Despite the System by Clinton Heylin

Roger Ryan · Post by **Roger Ryan** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:35 am

EDIT: I'm sorry about the redundacy; Jeff submitted his answers before I hit the "post" button! Obviously, the "church" answer has now been clarified.

Welcome Jerzy!

Here's the best I can do with your inquiries:

1) Unfortunately, I've not read the "Black Irish" version of the "Lady From Shanghai" script, but it appears that Welles intended audio from various scenes in the film to come together to form a disorientating collage of sound after Michael takes the pills. If there was a church scene in this original script, then it's likey that Welles is referring to the sound of "people praying/singing in church"; otherwise, "congregation" could refer to any group of people. Perhaps someone else can help with this one.

2) This appears to be an obscure reference to "giving Hollywood the 'finger'". "Digits" can refer to fingers; a "raised" one probably means the rude gesture of holding up the middle finger. I think Heylin is trying to say that Welles' four European films were designed, in part, to send this message: "Screw you, Hollywood, I can do it myself".

3) This one is easier. Heylin is referring to Hayworth being photographed in front of "rear projection screens" where stock footage of a background is projected onto a screen and the actor is then photographed in front of that screen. Heylin's use of the term "close-up" is confusing, but I assume he means that the projected image itself is more of a close-up shot than a medium or wide shot. The point being that Welles disliked using rear projection and would often shoot everything on location to avoid it. With "Shanghai", he was required to do reshoots (namely close-ups) in the studio, so rear projection was used to set the scene.

4) Yes, this is intended to be an amusing exaggeration. The reviewer's intent is to describe Welles' performance of Franz Kindler as so melodramatic that the entire staff of the Bellevue Mental Hospital would not hesitate a moment to take the character off the streets and lock him in the hospital. The reviewer's criticism is that while the Kindler character wishes to remain unobtrusive, Welles portrays him as illogically weird and obtrusive, giving the opposite effect.

5) What Welles means is that the "Rosebud" riddle was the only way to conclude "Citizen Kane", the only way to give this non-linear story a satisfying ending for the audience as well as keep them interested in the reporter's quest to understand Kane. The term "get off" derives from the idea of being able to get off a theatre stage (an actor or playwright needs a strong enough idea or line of dialogue to let the audience know that a scene is over).

I hope this helps. I enjoyed Mr. Heylin's book quite a bit, although there was some speculation on the author's part that I thought was misinformed. Specifically, I felt Mr. Heylin misunderstood Welles' intentions regarding the use of the subjective camera in "Ambersons". He is simply wrong when he states that Welles had to use a stand-in for the scene of George praying at his mother's bed (it's clearly actor Tim Holt) because he needed to shoot something quick to make up for the supposedly failed subjective camera footage. Note how Welles' camera moves away from George's head at the beginning of the shot; this is to suggest that the viewer is now moving out of George's subjective viewpoint and will see the remainder of the scene objectively. This makes perfect artistic sense following the subjective shots of the deteriorating city (even without the subjective footage showing George going through the mansion that Welles himself cut out).

Jerzy · Post by **Jerzy** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 am

Thank you so much, guys. You certainly know a lot about the subject. I'm impressed. I'll incorporate your suugestions into my translation today. And just because you asked for it, here's another question... I was struggling with this today morning.

This is about Mr Arkadin and the inevitable conflict between Welles and the producer, Dolivet, who, typically, wanted the finished product as soon as possible while Welles was in his "editing fascination period" and spent ages in the editing room.
As Welles related to Leaming: he told him [Dolivet] "all along that we didn't have a budget, that we were flying blind, and that we'd have to go on selling territories until we saw what we could bring it in for... And he turned on me because I take three days cutting to one day shooting".

I can't quite see the point he was making with "selling territories until we saw what we could bring it in for"

Could anybody paraphrase this somehow for me?

And about the book - it's very informative and well researched but I didn't quite like the aggressive (or plainly rude) tone Heylin took when referring to authors of other books about Welles, especially Simon Callow. Was he justified criticizing him so (those of you who read The Road To Xanadu")?

Thank you again for your help

Jeff Wilson · Post by **Jeff Wilson** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 am

I believe he means since they didn't have a finalized budget, that Dolivet needed to keep selling the rights to the film to more territories, so they could finally find out how money they had to work with, once the selling of rights was complete.

Glenn Anders · Post by **Glenn Anders** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:19 pm

Jerzy: These Wellesnetters know their stuff.

Re your last question: Jeff clarifies Welles' complaint. An alternative explanation is that perhaps Dolivet was selling "pieces" of the film to investors or potential distributors as they went along, and so in the end, Dolivet didn't know when they were out of money until the point he had to veto Welles' editing schedule.

From my standpoint, I appreciate the research Callow did into Welles' teenage years, especially the trip he took around the World with his father, but not Callow's snide deprecation of Welles' early accomplishments. I find his second volume, Hello Americans, somewhat more sympathetic.

Glenn

Jerzy · Post by **Jerzy** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:37 pm

Thank you, Glenn! You're unbelievable, guys

Heylin mentioned that Callows was going to release the third part of his Welles trilogy. Is it out yet?

Roger Ryan · Post by **Roger Ryan** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:58 am

Jerzy wrote:Heylin mentioned that Callows was going to release the third part of his Welles trilogy. Is it out yet?

"Hello Americans", the second volume, was just published in the U.S. two weeks ago (a couple of months ago in England). I'm not certain Callow has even started writing the third volume yet.

Jerzy · Post by **Jerzy** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:11 pm

Heylin wrote in the prologue: "word arrives that another installment (of the now three-volume opus!) is all but finished" but he might have meant "Hello Americans" here, in fact.

Jerzy · Post by **Jerzy** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:36 pm

Yesterday I delivered the translation to the publisher. By the way, it will be published in Poland next year.... not that any of you would be interested, I know

Just want to thank you for help - really appreciated. I'm so glad I stumbled upon this website. Mucho, mucho gracias

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:03 am

I just finished Heylin's book (on top of finishing Callow's book before that). I definitely agree that his rather combative tone towards other authors was a bit distracting, I enjoyed the book very much. I just wish there was more of it (like Callow's book). I'm currently in another "Welles mode", even thought I'm thick into production myself, so this reading has been quite fun. Hopefully I can eeke out some time for watching some of the movies again too. Thanks everyone! I'm a loooooooooooooong time reader of the board and very infrequent poster. I thank you all for your informed postings.