New Yorker article on Welles, Olivier

[Jeff Wilson]

I haven't had a chance to look at it myself, the current (19 November) issue of the New Yorker has what looks like a decent sized article titled "The Player Kings," about Welles, Olivier, and Shakespeare. Has anyone read it yet?

[ToddBaesen]

Jeff:

Just came across the article (I assume by you?) on Welles stage OTHELLO, presented by Sir Larry. Very nice work, and much more interesting that what appears about it in the New Yorker article. However I came across it by accident in a web search, as it apparently isn't linked to the main theater page. So if anyone is interested in looking at it after reading the article in the New Yorker, here is the link:


http://wellesnet.com/othellostage.htm

I also enjoyed seeing the complete cast list and scans of the program, as I had no idea of the caliber of British actors who appeared in the play alongside Welles and Peter Finch... Maxine Audley from PEEPING TOM, and John Van Eyssen from DRACULA among others.

Are there also pages for other theater productions that aren't linked up yet to the Theater page, such as MOBY DICK?

[Glenn Anders]

Todd, you old sod, you might also want to mention Michael Warre, who played Glouchester in Olivier's HENRY V, and Edward Mulhare, who went on to take over roles created by Rex Harrison in vehicles such as My Fair Lady and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.

Glenn

[Skylark]

Judging from the last two paragraphs on Wellesnet home page, it's nice PR for Welles' Shakespeare trilogy - there's the 'ingrained monumental failure' bit, but it's counter-balanced with other considerations -

Definitely 3 significant adaptations of 3 of Shakespeare's greatest plays, IMO - even MacBeth - though I think it does sometimes suffer from the low-budget trappings and is a little too short and streamlined, nonetheless a brillant film on many levels...

And she does trumpet the need for deluxe treatment DVD releases for all three, which is good.

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn:

I resent being called an old sod... please make the correction to a young sod.

Actually I didn't know about Robert Warre appearing in Olivier's HENRY V... so thanks for pointing that out. Another point that could have been brought out in The New Yorker piece was pointing out the harmonious collaboration between Welles and Olivier, as producer of OTHELLO (by most accounts I've read, anyway), which of course did not continue when Welles directed Olivier in RHINOCEROS. But according to the article Olivier was "unimpressed" with Welles stage OTHELLO, and felt he "betrayed his immense gifts though a lack of discipline."

Maybe that's why Olivier asked Welles to direct OTHELLO and RHINOCEROS in the first place, so he could give Welles some "discipline."

[Glenn Anders]

Everything is relative where "sods" are concerned, Baesen.

But to the subject: Yes, the reaction from Olivier which I remember (to Ralph Richardson, I believe, or vice verse) was that Welles' Othello made a spendid first impression but that there was no development as the play continued.

That could be said for a number of his performances later in his career, especially on Television.

Carl the K pines for your presence at the Ha-Ra Club.

Glenn

[tony]

I've just read the New Yorker article, and must admit I differ from the general take in the posts above. From the beginning of the article, where there is a large photo of Welles but not of Olivier, I suspected that this piece is actually a Welles puff-piece in disguise, and I was not dissappointed. I believe this article argues for the superiority of Welles's vision over Olivier's, and I am mightily impressed by the research done by the author, right until the last paragraph, which is completely inaccurate, though inaccurate mostly in Welles's favour. I believe Welles was actually working on the Magic Show when he died during the night, and not Shakespeare, and certainly not King Lear, which had been cancelled months earlier. And where the author got the idea that the typewriter was balanced on Welles's stomach I'll never know: this is perhaps a 'fat joke'. So this last paragraph leaves a sour taste in a Wellesian's mouth. But to re-read the article is to discover what I believe is the hidden thesis, and I think the article in general is one of the best pieces I've ever read on Welles in a general publication.

Why I'm somewhat out of step with the other posters I have no idea. But personally I would stongly recommend this piece to anyone, expert or neophyte, for the sheer pleasure of reading a well-written piece about two brilliant actor-filmakers; I couldn't put it down, and read until 2:00 am!

[Glenn Anders]

Todd Baesen had me at a disadvantage, as do you, Tony, in that I have not read the article in question, which is why I refrained from commenting upon Baesen's conclusions, but the Brijit abstract for the New Yorker suggests to me that a certain balance is struck about the monumental professional relationship between Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier. the subject of Ms. Roth Pierpont's essay, "The Player Kings":

". . . in The New Yorker by Claudia Roth Pierpont, 19 November 2007
In an engaging but lengthy essay, Pierpont looks at how two stage and film giants, Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier, competed against and, on occasion, collaborated in their attempts to reinvent Shakespeare for post-World War II audiences. Pierpont relates the history of each "player king," exhaustively examining Olivier and Welles' motives, successes, and challenges as both actors and directors in their various theatrical and silver screen performances. One particularly interesting parallel: film versions of Shakespeare contributed to Welles' downfall, while Olivier was playing King Lear on TV at age 75."

[http://www.brijit.com/abstract/6911/The-Player-Kings]

In other words, the abstract suggests that the essay, though hardly "a puff piece" for Welles, favors your view, Tony.

On the other hand, The New Yorker itself, in its summary of Ms Roth Pierpont's work, seems to support Baesen's embittered disdain for what he sees as another pop-scholar attack on our man, Welles:

"Claudia Roth Pierpont, Onward and Upward with the Arts, 'The Player Kings,' The New Yorker, November 19, 2007, p. 70

"KEYWORDS
Welles, Orson; Olivier, Laurence; Shakespeare, William; Movie Directors; Actors; Rivalries; The Old Vic Theatre Company

"ONWARD AND UPWARD WITH THE ARTS about the rivalry between Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier. The Old Vic Theatre Company arrived in New York in April, 1946, and opened with Shakespeare—“Henry IV,” Parts One and Two; there was little doubt that Laurence Olivier was the star. This was not the spring that Orson Welles had planned. In March, Welles had announced the rebirth of the famous Mercury Theatre, starting with a musical extravaganza based on 'Around the World in Eighty Days'; the play closed quickly and left Welles saddled with enormous debts. The 20th century’s two greatest dramatic illusionists had more in common and, ultimately, more effect on each other’s work—as friendly, if occasionally cutthroat, competitors; as reinventors of Shakespeare for a modern audience—than has been noted before. The most difficult role for Olivier in his early years onstage was Henry V, but then came the war. Olivier’s film of 'Henry V' opened in New York in the spring of 1946 and became a box-office phenomenon. To Welles, 'Henry V' was a mine of possibility and provocation. By the mid-forties, Welles was struggling with a reputation as a director incapable of commercial success ('Citizen Kane'). Mentions John Gielgud. Orson Welles was born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 1915, and began performing Shakespeare in boarding school. His mother died when he was nine, and his father died suddenly when he was fifteen. Mentions John Houseman. Describes Welles’s theatrical background. He played Falstaff in the Mercury Theatre’s biggest production, 'Five Kings,' a shapeless catastrophe that closed in 1939, taking the Mercury with it. In 1947, Olivier directed, produced, and starred in 'Hamlet.' Describes the Oedipal interpretation in the film. Welles knew that Olivier was filming 'Hamlet' when he began to shoot 'Macbeth,' in June,'with Republic Pictures. If 'Hamlet' approaches film noir, 'Macbeth' resembles a cheap sci-fi or horror film. By the time Olivier was collecting Oscars for 'Hamlet,' Welles had decided to leave America for good. Describes Welles’s 1952 film 'Othello' and the collaboration between Welles and Olivier on a stage production of 'Othello,' in London, in 1951. Welles’s 'Othello' won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, and he became the darling of the French critics. In America, the film wasn’t released until 1955 and it was a box-office failure. Things went rapidly downhill for Welles after that. As for Olivier, the mid-fifties merely settled his crown. Mentions his film of 'Richard III,' which was simultaneously broadcast on national TV. 'Richard III”'failed at the box-office, and, as a result, no one in Hollywood would take a chance on Shakespeare. Describes Olivier’s portrayal of Othello at Britain’s National Theatre. Mentions Welles’s 1964 film 'Chimes at Midnight.' Olivier suffered from a rare muscle disease for the last fifteen years of his life; he died, in 1989. The rise of the looser aesthetic has been a boon to Welles’s reputation. He died of a heart attack, at seventy, in 1985."

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... t_pierpont]

Certainly, we can all agree that Ms. Roth Pierpont's account of Welles' demise is at odds with the facts as we have found them recounted in several books, including the one by Evil David Thomson, but perhaps, between the lines of the abstract and the summary, there is another story concerning the rivalry between Welles and Olivier: How, during and after the exhaustion of their brave competition to bring Shakespeare to middle class and working class audiences following World War II, Britain treasured, sustained, forgave, and cheered Olivier, the greatest English actor of their 20th Century; and how America, denigrated, denied, rejected -- yea, befouled and laughed at Welles, the most original, innovative, and influential American genius produced in our Theater, in Radio, and in the Movies of his time.

In that sense, Olivier was Britain's HENRY V, and Welles was his
FALSTAFF, but in America, Welles became a real life counterpart to Arthur Miller's Willie Loman.

In retrospect, we might see Olivier, in the regard of glib modern critics, as a British Royal Hero, and Welles an American Tragedy.

Both nations have taken a long slide in the last 30 years, but the contrasting parallel in how the two men are regarded, blurred though it may be, is still there.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Tony:

I think you make a very interesting point, and one which actually crystallized for me why there are so many inaccuracies not only about Orson Welles, but with what Welles would, no doubt think was of far greater importance, which is what is so wrong with the man who is currently the most powerful person on Earth, namely the current President of the United States.

Now, basically, what you've admitted in your post in that you liked the article in the New Yorker, you couldn't put it down, and you found it fascinating (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Well, we are in agreement so far, because I too, found it to be interesting and well written. After all, nobody writes for the New Yorker who doesn't have a certain background as a good writer, do they? Just look at Pauline Kael. Nobody could say she was a "bad" writer. But as you admit, the last two paragraphs of the New Yorker Welles piece contain some very inaccurate information. But lets cut through all the bullshit and admit the TRUTH... The article by "that woman" contains complete and total fabrications that are quite transparent to anyone with even a passing scholarly interest in Welles. And although I certainly can't prove it, I'd bet the author knew quite well they were total LIES when she wrote it.

Now, please don't take what I'm saying personally, because I mean this more in response to the public in America, as a whole. But I found your response symptomatic of why America is currently in the awful mess it is in -- where we have a President who was not actually elected by the people for the people. Mr. Bush was able to put out a bigger set of lies and distortions than his opponent in both of his very close elections. Therefore, even though a great deal of what Mr. Bush said during the elections was untrue, presumably, he deserved to be elected, because he could present a smoother more entertaining story to the public, plus he was simply more "likable." Just like the New Yorker piece about Welles is "likable," and smooth to swallow, at least until the bitter pill that comes at the very end, where Welles scholars will find several outright LIES. Oh, "but who cares," the casual reader might say, "it's only Orson Welles, that fat old has-been who did wine commercials, and whose only good movie was Citizen Kane."

Of course, like a crafty politician, the New Yorker piece on Orson Welles is meant to draw you in and makes friends with you. As I say, I too found it quite entertaining and even enlightening, until those key last two paragraphs. It's sort of like "The Magnificent Ambersons," it's a great movie, but the ending just doesn't work, does it? Likewise, I guess we are just supposed to ignore the fact that the author completely makes up not just one fake story, but several? And that she gets her facts completely wrong in at least 4 or 5 places in only two short paragraphs?

Please, say it ain't so?

Well, the truth dosen't really matter that much if you want to tell a good story. Which is why, just because President Bush got a little detail or two wrong about going to war over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (that we now know didn't really exist), we shouldn't blame him. Nor, by the same logic, should we blame the author of the The New Yorker piece, since she basically says Orson Welles was better than Lord Olivier.

Of course, you can even say that Orson Welles himself lied all the time, didn't he? Yes, of course he did, just as most politicians do, and all Presidents do, democrat or republican, like LBJ, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nixon "was a crook," that Clinton had sex with "that woman," and there were certainly no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But if these elected leaders can get away with such huge lies and outright crimes, why should an entertainment writer be expected to tell the truth? After all, nobody's going to put a writer in jail for perjury or reporting false stories about Orson Welles.

The point is we've come to expect politicians to lie. We also expect entertainers, like Orson Welles to "embellish" their interviews, for the sake of telling a good story. As Mr. Arkadin would say, "it's their nature." But what we don't expect (at least I don't), is to have serious journalists in major reputable magazines and newspapers, (who make a hell of a lot more money than you or I do), telling outright lies and IGNORING the facts. But, as we've seen in the scandals at the New York Times and other major magazines, not only do serious and important writers lie, they also make up completely UNTRUE stories. And the insidious thing is, it seems to becoming so commonplace in entertainment journalism, that's it's thought of as being no "big thing." After all it's just gossip. Of course, that kind of "gossip" basically destroyed America's greatest film artist after 1971, when the same distinguished New Yorker magazine published Pauline Kael's infamous "Raising Kane," which after all, was a very "well-written" piece. It had the ring of veracity to it, even though it was a tissue of lies, and one could argue it was a major reason why Welles never got the money to complete "The Other Side of the Wind" or any other major film in Hollywood after it appeared. Especially, when it was combined with Charles Higham's "The Films of Orson Welles," the first major book on Welles career, that came out shortly afterwards, and was so inaccurate, that today, any college film professor would give it a failing grade.

So Tony, I'm glad you enjoyed that piece in the New Yorker. As I said, I did too, but I really don't understand how you can excuse the kind of sloppy research that the writer conducted and say you were "mightily impressed by the research done by the author." Are you seriously saying that because the author only made five or six MAJOR mistakes in the facts, we should just forget it, and be happy the article entertained us?

That is what I meant when I said that kind of response crystallized what I realize is so wrong with these states, so called United, of America, in 2007. We have a war where over 30,000 people have died, based on LIES. Now, nobody's going to die because the New Yorker hired a writer to write about Welles and Olivier, who (in my opinion) knowingly LIED about the facts of Welles career. But it just goes to show you how people will accept anything if it goes down smoothly enough and they are entertained by it.

[Terry]

it just goes to show you how people will accept anything if it goes down smoothly enough and they are entertained by it.

Don't forget the use of fear and hate. They're far more effective ingredients than linguistic mastery or veracity when selling everything from sweeping legislation to primetime cable opinion shows. Just don't base a political election campaign on them, as there the appearance of being a potential drinking buddy is the prime requisite.

And since Tony's Canadian, we can let him off the hook for W.

[Glenn Anders]

Bravo, Baesen! [And I say that as one who often has to wrestle a deadly Gimlet Especiale out of Baesen's trembling hands at the Ha-Ra Club.] Tony's argument to one side, Todd, you have put the matter in context. Where were the New Yorker "fact checkers" on those error filled last two paragraphs? And why were only those two passages so toxic? The state of American scholarship, indisputably popular journalistic scholarship, may indeed by symptomatic of a terminal taste for trivial gossip, lies (and damn lies) within the American Public.

I also applaud you, Hadji, for your coda, and agree that Tony should not be sent to the wall for our collective American sins. [Canada has a right wing-nut of her own to deal with!]

What we all should do is write or Email the New Yorker!

Glenn

[tony]

Todd:

Other than the inaccuracies I noted at the end, I honestly didn't spot anything else that was seriously/willfullly inaccurate in the article. After such a strong response to my assessment, I think you owe it to the readers of Wellesnet to point out what you see as agregious mistatements.

In other words, can you back up this claim:

"The article by "that woman" contains complete and total fabrications that are quite transparent to anyone with even a passing scholarly interest in Welles. And although I certainly can't prove it, I'd bet the author knew quite well they were total LIES when she wrote it."

I sure would appreciate your pointing these out to me; perhaps in my enthusiasm, I missed them!

[ToddBaesen]

Tony:

My contention is the author knowingly lied about the facts to bring her article to a more interesting conclusion, one where she could tie-in Orson Welles with his most famous creation, Charles Foster Kane. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if she didn't consciously know that she was making up fabrications in those last two paragraphs, she's a much worse writer than I thought!

Check out the main page "Battle over Orson Welles Part II" article where you can find a complete list, including:


...a real gem from earlier in the article:


“None of the era’s big directors, not even the ones who subsequently worked with (Gregg) Toland—William Wyler, Howard Hawks, George Cukor—seemed to regard Welles’s achievement (on Citizen Kane) as a serious model. The only exception, working far from Hollywood, was Laurence Olivier.”


Oh, really? No big Hollywood director was influenced by Citizen Kane? ” I’m sure this will be big news to any first year film student, and certainly anyone familiar with the work of director George Cukor, since Mr. Cukor not only never worked with Gregg Toland, but also candidly admitted the influence Citizen Kane had on his camera style for both Keeper of the Flame and Gaslight when I spoke to him in 1981.

[tony]

Todd:

I think the author was making the general point that Kane was not recognized by Hollywood directors of that era as a great achievement; indeed, I believe it was the young turks of the 70s who first publicly acclaimed it, after its showing on tv in the 50s and its first win of the Sight and Sound poll in 1962. My guess is that this claim is generally true. And other than the final words of the article, I'm interested in anything else that can be pointed to as really inaccurate.

I'm just curious, because I didn't spot any serious "total fabrications that are quite transparent to anyone with even a passing scholarly interest in Welles." and I think I have a passing scholarly interest in Welles. In fact, as I mentioned, I think the article is really quite wonderful, so maybe I missed these errors/fabrications that you seem quite passionate about. Can you point them out to me? Perhaps I have just been taken in by the smooth professionalism of the writing.

[Wellesnet]

This very good 2007 article is now online at the New Yorker archive for anyone interested in reading it:
The Player Kings
How the rivalry of Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier made Shakespeare modern:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007 ... ayer-kings

Welles saw Shakespeare as something of an American. He was still in his teens when, in 1934, he collaborated with his former schoolmaster Roger Hill—one of the important father figures in his life—on an edition of the plays titled “Everybody’s Shakespeare,” which was designed to shake off the dust of the classroom and get readers to put on the plays in their local gymnasiums, dance halls, or back yards. Shakespeare belonged to us as much as to anyone: the playwright’s England, like present-day America, was “a kid of a country,” as Welles wrote in his introduction, “bounding blithely into the sunny, early morning of modern times.”