat's captures, so it's a rhetorical question as far as the questioner goes.

THE TARTARS would seem merrier in hindsight if seen alongside a completed DON QUIXOTE, to which end I believe it was largely dedicated. But I like Cat's attempt to connect it to the battle scenes in CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT. Welles the director was always rehearsing, in other words--more actively when he was actually restaging his own scenes, obviously. But, no, the melancholy fact cannot be wholly erased that he was rehearsing because not able to write his own ticket and consistently make movies for himself. Such is life.

[catbuglah]

Maybe the tragic aesthetic view can be dampered a bit by asking what is the distance between Welles in THE TARTARS and Welles in JOURNEY INTO FEAR.

Touché, Tashman. This film discussion topic is actually part of a larger series centered around the question -How much did Welles direct in other people's films. So there's a whole bunch of stuff on that:
Uncredited Welles
Journey into fear
Jane Eyre
Black Magic
Treasure Island
David and Goliath
Black Rose
Prince of Foxes

The classical tragic aesthetic is a wonderful philosophical and existenical literary tradition - I love Aeschylus - Certainly tragedy is a fundamental theme in Welles' films - they're essentially one big series of variations on a tragic theme - and I'm not arguing that there are important tragic aspects to Welles' life - my point of contention is more to the degree of our silver screen Lucifer's fall from grace. But the question seems to have considerable legs, so I opened a separate thread in the General Discussion area to see if it can fly on its own tragic wings of destiny...

How tragic was my tragedy?

[catbuglah]

Last batch of screen frames

The final battle scene is well-directed, well-done. There's quite a bit of smoke and fire used here - A Welles idea to add atmosphere? So how much did the maestro direct? I'd say most of the scenes he's in, and he's in quite a lot of scenes, it's a big role, plus maybe partly certain other scenes as well (esp. cavalry and battle sequences). Both Baldi and Thorpe are credited as directors (in this version, it's just Thorpe) the Vikings sequences do look less flamboyantly directed than the Tartar scenes, although I don't think it's a jarring contrast, the movie holds together quite well (except, perhaps the final minute). Though perhaps not overall as flamboyantly Wellesian as David and Goliath, nonetheless I'd say a successful takeover attempt by Welles. I'd give him a co-director, co-producer, or creative consultant credit on this one, meaning that I feel that overall, Welles is the most important guiding influence on the mise-en-scene of this film. So far, I'd say that there are five films that would fit in that category:

Jane Eyre
Black Magic
David and Goliath
The Tartars
Treasure Island

[Joe G]

Going by what I have read and from watching the films. I think Orson Welles co directed journey into fear and Jane Eyre and probably directed all of Black Magic, Return to Glennescaul, Three Cases of Murder, (the Lord mount Drago segment) No Exit and Caesar's guide to gaming. I thought the movie black magic was very entertaining. I was surprised it wasn't a hit when it was first released. I have no concrete proof. It's just my opinion.

[Joe G]

I watched the movies The Southern Star and David and Goliath their lately. I think Welles probably co directed both of them. I thought the cinematography in both movies was beautiful and I thought they were very entertaining as well.

[Roger Ryan]

... I think Orson Welles co directed journey into fear and Jane Eyre...

The Hollywood studio system was not conducive to allowing actors to take over films as a director (even an actor/director like Welles), so it would be safer to say Welles might have had an influence on some of the films he acted in. Journey Into Fear, however, can legitimately be considered co-directed by Welles since he re-edited the film himself and scripted/directed the final scene. He was originally credited as co-writer with Joseph Cotten, but later had his name removed from this credit (although, in actuality, Ben Hecht wrote the initial draft uncredited - Welles and Cotten made revisions). Howard Graham's first person narration did not exist prior to Welles re-editing the film, so this material was likely written exclusively by Welles.

Welles was an uncredited producer on Jane Eyre, a film which demonstrates his influence in the casting of Agnes Moorhead in a substantial supporting role, and Mercury regulars Erskine Sanford and Eustace Wyatt in very small roles. It is also likely that Bernard Herrmann and, perhaps, John Houseman (!) worked on the project because of Welles. As a producer, Welles could very well have influenced camera set-ups and editing, but the general mise-en-scene in this film doesn't match Welles' usual approach very often (it's much more stereotypical of the costume dramas of this period).