Page 1 of 3
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:59 pm
by ToddBaesen
Because Stefan's Munich program of rare & unseen Welles material has already been seen in New York and Los Angeles, I think one of the leading contender's to hold the next conference if it's held in the U.S. might well be San Francisco. And by coincidence, Glenn and I are going to meet with the director of the San Francisco FIlm Festival to discuss this very subject next week.
San Francisco is also a good choice, because most of our European friends would prefer visiting here than probably any other U.S. city, for it's natural scenic beauty, excellent public transit system (including Cable Cars), and the clean fresh air, free of the smog that can befoul some other U.S. cities (like Indianapolis). It's also where THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI was shot, so visits can be made to the few sights that are left from when Welles shot here in 1946...
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:47 pm
by Gordon
I agree with Christopher that the event should be held in the United States in 2008. The event organizers prefer to schedule the Welles Triennial to coincide with an established film festival. Christopher suggested that we BRAINSTORM to come up with an idea.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:17 am
by ToddBaesen
Gordon:
Since I live in San Francisco, I thought I was being quite reasonable in pointing out that Stefan's material has already been shown in LA and NY. But that certainly doesn't mean I was shooting them down. It simply means they might be less likely choices for a U.S site. But since this is still mere conjecture at this stage, I really don't see why it should be something to get too terribly upset over.
Personally, I think LA has many great points to consider in it's favor to hold a Welles conference, so please feel free to point them out... but just don't expect me to do them for you. The fact is that Paramount and Lionsgate have all the footage of IT'S ALL TRUE in there vaults, and LA has a great concentration of film people who worked with Welles and could attend such a conference if it were held in LA...
But as a San Franciscan, I was merely was pointing out that LA has already had the chance to see the rare Munich footage, and frankly, in my opinion, the turnout at the Egyptian theater was quite disgraceful.
Now, if we were to show that same material here in San Francisco, at the beautiful art-deco Castro theater, which seats 1,400 people, I'm sure we could have sell-outs for nearly every showing... As evidence I can point to the October films re-issue of TOUCH OF EVIL, which opened at the Castro and grossed $75,000. during it's first week, making it biggest grossing theater in the country that week...
But as you say, let's open it up to brainstorming... I agree that another excellent choice would be at the Lilly Library in Indiana, where the Orson Welles manuscript collection is housed. Needless to say, I'd love to go there, but would rather visit a city like San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles, rather than Bloomington, Indiana. And my reference to smog in Indianapolis was simply meant as a nod to THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, not in anyway shooting down that city as a site.
But your well-taken point is that everyone who feels they have a valid city to submit should feel free to contribute their views and opinions...
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:22 am
by Gordon
Brainstorming is putting forward the advantages of a suggestion, without cutting down other alternatives.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 am
by ToddBaesen
Lee:
I guess you are right - I certainly don't get why you think I'm baiting you. I frankly think having the conference in Bloomington would be a great idea.
And I don't see how stating facts, such that the Unseen Welles material has already been seen in two U.S. cities - NY and LA - is shooting down those potential sites. In fact, I think I could make a fairly good case for for Los Angeles, but simply think it makes far more sense to show the unseen Welles material somewhere where it has not already been shown.
But the argument for any U.S. city is fairly academic in any case, as the main reason why all the Welles conferences have been held in Europe are due to the Welles Estate, which as we know, is contolled by Beatrice Welles.
Once Ms. Welles finds out about the rare material she claims to be part owner of, she would invariably have her attorney's issue an injunction to shut the whole operation down.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:31 pm
by Glenn Anders
Just catching up to this swiftly moving, lively thread --
Christopher: How heartening it is to read of your belief that major retrospectives of ALL Orson Welles' works should be held in the United States, where he was born and bred, the country where I'm sure he would like to be honored as one of its most significant artists, one its greatest citizens and patriots.
Gang: I'm worried about a tendency we have: we get off on these arguments over whether or not Welles wrote much of THE THIRD MAN; or more recently, about which biographical stance toward Welles is the best one; or now, what city should house the next major retrospective of his work. I bring these up because I've been guilty of taking part in all of them.
Whatever we may think of Mr. Schickel's sneak review of Joseph McBride's book, one of his shots struck near to me. He spoke of "acolytes" of Welles as if they were crazies. There's an outside chance that he was referring, in part, to me -- to us!
We may have an opportunity soon, in some small way, to really bring public attention and finances to the works of Orson Welles. The greatest accomplishment that we might help bring about now is to celebrate the Artist in all his multiplicity, to bring closure for all those alive who knew him and kept his flame, and to advance his unrestored or unassembled works, with a view toward their completion, at a major appropriate venue in the United States.
The planning, financing, advertising, and protocols of such a venture are beyond the ken of most of us. We, myself included, have an off-the-cuff weakness for proposing single-handed projects to restore DON QUIXOTE or to re-make CITIZEN KANE in anime. [Wait, wait, I say that only in jest!] And I'm the first to proudly step forward to write a cheque for five dollars to accomplish it. We really do need to get some responsible institutions behind our efforts, or Beatrice Welles will not need to sic her legal teams upon our projects.
If we are seen as a group of well-intentioned dilletantes disputing tertiary matters, or complaining about in what city the reception tables are to be set up, we may be defeating our larger potential.
If so, Richard Schickel may not be the only one to conclude that Welles' advocates are nuts, no matter how untrue we know that to be, in our hearts. Let Joseph McBride or Jonathan Rossenbaum be the best advocate for the reputation of Orson Welles, but I beg us not to do anything which would drive off possible backers.
Glenn
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:49 pm
by Gordon
So, would the San Francisco Film Festival Host the 2008 Welles Triennial?
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:26 pm
by tony
Yikes!
Everybody take a deep breath: someone posted that the Welles conferences have all been held in Europe because in America HRH Beatrice would shut it down; if this is so, isn't where the conference is going to be held in the U.S. a moot point? So shouldn't we try to ascertain the accuracy of this statement before we start debating about the best American venue?
Just trying to be practical.
:;):
P.S.: Glenn: you mentioned arguments " about which biographical stance toward Welles is the best one..." as an example of the kind of thing which makes us acolytes. Well, you know I beg to differ: I've spent time and energy crafting the best posts I can and citing references regarding what I take to be THE crucial issue behind Welles being dismissed as a one -trick-pony for most of his career and subsequent to his death, and do not agree with your contention that this kind of discussion makes us "acolytes". In fact, if we shut down all debate and follow in mindless lock-step, then we'd be acolytes.
I hope you agree.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:48 pm
by Glenn Anders
Gordon: I'm nonplussed, to put it mildly. As I've tried to explain to you by other means, the specifics of your question have no basis in fact.
But in terms of what I was warning against, this is a perfect example.
We are not working here for our own glory, I trust, but in the memory of Orson Welles and his artistry.
At the moment, I know of not even a barn reserved for a Welles tribute, certainly not a tribute organized by anyone on this site. By all means, bring in your news when you have names on the dotted line. But it is foolish to be arguing in public about hypothetical events.
These tributes cannot be organized like a movie date on next Friday night. It is never too early to set plans in motion, if there is a possibility.
Let us eschew Arkadinian paranoia.
We should all celebrate any one of us, yourself certainly, who can make some small contribution to bringing such a complicated event about.
Glenn
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:58 pm
by ToddBaesen
Lee:
Speaking only for myself, I must say that Glenn and I have privately been talking between us for some time (since last March actually) about trying to get the San Fransico Film Festival or some other organization in Northern Calif. interested in sponsoring a Welles conference. So I was delighted to find Christopher's suggestion to hold the conference in the US on this board. So I quickly embraced the idea, which by sheer coincidence came the day before we nailed down a meeting with the director of the S F Film Festival.
So for the two of us to have been looking into this idea can hardly be seen as our being first out of the gate in some competition, since as far as I was aware of there was no talk of a Welles conference coming to the U. S. and certainly no competition among cities for one.
And in his post, Glenn never mentions anything about this meeting, so I don't think he can be blamed for anything except what he brings up in his post - so once again, I guess I just don't get how you can see what we are doing - acting on our own ideas to bring a Welles conference to SF - precludes any other cities or ideas from being put forward.
Do you seriously suggest we should cancel our plans which have been made completely independently of this thread, which was just started a few days ago?
Now, may I once again, and in all sincerity call on everyone out there with any other ideas and notions on this topic, to please bring them forth, and act on bringing them to fruition as they see fit.
I'm sure both Glenn and I, as well as many other readers of Wellesnet would love to see a Welles conference held anywhere in the U.S. And come to think of it, why preclude our friends to the north, in Canada. I think Toronto or Vancouver might be excellent choices since I know several Wellesfans in those cities, and having it there might well get us around the problem posed in the U.S. by the Welles Estate.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:58 pm
by tonyw
I've been reading the postings so far and would like to reinforce Bloomington, Indiana for several reasons.
1. The Lilly Library which we could all attend during the Festival to look at material.
2. James Naremore teaches there.
3. The very association of a University and Library would give the event a better status than a Film festival and may forestall any plans of HRH Beatrice who has even threatened the National Film Theatre in London.
4. It would be a mid-west event in Ambersons territoty.
Alternatively, maybe the University of Wisconsin-Madison where David Bordwell (who has witten on Welles teaches) or even Chicago with its McCormack associations and Jonathan Rosenbaum who writes for the Chicago Reader.
These are all suggestions and alternatives to high profile sites such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:16 pm
by tony
Let's hear it for Toronto!!! :laugh:
A great city, great night life, and the best film festival in the world! PLUS clean air and water!!!
Yea Toronto!!
In addition, there are 3 universities in Toronto: York and Ryerson both have film departments:
The University of Toronto
York University
Ryerson University
There is also the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies, a school started by Norman Jewison.
Of course, I've been secretly planning this for a long time, and have bribed several members to come on board at the last minute...
:;):
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:28 pm
by Glenn Anders
Tony: Your post must have come up while I was replying to Gordon's.
Look: It is Mr. Schickel who referred to people like us (more likely established critics like Jonathan Rossenbaum) as "acolytes." It is foolish, confused disagreements like this one which may make us, in my opinion, look like "crazies." An acolyte I don't mind being; a crazy I do.
We have never succeeded in presenting this discussion about biographies in a coherent fashion. Welles was too complicated a person, and no biographer has yet gotten him right. He was "dismissed" as a person when a bully boy like Ward Bond cut off his necktie in 1939, or when a smug insider like Gene Lockhart published that parody of him. [Interestingly enough, both Fordians.] It is Welles' works, both completed and in need of restoration, which cannot be dismissed. He said at the beginning of his film career and at the end that it doesn't matter what someone says about you as a person. It's what you did, what you left behind, that counts. And there is a certain amount of ambiguity even in that.
I hope you agree, Tony.
Glenn
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:38 pm
by tony
I always agree with you Glenn...at least in part!
I disagree with your statement that we have not presented the discussion in a coherent fashion: if you put all our posts together, I think you'd have dandy coherence!
I totally agree no biographer has gotten him right. Just yesterday I was watching a Dick Cavett interview from I'd say 1970, and it was a Welles I'd never seen before: handsome, modest, terribly sweet, charming, self-deprecating, unptrentious, clearly a genius- I don't mean I haven't seen these qualities before, but rather this combination, this particular admixture I'd never seen- and then I saw a glimmer of the incredible personality he was. He really could charm the birds off the trees, and then you understand the loyalty that so many displayed over the years. This reminds me (forgive me if I bring up dear Mr. Rosenbaum yet again) of something that Mr. R. noticed: all of these morally condemning pseudo-psycho biographies (you know the camp I mean) have been written by authors who never met Welles, excepting Carringer who talked with him on the phone. But all of the books written before his death (obviously) which were in "the other camp" were written by authors who either knew him (such as Bessy, Noble, Bogdanovich, Bazin) or those who had at least become acquaintances through interviewing him, such as Rosenbaum. Those who knew him, people who worked with him (I'm thinking of the film people in Rosabella, for example) show a light in their eyes when they speak of him: they experienced the man.
And it's the conscious mind (as distinct from the unconscious mind) of the man that we have access to, in the form of his interviews, his writings, and his work.
Here we can totally agree (as usual).
:;):
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:02 pm
by Christopher
Dear Wellesnetters,
I know that I proposed holding the next Orson Welles Retrospective in his native land, and that is still my dearest wish. However, the extortion racket known as the "Orson Welles Estate" is a reality we have to contend with, and it would be a terrible shame, once the retrospective has been organized, to discover at the last minute that certain films or footage could not be shown because Beatrice will not give her permission or whatever. It seems she laid low and did not cause any trouble when the Munich Filmmuseum's mini-retrospectives were held in Los Angeles and in New York, but can we be assured this will also be the case for the next full-blown retrospective in 2008?
It occurs to me that having a modest retrospective in San Francisco, possibly before 2008, might be a good way to test the waters, provided, of course, that Stefan Drossler is agreeable to this idea. To be absolutely safe, however, I agree with Todd that Toronto, Vancouver or anywhere in Canada would be an excellent place to hold the next major Welles conference. This idea had already occurred to me independently. Canada is more accessible than Europe for those of us living in the U.S. and, at the same time, beyond the greedy reach and infernal meddling of the "Orson Welles Estate."
I don't know enough about either film festivals or facilities in Canada to be able to recommend which Canadian city would be the best, but those of you on the board who are Canadians will undoubtedly be most helpful in this regard. I do feel that tying the Welles conference to a film festival has distinct advantages, not least of which are the proper facilities to project the films, hold workshops with a sizeable audience, and so on.
The more good ideas we can come up with in this thread, the more suggestions we will be able to present to Stefan Drossler as an alternative to Munich or some other European city.