THE DREAMERS

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:50 pm

Welles spoke to Bogdanovich in This is Orson Welles about the "sheer ache" of seeing himself on screen. And i think he was talking about when he was still able to thin down for roles. This probably goes towards explaining why he did not stay to finish cutting many of his pictures after Ambersons. Looking at himself on the footage seems to have upset him so, and may well ruin his memory of the movie. I know this is a controversial subject, and i don't mean offense - i understand there were other reasons Welles was forced to leave after Ambersons, Macbeth, Shanghai and Touch of Evil. I'm just not sure that subconsciously having to look at himself on the footage wasn't a motivating factor to not stay.

I think someone brought up the false noses. I thought it was interesting the Welles quote in One Man Band about the function of makeup and false noses being to take away from yourself that which is not part of the character. By doing this, Orson was also perhaps removing a major identifying feature of himself in his mind (his button nose).

The only movie he's in that he would watch whenever it was on TV was, ironically, The Third Man (where he appears without makeup at all!) But i spose its not so ironic - Welles has only three scenes, and the personal investment of his in it was so much less. There had to be so many fewer other factors and memories he would be thinking about while watching it (since he didn't direct it), that he could much easier just sit back and enjoy the movie.

Le Chiffre · Post by **Le Chiffre** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:38 pm

I think the reason why THE THIRD MAN was one of the few films of his that Welles enjoyed watching, was because it was one of the few films of his acting career that's really good, exhilarating rather then demoralizing. As he told Tom Snyder in a 1974 interview, "I never watch my old movies on TV because the only way to keep going is to imagine that you're better then you really are".

jbrooks · Post by **jbrooks** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 6:49 pm

On the topic of Welles' false noses, I note for anyone who is unaware that the American Museum of the Moving Image in Queens, New York has a Welles nose from the 1950's as part of its permanent collection. I believe it was from one of the films he acted in in the Late 50's but I cannot now remember which. The museum also has a note from Welles to his personal makeup man, requesting the nose along with a little drawing by Welles of what it should look like.

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:15 am

[quote="mteal"][/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by "really good, exhilarating rather than demoralising."

And that is such a great quote, the Snyder interview. Because i always suspected that was the reason many directors do not watch back their own movies (ubrick and Woody Allen are two eg). Even though millions of fans the world over may love them, and they may be quite wonderful movies, everyone is so critical of their own work, that they'd find so many faults in it and be discouraged about making more movies.

blunted by community · Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:50 pm

in RKO STORY, associates of fred astaire said if he accidentally caught a glimpse of himself on the screen he would quickly cover his eyes and make noises like he was in pain, "oh, oh, oh! and quickly leave the room.

also, i read that the welles fake nose will be going on tour this year. the mills brothers will be opening the show.

Glenn Anders · Post by **Glenn Anders** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:23 pm

It is certainly a telling point, the matter of the noses, but of course someone who had been on the stage, playing adult parts since an early teenager, would have been very conscious of noses, beards, moustaches, and how they can make one look more mature.

Many actors, it has been observed, go into acting to become someone else. The makeup helps.

When he was in Italy, Welles is said to have had these noses flown to him by the half dozen.

Blunted, really good artists, I think, have a tendency to see what they have done as never quite good enough, especially when it is in something like film or writing. That may have been a factor in the obsession with editing you note.

As for your observation regarding SOMEONE TO LOVE, you may be right. He was only a short way from death, then. He had to be pushed from place to place by wheelchair. In F FOR FAKE, however, I disagree. He wore that big cape, but he was there through much of the fresh footage he shot.

Ah, mteal, glad you liked the review of THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW. It is astounding how much that cover looks like Welles.

I was looking today at material on the retread of THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW, which Charlton Heston did after Welles' death. I haven't seen that version, however.

Glenn

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:26 am

Also, i recently read on imdb news that Penelope Cruz refuses to look at herself on a movie screen. She also doesn't like going to premieres and big functions and having loads of people looking at her. Many people comment on the sheer shock of just how huge you appear on a movie screen (i think Harrison Ford made this observation during his Behind the Actor's Studio interview), which must just amplify all your blemishes and bring out the self-critic in everyone.

It seems that Orson was particularly bothered by it, however.

Glenn Anders · Post by **Glenn Anders** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:02 pm

Sir Bygber, it is also a matter of how much weight the camera seems to add to your frame, of particular concern to young actresses, who often spend major time worrying about what they eat and how they look.

And think of how Welles must have felt.

From personal experience, I know that most people who have put on weight in their youth seldom really lose it all, can later approximate fitness only by Draconian methods. For movie actors, in general, it must be a curse, one never far from their minds. And so, even if Welles buckled down to a regimen, the results would likely have been disappointing from camera's point of view. And there were all the stereotypes of youth to haunt him, to accuse him.

Not to mention his friends, critics and enemies.

Glenn

TheMcGuffin · Post by **TheMcGuffin** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:48 pm

There may be another reason...though applying more to Welles than other actors. Welles extensively used wide-angle lens, which have a tendancy to distort features on the face making things like noses, ears and cheeks much look bigger than they really are. For Welles own movies he did tend to use these lens to show the grotesqueness of his characters, close ups of Kane and Quinlan come to mind.

Just throwing out another idea....

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:04 pm

Dont know much about the lenses Welles used, but Glenn Anders, Quinlan and Falstaff are the three main figures (i can think of) he used close-ups to highlight their grotesquerie. Generally, i think Welles has said he doesn't think much of the close-up. He says any actor can be brilliant in close-up, its the medium and long shots you need to be great to be compelling in. I'm not so sure - i think the closer the camera is, the harder it is to fake. Often you'll think Orson is giving a great performance, then there'll be a closeup, and you'll see it in his eyes that he's only acting. The eyes really give it away. That's why you have to be an absolute master actor to appear in a Bergman film - if you're not genuine, his camera picks it up in an instant (i've seldom spotted a false moment, but i've only seen a couple of his movies so far). Same with Sergio Leone, except his actors aren't always so good, and there are many more of them in each movie - i love Leone movies, but because he shoots so much in closeups, he leaves himself open for supporting actors and extras to spoil a moment.

Clive Dale · Post by **Clive Dale** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:23 am

Phil Hall writea a contrarian review

Jeff Wilson · Post by **Jeff Wilson** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:07 pm

I haven't seen all of the footage, but I will agree with the writer that of what I have seen, I thought Oja was pretty bad in it.

Eve · Post by **Eve** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:20 pm

- what follows is only a sort of short emotional reply, which I was unfortunately unable to repress, so apologies to all -
I was lucky enough to attend the Locarno screening of the Munich Filmmuseums' 20 minute assembly of the footage - and have to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with Phil Hall ...

Before the screening I've only seen the pieces included in 'One Man Band' and after reading Peter Tonguettes' wonderful contribution was of course eagerly looking forward to see it finally - but I couldn't have been more entranced or devastated.
I'll have to admit that Welles' and also Kodars' performance made me crying shamelessly.
The fragments of 'The Dreamers' are in my opinion simply the most openly beautiful, ethereal and mourning pieces of film that I've ever seen (in that sense, little else can equal it in Welles' work) - the sense of loss and longing and at the same time the embodiment of strength in Kodars' performance is extraordinary - ever since I heard her speaking 'Left or right, Marcus, but never home again' - the sound of these words kept me haunting.
Also visually the fragments are nothing less than enchanting - if Kodar described Welles as being 'secretly romantic' - this is the film to see, hear and feel the meaning of these two words.
The dark, yet incredibly warm and diffuse colors - easily combining and surpassing whole gallerys of both Romanticists and Impressionists - the quiet composition of the scenes contribute their share to the wistful, yet powerful tone, whereas the mood is at all moments extremly balanced.

Sadly, Hall maybe right when he says that "this ambitious project was doomed to failure from the beginning" - but this can only be seen in relation to the words heard in the film: "There is no justice in the world"
Both performances are out of question, the existing pieces of film are magnificent -
what rests is the question of the "box office value or name recognition" of Kodar and what Geoffrey MacNab called in a recent article in 'The Independent' the "one commodity Welles never had enough of in his lifetime: money."

I think that nobody here is likely to agree with Hall on this ...

In a way, there is good fortune that “The Dreamers” is so obscure. Welles’ talent was without peer and it is best for those who love his work to celebrate his many deserved triumphs and not be bothered by this small, shabby post-script to his career.

Instead I'm desperately hoping that it will be shown in as many places as possible and will see a release on DVD - to give more people the chance and delight of seeing these pieces which (can) give us a hauting hint of what once again could have been ...

catbuglah · Post by **catbuglah** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:28 pm

[/quote]Robert Graves "There's no money in poetry, but then there's no poetry in money, either." [quote]

I rather like the Dreamers myself - from the little I've seen, one of my favorites of the Welles apocrypha :;): - Now I hate to follow Eve's inspired, elegiac, lyrical post with crass mercantile considerations but I sometimes can't help but wistfully boggle :O at the market potential the Welles oeuvre could have if it were considerably more cohesionated than at the present time - but just for starters - why the heck not throw out a DVD of some raw reels of Welles, some grab-bag of good segments of unfinished genius? Call it 'Welles - unplugged' or 'Welles - the lost years' - People love that kind of stuff - The bean-counters get wrongly uptitght about the need to have some finished, pseudo-commercial product format - I say keep it real, man! That's what the world needs now.

One good example of a miraculous artistic legacy estate turn-around is the Jimi Hendrix

estate - for 30 years his catalog was a mess - bootleggers paradise - a train wreck - but since a court awarded the lion's share of his copyrights to the Hendrix family - wow! A good well-organized, high-quality, catalog, with generous amounts of the massive Hendrix unreleased vaults being made available often in complete form, warts and all - CD's, DVD's, even LP'S, etc..(not perfect though, some people still prefer the 70's releases and various bootlegs) - unauthorized releases are vigorously prosecuted (but until they release everything themselves, it'll always be a problem).

Hopefully one day,... :laugh:

jaime marzol · Post by **jaime marzol** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:56 pm

yeap, i've purchased many new hendrix offerings, his ouvre certainly has been turned around, and there are all kinds of new things that were never available before. a lot of people hated allan douglas that was in charge of the hendrix estate, and they had a lot of unreleased concerts, and materials they would not give allan douglas. when the courts awarded the catalogue to the hendrix family, the stuff came out of the woodwork. would be great if the same thing happened to the welles materials, but i won't hold my breath.

any one know if that Phil Hall that wrote the article is the same Phil Hall from OPEN CITY in NY? phil from OPEN CITY is a big time welles fan.

i don't at all agree with hall's quote in eve's post. every scrap of film welles made is woth looking at