Callow Vol. II: "Hello Americans"

[Kevin Loy]

I thought this was interesting:
"Obviously his talent was extraordinary. To get the freedom he desired he would have had to buy a studio, like Charlie Chaplin."

Is he referring to Chaplin Studios or United Artists? In either case, I thought that Chaplin started both of those, as opposed to buying them from somebody else. Maybe Welles should have stayed primarily with radio for a few more years and then bought RKO...the corporation and the studios.

[Le Chiffre]

Here's a BBC radio program with Callow discussing the new book. It follows a nice little discussion of Samuel Beckett's WAITING FOR GODOT where someone on the panel cites it as a possible Cold War parable. Interesting, as MR.ARKADIN was also said to be a Cold War parable, and on Rosenbaum and Naremore's DVD commentary they describe Jacob Zouk as a 'Beckett tramp'.

[Clive Dale]

Just a quick mention that in addition too the Welles bio, Callow has written other well researched books including a bio of Charles Laughton and a BFI on 'The Night of the Hunter'

[Glenn Anders]

"The irony is that what Orson Welles needed more than anything was the authority of a studio to free him. He had had it on Citizen Kane, but didn't like it."

I think Callow's statement here is a rather fair one.

But, like Kevin Loy, the impression I carried away from The Road to Xanadu was that almost everyone except Welles was responsible for CITIZEN KANE.

I would like to look at that Callow study of NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, Clive Dale mentions. Of many films mentioned here from time to time, this one seems to me to have Welles' influence all over it. Stanley Cortez to one side, it is as if Laughton had Welles at his shoulder while directing it.

Glenn

[tony]

Glenn:
I have the Callow bio of Laughton, and it's brilliant: a must-read. I also have his BFI "Night of the Hunter" which was published in 2000, and it's good, but not of the same intensity: perhaps Mr. Callow was too engrossed in "Orson Volume 2" to really focus again on that other sacred monster, Charles Laughton.

There is a third book on Night of the Hunter, and it's "Heaven and Hell to Play With: the Filming of the Night of the Hunter" by Preston Neal Jones (Limelight editions, 2002). It's quite superb, and one reaction I came away with is that Stanley Cortez was an annoying, aggravating, self-aggrandizing prima-donna who also happened to be a genius. Think about Ambersons and Hunter: are they not the 2 most beautiful pictures ever made in American cinema?

Have you heard the pirated Welles/Bogdanovich outakes on Cortez? Welles says some extremely nasty stuff about Cortez, and also never really gives him his fair due, in my opinion, for his contribution to Ambersons: he just complains about him being "criminally slow".

But Night of the Hunter proves that, with the right director, Cortez was simply unequalled as a cinematographer. Think of Ambersons and Hunter: take any screen capture from any second of those 2 films, and you have a work of art: if Cortez had only shot those two films, he would still live on in film history.

PS: He was also nominated for "Since you Went Away" in 1944.

[Jeff Wilson]

The newsblog page now has links to three more reviews of the books, along with the Amazon UK link.

[Roger Ryan]

Think of Ambersons and Hunter: take any screen capture from any second of those 2 films, and you have a work of art: if Cortez had only shot those two films, he would still live on in film history.

Not to downplay the talent of Cortez, because I think he did do some beautiful work, but while reviewing the daily production reports for "Ambersons", I was surprised at how much of that film was actually shot by others. Cortez was the only credited Director of Photography for approximately the first five weeks of shooting (end of October - early December, 1941), but for the next four weeks, he is often replaced by Harry Wild or Jack MacKenzie and by the last four weeks of principal photography Cortez has been replaced altogether. Of course, it almost goes without saying that Cortez had nothing to do with the reshoots done after Welles had left for Brazil. Ultimately, Cortez is reponsible for less than half of the footage that appears in the released version of "Ambersons".

I'll be interested in seeing if Callow addresses this in his new book.

[tony]

As you know, Roger, the reshoots are all of inferior quality, and to say that much of the rest of Cortez's work was cut would I think argue in his favour.

At any rate, where, may I ask, did you get the daily production reports for Ambersons: are they in Carringer????

[The Voice of Cornstarch]

"are they in Carringer?"

"are they in Carringer?"

Of course you forget that Mr. Ryan did the original research that resulted in the best known Ambersons reconstruction to date. If you weren't so thoughtless . . .

[Jeff Wilson]

[Glenn Anders]

I must say, thanks to Jeff, the British reviews of Callow's Hello Americans encourage me to read it. I can't quite see how the book they describe fits with the The Road to Xanadu, but I'm ready to give it a try.

Glenn

[Jeff Wilson]

I received the book today (only four days from the UK - faster than some domestic mail here). Strangely, the book doesn't appear to have a credit for that cover photo we were curious about. Also curious is that the copyright page lists permission from Beatrice, although for what I am uncertain. I've only made it through the introduction, but it seems Callow's opinion has changed somewhat, as the reviews mention. He is hardly eulogizing Welles, though; he makes it a point to reference two groups of Welles "supporters" - the Wellesolators, fans who think he did no wrong, and the Orsonolators, the academics who produce strangled theoretical works about Welles and hold conferences to spout them. He makes Catherine Benamou his shining example of this latter club, reproducing a passage from one of her writings on Welles that is nigh on gibberish, due to its being so coated in academic obfuscation. His emphasis on the political aspects of this period of Welles' life seems right on to me. It's a shorter book than I expected, running only 440 pages in this edition. More as I actually get into the book, though.

[Roger Ryan]

As you know, Roger, the reshoots are all of inferior quality, and to say that much of the rest of Cortez's work was cut would I think argue in his favour.

At any rate, where, may I ask, did you get the daily production reports for Ambersons: are they in Carringer????

The production reports for "Ambersons" are part of the Lilly Library collection at Indiana University. Again, I don't wish to demean Cortez's contribution; just wanted to point out that there is quite a bit of footage in the released version that is not his (and not just the reshoots either, but significant portions that Welles directed - many of the exterior scenes, for example). When looking at ratios, there is less of Cortez's work in the film than of Bernard Herrmann's and the latter asked for his name to be removed from the credits!

Back to Callow: I'm a bit dismayed to hear that the biographer is wasting ink on attacking fellow scholars and Welles fans. I assume it's to bolster his own (less prejudiced?) view of the subject, but that sort of thing is better left to magazine essays.

[Jeff Wilson]

Roger, it is a little disappointing to see him essentially posit things in a black and white context (fans love Welles, can't do no wrong) vs academics (can't write English, they write drivel). As if Welles is the only director subjected to such treatment; as someone who checks peridocially to see what has been written about Welles in the academic journals, it isn't a whole lot, all things considered. And regarding the discussion here, I don't see too many individuals sticking to a "Welles was infallible" line. His attack, if you want to call it that, on Benamou was fairly tame all things considered, with his wickedest shot stating that the article in question had yet to be translated into English, which was pretty amusing, coming after a quote that reads as almost complete nonsense. I assume his point in the preface was to set himself outside whatever current "sides" there are in current understanding of Welles; he mentions also that he does not agree with the argument that Welles downfall was due to self-destructiveness anymore than it was studio heads sabotaging him. The book has a glowing blurb from James Naremore on the back, for what it's worth.

[Clive Dale]

Putting aside the analysis, in terms of scholarly research, how would you rank Callow?