this is like when you admire the beatles, you love their music, you buy the memorabilia. then one day you read a book that has the inside story and you find out who screwed who, who called who a swine, who screwed such&such's GF, then you wish you had not read it.
it seems that when the glue that held all these people together, welles, passed away, the mice started acting like rats.
2/29 LA Times Welles Article
-
jbrooks
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 pm
Yes, Jaglom has denied the allegation that Welles did not know he was being taped.
Jaglom has said that he and Welles were making the tapes for use -- by Welles -- in writing Welles' autobiography. Indeed, Jaglom has said that when the Leaming book was being prepared he asked Welles if they should stop taping and Welles said that he wished to continue because he still hoped to do his own book someday.
I, of course, was not at Ma Mason and do not know the truth. I do know that Jaglom told me about these tapes and why he and Welles made them back in 1987, years before I ever heard this rumor that Welles was unaware he was being taped.
In any event, I don't see that anything can take away from the fact that Jaglom and Welles were, in fact, good friends. Even if it were true that Jaglom secretly taped Welles -- which as I've said does not make any sense to me -- it does not change their real friendship into a pseudo-friendship.
On the topic of "easy, cheap shots" -- I apologize. I do not want to disparage Mr. Graver. But his attacks on Henry Jaglom strike me as unfair; it was Graver who tried to sell Orson's Oscar for $50,000. Jaglom has not tried to cash in on Welles in any way. I was also annoyed by this quote from above --
Apparently, Oja Kodar had such a low opinion of him, she actually wanted to cut his scenes out of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. She said, "with Jaglom you hope to God he doesn't finish his movies."
I hope Ms. Kodar didn't actually say this. But whereever the sentiment comes from, it's unfair. Jaglom is an accomplished filmmaker. You might not like his films but Orson Welles clearly did. And to attack him is to attack one of Welles' good friends.
Jaglom has said that he and Welles were making the tapes for use -- by Welles -- in writing Welles' autobiography. Indeed, Jaglom has said that when the Leaming book was being prepared he asked Welles if they should stop taping and Welles said that he wished to continue because he still hoped to do his own book someday.
I, of course, was not at Ma Mason and do not know the truth. I do know that Jaglom told me about these tapes and why he and Welles made them back in 1987, years before I ever heard this rumor that Welles was unaware he was being taped.
In any event, I don't see that anything can take away from the fact that Jaglom and Welles were, in fact, good friends. Even if it were true that Jaglom secretly taped Welles -- which as I've said does not make any sense to me -- it does not change their real friendship into a pseudo-friendship.
On the topic of "easy, cheap shots" -- I apologize. I do not want to disparage Mr. Graver. But his attacks on Henry Jaglom strike me as unfair; it was Graver who tried to sell Orson's Oscar for $50,000. Jaglom has not tried to cash in on Welles in any way. I was also annoyed by this quote from above --
Apparently, Oja Kodar had such a low opinion of him, she actually wanted to cut his scenes out of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. She said, "with Jaglom you hope to God he doesn't finish his movies."
I hope Ms. Kodar didn't actually say this. But whereever the sentiment comes from, it's unfair. Jaglom is an accomplished filmmaker. You might not like his films but Orson Welles clearly did. And to attack him is to attack one of Welles' good friends.
-
Oscar Christie
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:38 pm
I think you have a different view point of true friendship than I have.Even if it were true that Jaglom secretly taped Welles -- which as I've said does not make any sense to me -- it does not change their real friendship into a pseudo-friendship.
One of the things that we do know about Welles is that he had a definite viewpoint of what is and is not appropriate for friends to do to each other.
By the way, did Welles ever tell anyone that he knew Jaglom was taping him? For example, he often referred to the Bogdanovich tapes that became the book, "this is Orson Welles". We know that it was a collaborative effort.
Is there any similar reference with respect to Jaglom's tapes, which if they were done without his knowledge, would be to most observers a betrayal of trust....
...What about that chef Patrick (snap snap) whatever his name is, he's till around, Thompson, go see if he remembers any tape recorder or microphones.
-
jbrooks
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 pm
Christopher,
Do you or any of your sources have a theory as to why Jaglom would be secretly taping him?
Did Welles have a theory as to why? As discussed above, I just don't get it.
And are we to believe that Jaglom is simply lying when he talks(and writes) about Welles calling him on the day Welles died? Or did Welles' forgive him, but Oja wouldn't?
Do you or any of your sources have a theory as to why Jaglom would be secretly taping him?
Did Welles have a theory as to why? As discussed above, I just don't get it.
And are we to believe that Jaglom is simply lying when he talks(and writes) about Welles calling him on the day Welles died? Or did Welles' forgive him, but Oja wouldn't?
-
jbrooks
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 pm
Oscar Christie,
We probably have the same view of friendship. If Jaglom did tape Welles without Welles knowing it, then that was a betrayal. I didn't meant to suggest that I think that that is something that friends ought to do. They shouldn't. My reference to "pseudo-friendship" referred to Hannaford's post above.
He wrote --
Reading the above comments from Graver, it sounds to me like Welles may have been psuedo-friendly with Jaglom, in the vain hope that he might contribute some funds towards the backing of one of his movies, rather than using the money to fund one of Jaglom's own awful films... which is why Welles probably agreed to appear in SOMEONE TO LOVE... after all, it's no secret that Welles would appear in any trash movie if the price was right.
This is simply not true. Welles and Jaglom were true friends. They weren't "pseudo-friendly." And if Jaglom betrayed Welles, then that was a betrayal, but it wouldn't mean that they were never friends in the first place. And it also wouldn't mean that Jaglom didn't do a lot for Welles. We have Jaglom to thank, at least in part, for The Big Brass Ring Screenplay, Barbara Leaming's biography, and Welles' great final role in Someone to Love.
We probably have the same view of friendship. If Jaglom did tape Welles without Welles knowing it, then that was a betrayal. I didn't meant to suggest that I think that that is something that friends ought to do. They shouldn't. My reference to "pseudo-friendship" referred to Hannaford's post above.
He wrote --
Reading the above comments from Graver, it sounds to me like Welles may have been psuedo-friendly with Jaglom, in the vain hope that he might contribute some funds towards the backing of one of his movies, rather than using the money to fund one of Jaglom's own awful films... which is why Welles probably agreed to appear in SOMEONE TO LOVE... after all, it's no secret that Welles would appear in any trash movie if the price was right.
This is simply not true. Welles and Jaglom were true friends. They weren't "pseudo-friendly." And if Jaglom betrayed Welles, then that was a betrayal, but it wouldn't mean that they were never friends in the first place. And it also wouldn't mean that Jaglom didn't do a lot for Welles. We have Jaglom to thank, at least in part, for The Big Brass Ring Screenplay, Barbara Leaming's biography, and Welles' great final role in Someone to Love.
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
I find these discussions depressing.
They remind me of the JFK Conspiracy backbiting, in which various experts, shills and charlatans began firing at each, so that in the way of Gresham's Law, the dross became more important than the central point. And if there was a conspiracy, those behind it sat back comfortably and watched the attempts at serious investigation dismissed as the work of petty gossipers and whackos.
As Welles had Dietrich say in TOE, "What does it matter what you say about a man?"
Henry Jaglom is a highly successful movie maker in the late Wellsian mode. Almost all his films, though often denigrated here, have been been profitable in Europe. He has had the career that Welles would have preferred, if he had been able to let go entirely of his love-hate for Studio technology. Welles was Jaglom's mentor, and though I don't like all of his films, I think SITTING DUCKS, which has a bonafide plot, is one of the most amusing, original indie pictures I can think of. ALWAYS, EATING, LAST SUMMER AT THE HAMPTONS, PARTY IN CANNES, and SOMEONE TO LOVE, are among his successes. All his films have achieved release through his acumen as a businessman, and all have turned a profit.
Welles delivered the great criticism of Jaglom in SOMEONE TO LOVE, when he said Jaglom's character (Danny, a director) wanted to make pictures with happy endings; that he was a "sentimentalist." Don't you think that a lesser director and friend would have cut that remark out?
The bitter-sweet truth of the remark does not make Jaglom a bad director or Welles less a friend.
I am again with jbrooks. It is demeaning to snidely attack Jaglom, or Graver and Kodar, for that matter, over some absurdity like audio tapes.They all admired and loved Welles, and have continued to do so for 20 years. Of course, they have experienced bruised feelings, hurt egos, jealousy. They are theatrical artists, for God's sake!
Who cares?
As Welles said in F FOR FAKE. What is important is that the Singers go on singing. [Which, thinking of OTHELLO, is rather like saying, "Take the Art and let the credit go."]
There is more important work to be done on this site, and we should be about it.
Glenn
They remind me of the JFK Conspiracy backbiting, in which various experts, shills and charlatans began firing at each, so that in the way of Gresham's Law, the dross became more important than the central point. And if there was a conspiracy, those behind it sat back comfortably and watched the attempts at serious investigation dismissed as the work of petty gossipers and whackos.
As Welles had Dietrich say in TOE, "What does it matter what you say about a man?"
Henry Jaglom is a highly successful movie maker in the late Wellsian mode. Almost all his films, though often denigrated here, have been been profitable in Europe. He has had the career that Welles would have preferred, if he had been able to let go entirely of his love-hate for Studio technology. Welles was Jaglom's mentor, and though I don't like all of his films, I think SITTING DUCKS, which has a bonafide plot, is one of the most amusing, original indie pictures I can think of. ALWAYS, EATING, LAST SUMMER AT THE HAMPTONS, PARTY IN CANNES, and SOMEONE TO LOVE, are among his successes. All his films have achieved release through his acumen as a businessman, and all have turned a profit.
Welles delivered the great criticism of Jaglom in SOMEONE TO LOVE, when he said Jaglom's character (Danny, a director) wanted to make pictures with happy endings; that he was a "sentimentalist." Don't you think that a lesser director and friend would have cut that remark out?
The bitter-sweet truth of the remark does not make Jaglom a bad director or Welles less a friend.
I am again with jbrooks. It is demeaning to snidely attack Jaglom, or Graver and Kodar, for that matter, over some absurdity like audio tapes.They all admired and loved Welles, and have continued to do so for 20 years. Of course, they have experienced bruised feelings, hurt egos, jealousy. They are theatrical artists, for God's sake!
Who cares?
As Welles said in F FOR FAKE. What is important is that the Singers go on singing. [Which, thinking of OTHELLO, is rather like saying, "Take the Art and let the credit go."]
There is more important work to be done on this site, and we should be about it.
Glenn
-
Oscar Christie
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:38 pm
the problem is that Welles stopped singingAs Welles said in F FOR FAKE. What is important is that the Singers go on singing
Let's see if the trade off is big brass ring, Leaming's book & someone to love, but Orson becoming livid when he found out the guy had been taping him and having a fatal heart attack soon after, or none of things happening, I'd have just as soon Jaglom had not been so involved in Welles's lifeif Jaglom betrayed Welles, then that was a betrayal, but it wouldn't mean that they were never friends in the first place. And it also wouldn't mean that Jaglom didn't do a lot for Welles. We have Jaglom to thank, at least in part, for The Big Brass Ring Screenplay, Barbara Leaming's biography, and Welles' great final role in Someone to Love.
-
jbrooks
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 pm
So now the story is that Jaglom's alleged betrayal killed Welles? Glenn Anders is right -- this has become like the Kennedy Assassination. Is Jaglom too young to somehow blame him for the re-cutting of Ambersons too?Let's see if the trade off is big brass ring, Leaming's book & someone to love, but Orson becoming livid when he found out the guy had been taping him and having a fatal heart attack soon after, or none of things happening, I'd have just as soon Jaglom had not been so involved in Welles's life
Jaglom, incidentally, appeared in Peter Bogdanovich's recent Natalie Wood biopic. I guess Bogdanovich didn't get Oja's memo regarding the Jaglom boycott.
-
Christopher
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
jbrooks
To answer your question several posts back, the assumption at the time was that Jaglom was making the tapes with the idea of selling them. But having heard about Watertape second hand as well as many years ago, I really don't have any more to add to what I've already said. I personally have no idea who is telling the truth or what really happened, and it does begin to seem like idle speculation on our part to keep niggling away at this topic. Fortunately, there is such a wealth of material about Welles in every medium that the world can go merrily on without the tapes of Henry Jaglom.
To answer your question several posts back, the assumption at the time was that Jaglom was making the tapes with the idea of selling them. But having heard about Watertape second hand as well as many years ago, I really don't have any more to add to what I've already said. I personally have no idea who is telling the truth or what really happened, and it does begin to seem like idle speculation on our part to keep niggling away at this topic. Fortunately, there is such a wealth of material about Welles in every medium that the world can go merrily on without the tapes of Henry Jaglom.
-
Oscar Christie
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:38 pm
I have absolutely no direct knowledge of what is the truth.So now the story is that Jaglom's alleged betrayal killed Welles?
The story that has been presented by Graver and others is that Welles became extremely upset when he found out that Jaglom had taped all their lunches, and that he died soon thereafter.
No causality was stated.
-
jbrooks
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 pm
Oscar Christie,
Here is what you wrote --
Regardless, and all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I don't mean to belabor these issues. I do find it interesting, and I have a strong point of view. But I recognize this is ultimately somewhat frustrating since we can't ever know the truth and we don't have easy access to first-hand sources.
If anyone knows of any book or article addressing this alleged Jaglom betrayal, I would appreciate being directed to it. I would be interested to see if anyone is on the record on this matter in print.
As for me, my final thoughts on this are that if the allegation is true, then shame on Jaglom. (Of course, I hope and believe that it is not true). But in any event, its been 20 years, and Oja and Gary Graver and everyone else should forgive Jaglom and get over it. Jaglom might be a bit self-centered and pretensious, but he's a good guy.
Here is what you wrote --
I fail to understand what you meant by "trade off" if you didn't mean to suggest that "Orson becoming livid" led to the "fatal heart attack soon after." If you weren't suggesting that the alleged Jaglom betrayal led to Welles' death, then what were you "trading off"?Let's see if the trade off is big brass ring, Leaming's book & someone to love, but Orson becoming livid when he found out the guy had been taping him and having a fatal heart attack soon after, or none of things happening, I'd have just as soon Jaglom had not been so involved in Welles's life
Regardless, and all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I don't mean to belabor these issues. I do find it interesting, and I have a strong point of view. But I recognize this is ultimately somewhat frustrating since we can't ever know the truth and we don't have easy access to first-hand sources.
If anyone knows of any book or article addressing this alleged Jaglom betrayal, I would appreciate being directed to it. I would be interested to see if anyone is on the record on this matter in print.
As for me, my final thoughts on this are that if the allegation is true, then shame on Jaglom. (Of course, I hope and believe that it is not true). But in any event, its been 20 years, and Oja and Gary Graver and everyone else should forgive Jaglom and get over it. Jaglom might be a bit self-centered and pretensious, but he's a good guy.
-
Oscar Christie
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:38 pm
why do think Graver would make this story up?Oja and Gary Graver and everyone else should forgive Jaglom and get over it
what would be his incentive to lie about Jaglom?
why did Oja want him out of the movie?
why would blunted make up his story?
what is the basis for your believing that Jaglom didn't do it other than your assertion that he's a good guy?
-
Oscar Christie
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:38 pm
why do think Graver would make this story up?Oja and Gary Graver and everyone else should forgive Jaglom and get over it
what would be his incentive to lie about Jaglom?
why did Oja want him out of the movie?
why would blunted make up his story?
what is the basis for your believing that Jaglom didn't do it other than your assertion that he's a good guy?
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Dear Oscar: Don't you see how foolish this argument is? As it goes on, it reminds me not only of the ruinous fallings out of the Kennedy scholars over minutiae but the plot of William Van Tilburg Clark's great first novel, The Oxbow Incident, which epitomized the American weakness for a good lynching by telling the story of three innocent men who were hanged on the basis of a rumor.
Perhaps you have confused Jaglom with Bogdanovich. The latter did have a falling out with Welles, which both men came to regret. David Thomson, never easy on Welles and his friends, says: "Bogdanovich's place in Welles' life was largely filled by Henry Jaglom, who had cast Welles in A SAFE PLACE. Jaglom was an independent filmmaker: he made films on his own, usually with his own money, then sold them himself. He adored Welles, and treasured his sweetness. They often lunched together, and Jaglom began to keep sound recordings of those occasions -- for use someday in a book . . . . " [pp 416-417].
What about this passage from Frank Brady, probably Welles' most distinguished biographer: "Henry Jaglom had been videotaping and audiotaping Orson for several years in loosely structured but regularly scheduled autobiographical sessions, with Orson talking directly to the camera or microphone, and giving the story of his life. When Leaming's book came out, Jaglom suggested that they give up the subject. 'No,' Orson said. 'I haven't read the book yet. Let's keep taping. When I get too old to make movies, I'd still like to write MY book . . . . " [pp 586-597].
The above development would have had to have occurred just months before Welles' death.
Does anyone have a legitimate checkable source besides Lbrooks quotation of Gary Graver's remarks to support the unlikely events we have been contesting?
Would one not have thought that this juicy controversy might have found its way between the covers of a fact-checked book in the last 20 years?
Could we get back to doing something tangible in seeing that THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND gets released?
Or are we simply going to blow dog here, day after day?
End of appeal.
Glenn
Perhaps you have confused Jaglom with Bogdanovich. The latter did have a falling out with Welles, which both men came to regret. David Thomson, never easy on Welles and his friends, says: "Bogdanovich's place in Welles' life was largely filled by Henry Jaglom, who had cast Welles in A SAFE PLACE. Jaglom was an independent filmmaker: he made films on his own, usually with his own money, then sold them himself. He adored Welles, and treasured his sweetness. They often lunched together, and Jaglom began to keep sound recordings of those occasions -- for use someday in a book . . . . " [pp 416-417].
What about this passage from Frank Brady, probably Welles' most distinguished biographer: "Henry Jaglom had been videotaping and audiotaping Orson for several years in loosely structured but regularly scheduled autobiographical sessions, with Orson talking directly to the camera or microphone, and giving the story of his life. When Leaming's book came out, Jaglom suggested that they give up the subject. 'No,' Orson said. 'I haven't read the book yet. Let's keep taping. When I get too old to make movies, I'd still like to write MY book . . . . " [pp 586-597].
The above development would have had to have occurred just months before Welles' death.
Does anyone have a legitimate checkable source besides Lbrooks quotation of Gary Graver's remarks to support the unlikely events we have been contesting?
Would one not have thought that this juicy controversy might have found its way between the covers of a fact-checked book in the last 20 years?
Could we get back to doing something tangible in seeing that THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND gets released?
Or are we simply going to blow dog here, day after day?
End of appeal.
Glenn
-
jbrooks
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 pm
Okay,
I was going to drop this. Glenn Anders may be right that it is time to move on. But I'll give quick responses here.
why did Oja want him out of the movie?
Does soemeone have first-hand knowledge that that is true? And do we know that her animosity is due to the allegedly secret taping? Obviously, I would be more inclined to believe the allegations if I was sure that Ms. Kodar believed them (assuming that she heard it from Welles and not someone else after his death).
1) I believe that Jaglom sincerely loved Welles and had Welles best interests at heart. I base that belief on my own conversations with Jaglom and all publicly available evidence (with the one exception of this taping story).
2) I haven't seen anywhere where this allegation has been made on the record in print by a person who was in a position to know. (If such sources exist, I would appreciate being directed to them).
3) I don't believe Welles could have been secretly recorded at a noisy restaurant for lunch after lunch, year after year. He would have seen the tape recorder or asked what was going on.
4) I don't understand what motive Jaglom could have possibly had. Supposedly, he didn't need to make money from the venture. And from what I know of Welles, I would think he would have been delighted to have had the conversations taped. (I have always imagined the conversations are similar to those that Barbara Leaming had with Welles that she included in her biography).
That's my thought process. (I'm sorry to repeat some of my earlier posts) I'm open to persuasion if someone has more to offer.
I was going to drop this. Glenn Anders may be right that it is time to move on. But I'll give quick responses here.
I don't know. I'm not inclined to believe that Graver made it up. My guess would be that the story is based on something that Welles said or implied to him. But I think these things have a way of getting distorted as they are passed along. I haven't heard enough about the actual derivation of the allegation to come up with a better answer than that. As for any motivation, it is clear that Graver doesn't like Jaglom -- just read the quotes from Graver above.why do think Graver would make this story up?
what would be his incentive to lie about Jaglom?
why did Oja want him out of the movie?
Does soemeone have first-hand knowledge that that is true? And do we know that her animosity is due to the allegedly secret taping? Obviously, I would be more inclined to believe the allegations if I was sure that Ms. Kodar believed them (assuming that she heard it from Welles and not someone else after his death).
I didn't mean to suggest that I thought Blunted -- or anyone else on the board for that matter -- made anything up. And re-reading Blunted's posts, he doesn't say he has first hand knowledge of any of this except that Jaglom "sounds like a cigar chomping New York mobster" and was defensive about the tapes. I don't think Jaglom sounds like a New York mobster and he wasn't defensive when he talked to me about the tapes in 1987. But I'm sure Blunted's giving his honest view.why would blunted make up his story?
The basis of my belief is as follows --what is the basis for your believing that Jaglom didn't do it other than your assertion that he's a good guy?[/
1) I believe that Jaglom sincerely loved Welles and had Welles best interests at heart. I base that belief on my own conversations with Jaglom and all publicly available evidence (with the one exception of this taping story).
2) I haven't seen anywhere where this allegation has been made on the record in print by a person who was in a position to know. (If such sources exist, I would appreciate being directed to them).
3) I don't believe Welles could have been secretly recorded at a noisy restaurant for lunch after lunch, year after year. He would have seen the tape recorder or asked what was going on.
4) I don't understand what motive Jaglom could have possibly had. Supposedly, he didn't need to make money from the venture. And from what I know of Welles, I would think he would have been delighted to have had the conversations taped. (I have always imagined the conversations are similar to those that Barbara Leaming had with Welles that she included in her biography).
That's my thought process. (I'm sorry to repeat some of my earlier posts) I'm open to persuasion if someone has more to offer.