Despite the System by Clinton Heylin

[jaime marzol]

"One could fill a wide shelf with books on Orson Welles, some of them by his detractors, some by his idolators, but none with the prodigious research that has gone into this one. Heylin has apparently not only read every page ever published on Welles, he has burrowed into libraries and private archives; he has seen not only every film, but all the myriad versions of the same film in Welles's tortured filmography. He has read and quotes faithfully from every screenplay, and all those rewrites, with a surfeit of notes and letters about each one. "

Bud Schulberg.

..............................

Check this out. Maybe I was right and DESPITE THE SYSTEM doesn’t suck! The reviwer from the Palm Beach Post thought it sucked, and all the average Stephen King reviewers thought it sucked, but Bud Schulberg doesn’t think it sucks, and he wrote ON THE WATERFRONT!

This article came from the New York Times


'Despite the System': The Kane Mutiny
By BUDD SCHULBERG

Published: May 1, 2005

Long ago, while trying to write with F. Scott Fitzgerald a romantic movie based on the Dartmouth College Winter Carnival, this reviewer was asked how he would define his hometown.

''Everybody outside thinks it's so glamorous,'' I said. ''But there's nothing glamorous about it. Hollywood's a factory town, only instead of motor cars or steel, we turn out cans of film.'' Like the fine observer he was, Fitzgerald must have made a mental note, because on the opening page of his unfinished Hollywood symphony, ''The Last Tycoon,'' the narrator says, ''My father was in the picture business as another man might be in cotton or steel.'' But Fitzgerald's protagonist, the producer Monroe Stahr, wasn't content with turning out cans of film. Inside this fictional studio executive -- based on the legendary Irving Thalberg -- was a creative soul working to express itself in the only new art form of the 20th century.

Therein lies the tension that confronts every film director or writer who tries to do something ''serious'' in that show-me-the-bottom-line factory town. One of the standard approaches of successful directors -- even headliners like John Ford, John Huston and King Vidor -- was to ''give one to get one'': make a routine major studio potboiler in order to make a movie of your own.

On the other side of the coin is the tragic hero, whose greatest weakness is his integral strength, his bone-deep inability to compromise -- as we find in ''Despite the System: Orson Welles Versus the Hollywood Studios,'' a devoted and meticulously researched work. Does any name come to mind more insistently than Welles, that Don Quixote of film directors? Small wonder ''Don Quixote'' was one of Welles's favorites in that frustrating group of films he would work and rework with demon energy over the years, only to give up finally and raise the white flag. Then somehow he would find the strength to move on to the next film. ''I believe that the only good work I can do is my own particular thing,'' Welles once said. ''I don't think I'm very good at doing their thing.''

Welles came to Hollywood in 1939, after winning national notoriety at 23 for his audacious ''War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast, so realistic it scared the wits out of the audience. After signing a two-picture deal for RKO, he had several false starts -- including an attempt at Joseph Conrad's ''Heart of Darkness'' -- before he began ''Citizen Kane,'' based on a screenplay by the brilliant, erratic and alcoholic Herman Mankiewicz, and with cinematographer Gregg Toland, who would have become one of the memorable film artists if he had not died prematurely of a heart attack soon after World War II.

Responsibility for the original idea of ''Citizen Kane'' has always been a matter of dispute. Mankiewicz claimed credit for the concept, and in truth had talked to my father, the producer B. P. Schulberg, about doing a film on William Randolph Hearst before Welles's dramatic arrival in Hollywood. At the same time, as Heylin explains Welles's side of it, there seems no doubt that Mankiewicz's approach to the Charles Foster Kane (that is, Hearst) character was one of venomous darkness and it was Welles who provided the light. Welles rewrote scenes to define Kane as less a monster than a many-faceted public relations genius, as creative as he is finally self-destructive.

Whether Welles cribbed from Mankiewicz -- who objected to having to share writing credit in the finished film -- or whether it was Toland rather than Welles who was responsible for the unusual photographic effects and visual design, in the last analysis it's immaterial. It is the impact of the final work that counts, and has there ever been a film that made a greater impact -- whether it was a director's first or his 20th film -- than ''Citizen Kane'' when it came to the screen in 1941? To this day, it still ranks first on most serious critics' lists of all-time great films. Still in his mid-20's, Orson Welles was hailed as the genius of American movies; and if he owed a debt to his gifted collaborators, that's the director's job, after all, to draw on the talents around him to compose the work of art the audience sees. Heylin makes it persistently clear that Welles's stamp is all over ''Citizen Kane,'' that aside from playing the central character with unforgettable gusto, he infused the movie with his spirit.

In his first time at bat in the Hollywood ballpark, Welles scored a home run, earning nine Oscar nominations (he won only one, for best screenplay, which he shared with the now openly hostile Mankiewicz). There were other dark clouds gathering, too. William Randolph Hearst was a superpower in Hollywood, and he expressed his fury at Welles by enlisting Louis B. Mayer, the boss of MGM, to offer to pay RKO the cost of the movie (some $800,000) just to suppress it. Welles's name was mud in the Hearst newspaper chain forevermore, and even Welles's admirers in Hollywood wondered how he could survive.

Welles's endless struggle with the profit-minded studio system really began with his follow-up film for RKO, the eagerly awaited but ill-fated ''Magnificent Ambersons.'' Welles undertook the project with his signature high hopes and hard work. His script, based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning Booth Tarkington novel, reflected a darkly imagined interpretation of the rise and fall of a prosperous Midwestern family, whose 19th-century town is growing into a city and leaving the family behind.

Part of the problem once he started filming was that Welles no longer answered to the sympathetic George Schaefer, who as president of RKO had allowed him space to make ''Citizen Kane.'' RKO was now in thrall to a man whose brain was stamped with a giant dollar sign, Charles Koerner. Koerner was the first of an army of studio chieftains who seemed to be put on this earth for the sole purpose of butchering Welles's artistic efforts. The war of attrition that Koerner waged against Welles is spelled out by Heylin in agonizing and sometimes exhausting detail. While Welles managed to shoot his own screenplay pretty much as he envisioned, he came up short in the end because he lost the precious power of the final cut he had on ''Citizen Kane.''

To give some idea of the butchery, when Welles's original 132-minute film was turned over to the film editor, Robert Wise (later a director of note), Wise was given orders to cut it down to double-bill size, just 88 minutes. Gone was Welles's downbeat ending with its tragic sense of how changing times have brought the once proud George Amberson Minafer down in humiliation and neglect. All of Welles's carefully thought-out nuances had been carefully trimmed out. Although Welles blamed Schaefer and never forgave him, Schaefer had been caught in a power struggle with the domineering Koerner and lost, surrendering the clout and courage he had shown backing up Welles on ''Citizen Kane.'' Koerner represented the Eastern money of power broker Floyd Odlum and his Atlas Corporation, who were bailing out RKO to the tune of $100 million.

After ''Citizen Kane,'' Welles may have loomed as an artistic giant, but when it came to ''The Magnificent Ambersons,'' he was a Lilliputian to Odlum and Koerner's giant-footed Gulliver. When he screened the film for the sympathetic director Peter Bogdanovich 30 years later, he had to turn away in tears, and in the 1980's he tried to watch it again and turned it off 20 minutes before the end. As the doggedly faithful Heylin quotes him, he said, ''From here on in it becomes their movie.'' Asked, ''Do you ever get over something like that?'' his predictable answer was, ''Not really, you don't.''

Heylin takes us on a nightmare journey as his driven hero flings himself again and again against the ramparts of Hollywood fortresses. After the Amberson debacle, Welles made only four more movies for the major studios over the next 17 years, and each time he would plunge into the new venture as if he had no memory of the previous humiliation. What a magnificent damned fool he was, Heylin seems to be telling us, with chapter and verse, chapter and verse, until we begin to know almost more than we can bear about what went wrong with ''The Stranger,'' ''A Touch of Evil'' and ''The Lady From Shanghai.''

One could fill a wide shelf with books on Orson Welles, some of them by his detractors, some by his idolators, but none with the prodigious research that has gone into this one. Heylin has apparently not only read every page ever published on Welles, he has burrowed into libraries and private archives; he has seen not only every film, but all the myriad versions of the same film in Welles's tortured filmography. He has read and quotes faithfully from every screenplay, and all those rewrites, with a surfeit of notes and letters about each one. And, of course, the films that somehow managed to reach the screen, even in forms that would bring Welles to tears, are outnumbered by all the projects to which he devoted months on months and sometimes years, and finally had to abandon without ever getting to what the studios liked to call ''principal photography. '' ''Unprincipled photography'' was what the long-suffering Welles would have called it, having endured the humiliation of having a hack editor or director brought in to ''fix'' what he'd done.

While Heylin's prose is only workmanlike, with an occasional lapse in grammar, we aren't looking for Lionel Trilling here. We're looking at the most meticulous champion Orson Welles has ever had. For those of you who are scholars of Welles, amateur or pro, or simply wondering what in the world happened to him after his astonishing debut with ''Citizen Kane,'' this is the book for you.

Budd Schulberg's books include his memoir ''Moving Pictures: Memories of a Hollywood Prince,'' the novel and screenplay ''On the Waterfront,'' and the novel ''What Makes Sammy Run?''

[jaime marzol]

i always felt the book was too complicated for the welles novice, and the only difinitive words possible would have to come from some one like rosenbaum, or mcbride.

but if i have to, i'll take schulberg's word for it.

cheers to clinton

and it's too bad we are not getting another welles book from him. i find welles' later years more fascinating than the earlier hollywood years.

[tony williams]

The book certainly deserved more than its detractor reviewers attempted. But, as Jonathan Rosenbaum and others have pointed out, mainstream journalism has a vested interest in trashing anything alternative to the Hollywood mainstream both past and present.

I've just viewed ONE MAN BAND on the new FOR FOR FAKE DVD. It is much better than the version presented on LIFETIME which was edited, dubbed, and introduced rather redundantly by Peter Bogdanovich. The original version opens with a sincere commentary in German presenting the whole documentary as a labor of love and presenting Oja Kodar's comments in the appropriate perspective. I believe it has more footage from THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND extract run in the AFDI Tribute and the LIFETIME version. Perhaps Jaimie may comment on this?

[Glenn Anders]

Jaime: I have gotten a copy of DESPITE THE SYSTEM, at last, and I rather agree with both you and the venerable Schulberg. Heylin's book seems massively researched, with much information and many insights I have not found elsewhere. His writing style may be a little casual, and there are typos and careless mistakes that he or his publisher's checkers should have caught. For instance, he has Erskine Sanford rather than Everett Sloane playing the lawyer, Bannister, in LADY FROM SHANGHAI. But Heylin is generally a passionate and sound advocate for the kind of brave rebel in the Popular Arts he favors. And Orson Welles was one of those, for sure, as Heylin documents.

You and I may be special pleaders, noting the acknowledgement Heylin gives us, but members, I should think, will find our recommendation of his book sound.

I take it, Jaime, that you are suggesting in your last posted comment that Heylin had intended a longer book -- or a second volume?

Glenn

[jaime marzol]

TONY said:
"mainstream journalism has a vested interest in trashing anything alternative to the Hollywood mainstream both past and present."

.........

on the level of the guys that trashed clinton's book, i just felt they were not qualified to rate the book. It’s a very specialized book for a very specialized audience. a guy that reviews day in and day out things like THE LITTLE MERMAID, probably should not be the guy that we get to review murnau's FAUST.

Clinton’s book answers questions that only people that KNOW wellesiana want answered. So you have to know the questions before you read clinton’s book for the answers. If you don’t know the questions the answers mean nothing.

the guys that trashed clinton's book are probably very qualified to do what they do every day - rate books on the ny best seller list, books like the leaming book, the john russell taylor big coffee table welles book with lots of pictures.

These guys address mainstream america because that is where their taste, and employment lies. And the more they embrace mainstream america the longer they have jobs. They become more like cheerleaders rather than journalists. So yes, they do trash the edges!

GLENN:
i had thought that clinton was writing 2 books, first the main focus being hollywood, then the second book after touch of evil, but he said, no, he never had that plan. so i don't know why i thought that.

[Glenn Anders]

Jaime: Thanks. Seems to me that I read somewhere else that the plan was to write two volumes, or at least, a longer book.

So we are both puzzled.

Glenn

[tony]

Interesting post, Jaime (as always): one important factual error Schulberg makes, though: it wasn't Koerner who cut and released Amberson's, it was Schaefer; to quote the Amberson.com site:


GEORGE SCHAEFER TO ORSON WELLES:

March 21, 1942 PERSONAL-CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Orson:

I did not want to cable you with respect to THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS as indicated in your cable of the 18th, only because I wanted to write you under confidential cover.

Of course, when you ask me for my reaction, I know you want it straight, and though it is difficult to write you this way, you should hear from me.

Never in all my experience in the industry have I taken so much punishment or suffered as I did at the Pomona preview. In my 28 years I the business, I have never been present in a theater where the audience acted in such a manner. They laughed at the wrong places, talked at the picture, kidded it, and did everything that you can possibly imagine.

I don't have to tell you how I suffered, especially in the realization that we have over $1,000,000. tied up. It was just like getting one sock in the jaw after another for over two hours.

The picture was too slow, heavy, and topped off with somber music, never did register. It all started off well, but just went to pieces.

I am sending you copies of all the preview cards received to date. They speak for themselves and do not tell the whole story because only a small percentage of people make out cards. I queried many of those present and they all seemed to feel that the party who made the picture was trying to be "arty," was out for camera angles, lights and shadows, and as a matter of fact, one remarked that "the man who made that picture was camera crazy." Mind you, these are not my opinions--I am giving them to you just as I received them.

The punishment was not sufficient, and as I believed in the picture more than the people did, I hiked myself to Pasadena again last night, feeling sure that we would get a better reaction. We did, but not, of course, in its entirety. There were many spots where we got the same reaction as we did in Pomona. I think cutting will help considerably, but there is no doubt in my mind but that the people at Pasadena also thought it was slow and heavy. The somber musical score does not help.

While, of course, the reaction at Pasadena was better than Pomona, we still have a problem. In Pomona we played to the younger element. It is the younger element who contribute the biggest part of the revenue. If you cannot satisfy that group, you just cannot bail yourself out with a $1,000,000. investment—all of which, Orson, is very disturbing to say the least.

In all our initial discussions, you stressed low costs, making pictures at $300,000. to $500,000. We will not make a dollar on CITIZEN KANE and present indications are that we will not break even. The final results on AMBERSONS is still to be told, but it looks "red."

All of which reminds me of only one thing—that we must have a "heart to heart" talk. Orson Welles has got to do something commercial. We have got to get away from "arty" pictures and get back to earth. Educating the people is expensive, and your next picture must be made for the box-office.

God knows you have all the talent and the ability for writing, producing directing—everything in CITIZEN KANE and AMBERSONS confirms that. We should apply all that talent and effort in the right direction and make a picture on which "we can get well."

That's the story, Orson, and I feel very miserable to have to write you this.

My very best as always,

George Schaefer


Welles quickly reccommended some changes and cuts to the picture:

ORSON WELLES TO JACK MOSS (excerpt):

March 27, 1942

This is a preliminary list of AMERSON cuts. Details follow tomorrow morning.

(Welles went on to list many major changes he thought would improve the film's audience acceptance, giving extensive instructions for scenes to be re-shot, re dubbed, or re-edited. Welles largest cut was the deletion of all the scenes related to George and Isabel's European Trip).

REEL FIVE - Following is new scene:

Very slow FADE IN

Interior of Eugene's house. Eugene at desk near window in the late afternoon, blacklit.

TIGHT SHOT of Eugene writing almost in silhouette. Sound of pen as he signs his name and puts down pen. Looks back to top of page, as he reads letter to himself, his lips not moving. His voice reads letter heard on track with music as in present version of letter sequence.

New text of letter as follows:

Yesterday I thought the time had come when I could ask you to marry me, and you were dear enough to tell me sometime it might come to that. But now we come to this dear.-- Will you live your own life your way of George's way?---Oh, Dearest woman in the world, I know what your son is to you and it frightens me. Dear, it breaks my heart for you but what you have to oppose now is the history of your own selfless and perfect motherhood. Are you strong enough, Isabel? Can you make the fight?

Now CUT or QUICK DISSOLVE to Isabel seated as she looks up from letter then rises.

Here is added line of Eugene's narration for this setting:

I know your aren't quite well dear -- But…

I promise you that if you will take heart for it…

And so on through-- DISSOLVE TO:

George (outside of Isabel's room).

Play through George entering Isabel's room, including the new scene where he finds her unconscious which should be terrific if camera is close enough and moving with him as he drops to feel her and takes her in his arms before we FADE OUT. Again emphasize tremendous importance that this shot be beautifully done with music very strong.

(Welles apparently felt that by removing large portions of non-essential story material — in this case all the scenes pertaining to George and Isabel's trip to Europe — he could save the key material he really hoped to keep, such as the very downbeat ending. If Welles suggested cuts had been carried out, instead of having Isabel choose George over Eugene by going abroad, Welles would have simplified her conflicted decision by merely indicating Isabel has become too ill to consider Eugene's proposal (by substituting a new scene, where George would simply find Isabel unconscious in her room).

Welles also reccommended an upbeat ending:

ORSON WELLES TO JACK MOSS:

April 2, 1942

To leave audience happy for AMBERSONS, remake cast credits as follows and in this order:

First, oval framed old fashioned picture, very authentic looking of Bennett in Civil War campaign hat. Second, live shot of Ray Collins, no insert, in elegant white ducks and hair whiter than normal seated on tropical veranda with ocean and waving palm tree behind him—Negro servant serving him second long cool drink. Third, Aggie blissfully and busily playing bridge with cronies in boarding house. Fourth, circular locket with authentic old fashioned picture of Costello in ringlets, looking very young. Fifth, Jo Cotton at French window closing watch case obviously containing Costello's picture tying in with previous shot; sound of car driving away. Jo turns, looks out window and waves. Sixth, Tim Holt and Anne Baster in open car—Tim shifting gears but looking over shoulder—as he does this, Anne looking same direction and waving, they turn to each other then look forward both very happy and gay and attractive for fadeout. Then fade in mike shot for my closing lines as before.


Schaefer was quickly losing power, partly because the problems involving Welles: Kane had lost money, Ambersons was a mess, and the Brazil trip was out of control:



GEORGE SCHAEFER TO ORSON WELLES:

April 16, 1942

DEAR ORSON:

HAVE BEEN TRYING, ALL DAY YESTERDAY AND AGAIN TODAY BUT UNSUCCESSFUL. YOUR CABLE WAS RECEIVED AND I HAVE FULL APPRECIATION OF YOUR PRODUCTION DIFFICULTIES SO FAR AWAY FROM HOME. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I MUST TAKE FIRM POSITION AND CANNOT PERMIT MONEY TO BE EXPENDED AT RATE YOU ARE PLANNING - AND I MUST KNOW WHEN YOU EXPECT TO FINISH. YOU HAVE BEEN AWAY FOR THREE MONTHS NOW AND SURELY WE EXPECTED YOU BACK LONG BEFORE THIS. ON TOP OF THIS, RECORDS INDICATE YOU SPENT $33,000 IN MARCH. THIS IS ALL OUT OF PROPORTION TO WHAT WE EVER ESTIMATED. WE CANNOT GO ALONG ON THAT BASIS EVEN IF WE HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN SHOW AND ASK YOU TO RETURN. THIS IS HOW SERIOUS SITUATION IS. WITH RESPECT TO MY OWN APPREHENSION, I MUST CONTACT YOU BY PHONE WITHIN 24 HOURS AS THERE ARE SOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT LOOK VERY UNPLEASANT IN MANY DIRECTIONS.

April 17- 20th: Freddie Fleck, the assistant director on AMBERSONS, shoots several retakes, including the two new ending scenes. George Schaefer has both of these new sequences re-scored by staff composer Roy Webb. Webb's music is done in a far cheerier style than the sad and elegiac music Bernard Herrmann provided for the original boarding house ending.

May 4, 1942: A 93 minute re-cut version of AMBERSONS is previewed in Inglewood.

May 12, 1942: A 87 minute re-cut version of AMBERSONS is previewed in Long Beach.

May 19, 1942: Jack Moss shoots the final re-takes for AMBERSONS.


GEORGE SCHAEFER RESIGNS

June 8, 1942

One of Schaefer's last acts as RKO's President is to approve the final release print of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS — now incorporating the numerous re-takes as directed by Wise, Jack Moss and Freddie Fleck. The release version now runs a scant 88 minutes — 44 minutes shorter than the first rough cut. The most incongruous change proves to be the two re-shot and re-scored ending scenes. Both flagrantly violate everything Welles had intended.

So Schaefer was responsible both for the production and release of Kane, and the editing/changing/butchering of Ambersons.

[NoFake]

Tony's extremely informative post notes: "...one important factual error Schulberg makes, though: it wasn't Koerner who cut and released Amberson's, it was Schaefer..." Yet Paul Heyer, in "The Medium and the Magician: Orson Welles, The Radio Years, 1934-1952," states (p. 173): "Meanwhile, back at the RKO, Schaefer paid the price for his support of Welles. He was fired as production head by Charles Koerner." So one could conclude that the hand that held the scythe was indeed not Schaefer's, but Koerner's -- and that Schaefer was impaled on it along with Welles.

[tony]

NoFake:

If you read the letters and telegrams I quoted above carefully, you'll see it was Schafer who ordered all the cuts and changes to Ambersons, and he who okayed the final 88 minute version we have today; THEN he got the axe!

[jaime marzol]

"they all seemed to feel that the party who made the picture was trying to be "arty," was out for camera angles, lights and shadows, and as a matter of fact, one remarked that "the man who made that picture was camera crazy." Mind you, these are not my opinions--I am giving them to you just as I received them. "

wow! digest the comment above from the telegram. unreal. that is why the studio thought it needed to be toned down, because the guy was out for camera angles, lights and shadows. it's all too sad. the film was too cinematic

[tony]

Jaime:

Absolutely right, and the same problem as always: the bottom line; after all, it's the movie "business", as they say. A crucial passage in Shaefer's first letter,I think, is this:

'While, of course, the reaction at Pasadena was better than Pomona, we still have a problem. In Pomona we played to the younger element. It is the younger element who contribute the biggest part of the revenue. If you cannot satisfy that group, you just cannot bail yourself out with a $1,000,000. investment—all of which, Orson, is very disturbing to say the least.'

So, here was Schaefer telling Welles flat out: "you have got to make pictures for the teenage audience".

Impossible, impossible, impossible.

[jaime marzol]

in lilian ross' PICTURE, there is an incredible account of how much stock the studios put in preview audiences. there was the producer, Gottfried Reinhardt, standing in the theater lobby watching hoards of bobby soxers running out of the screening giggling and heading right to the preview cards. it was a big joke to them. and there is dary schary putting stock in this.

i was not aware schaffer had final say on AMBERSONS. so it was schaffer who had the handle on whether welles the volcano would explode or implode. schaffer sunk himself, and welles. think about that! schaffer having the say so on a million dollar welles film, and listening to advice from some pop corn eater in a smelly t-shirt.

they also went to cinematograher, harry wild, who said it was too long.

also, at lilly and on the french ambersons supplemrnt, i got the impression that wild was cinematographer for a lot of the ambersons.

e o si i

[Wilson]

Heylin appears on the radio show at the link below, which discusses Welles' career:

The Unseen Welles

[Jerzy]

Hello, I'm new here but I've been living in the Wellesian world for 2 months now as I've been translating Clinton Heylin's book about Welles struggle with Hollywood studios.

First of all - have you read the book and if so, what do you think?

I also have some questions to you as Welles admirers and native speakers of English. I wonder if you could help.

My questions are as follows:

1) In the fnale to "Black Irish" script (an early version of the Lady from Shanghai script) there is a scene after Michael "took the pills" with instructions about the saoundtrack: "Michael steps, drugged, stunned almost asleep. The voices of the commercial on the radio, the jam session, the billiard game, the congregation, the fight, blend weirdly together." This scene was deleted or never filmed, so it is NOT in the final version of the film, but is "the congregation" used here as "voices of people praying/singing in the church" here?

2) In the preface to the book it says that Welles made 10 films between 1945-1965, six in Hollywood, and four "raised digits to that cinematic colony". Raised digits?

3) About the technique of filming "The Lady from Shanghai": "every sequence in which Hayworth appears is broken into [...] wide shots [followed by] low-contrast, soft focus eye-level close-ups against a projected close-up". What does "against a projected close-up" mean here?

4) a quoted disparaging review of Welles' acting in "The Stranger": "the spectacle of Welles as a disguised Nazi spy walking through the film with an expression on his face which would have brought out the entire staff of Bellevue in an instant". I've learned Bellevue is a famous mental institution in America but what's the meaning of "brought out the entire staff in an instant" in this context assuming it was probably meant to be "funny"?

5) About using the idea of "Rosebud riddle" in "Citizen Kane" Welles said: "it was the only way we could find to get off". What's the meaning of "get off" here?

OK, of course I would have more questions, but these are most urgent ones and if you could help me with at least one, I would really appreciate it.

I must say that working on the translation made me really appreciate the art of Welles more and I've become sort of a fan, especially as far as "Ambersons" are concerned. So it was all kind of a discovery for me, which means I'll be posting on this site more and I'm so glad I've come across it.

All the best

[Jeff Wilson]

Welcome to the board, Jerzy. some answers for you:

1) The original finale of Black Irish, was as I recall, set in Harlem instead of San Francisco (the Black Irish version takes place mostly in New York City); the congregation mentioned would be a church congregation, yes.

2) I don't recall the quote from the book, but I assume it means the four films he didn't make in Hollywood were the equivalent of giving Hollywood the middle finger, four times over.

3) It sounds like you're talking about rear projection; not sure what a projected close-up is.

4) The quote means that Welles' expression would have sent the entire Belllevue staff out in order to throw him in the insane asylum. So yeah, humor was intended. Obviously not very good humor.

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask more, plenty of people here to help.