Jaglom Yapping About Welles

[jaime marzol]

found this little article, hope you all enjoy it.

only question i have is, 'after 15 years of friendship, and thoughtfull advice from OW, how come all of Jaglom's films still suck?' how can Jaglom hang with Welles for that long and have nothing rub off? i shudder to think what his films would have been like had he never met Welles.

is Jaglom lying that he and orson taped those conversations for a book? everything i've read has Welles finding out about the tapes, caling Jaglom to accuse him of treason, then shortly afterwards passing away.

fredric:
i never saw the member named '?', but if he's hanging with a group of guys who call themselve The Mysterions, they had a hit IN THE 60'S called, 96 TEARS:

'? And The Mysterions'.


Lessons From Orson Welles.
by Henry Jaglom
MovieMaker, November 1994
In 1970, I directed Orson Welles in A Safe Place, my first film. In 1985, I directed him in Someone to Love, his last performance, as it turned out. In the decade and a half in between, we became very good friends. We had lunch once or twice a week and spoke on the phone almost daily for seven years. I learned much-very much-from Orson Welles.
We taped all those lunches, for him to use in a book that he would someday write: his autobiography. I would ask him a question and mention a person I was interested in and whom he had known. Chaplin. Hemingway. Churchilll. Picasso. FDR. And he would talk. I felt as if I was meeting the people I had always been most fascinated by. Of course, Orson had prejudices which influenced his perceptions of these people and his attitude toward them was naturally colored by who he was. But his prejudices were so like mine that I felt as if I were getting to know them the way I would have done had I been
around back then.

On each of my last two films, Can She Bake a Cherry Pie? and Always, Orson did something truly remarkable. He waited both times until I had a fairly solid first rough cut, resisting the strong temptation on each occasion to look at any of the footage in the early stages. Lunch after lunch, for many months, I would tell him: "Not yet!" When I finally did have a pretty tight cut ready, he came to my cutting room, sat in a wheelchair for comfort, smoked his Monte Cristo cigars and looked at the movie on my editing machine, reel by reel, talking as he watched-advising, suggesting, praising, laughing, arguing with the whole mad filmmaking process, being reminded of the movies he had made: their virtues, their flaws, his 'mistakes,' his conclusions. Both times, it was a virtuoso performance lasting two days per movie, ten or twelve hours each, following lunch, followed by dinner, where the talk continued, the ideas flowed, images stimulated thoughts, dialogue provoked memory. And he would talk. I would listen.
Ask. Argue. And learn. Still, in the 15 years that I knew him, I'd say that the two main lessons Orson taught me came early. One was positive, from Orson's example. The other was negative-also, sadly, from his example. The positive lesson was this: MAKE MOVIES FOR YOURSELF. "Make them as good as you can, so that you are satisfied, never compromising, because they are going to show up to haunt you for the rest
of your life," he told me on the set of my first film. He had watched me for a few days and finally came to the rather surprised conclusion that "you're trying to do something interesting, aren't you?" I nodded, yes. I hoped I was.
"Don't let anybody tell you what to do," he said.
"And never make a movie for anyone else, or on some idea of what other people will like. Make it yours, and hope that there will be others who will understand. But never compromise to make them understand. Never do less than you feel you have to." The negative lesson was simply this: NEVER NEED
HOLLYWOOD. Never depend on it for your financing, for support, for your ability to make films. Get your backing as far away as possible from what they proudly call their "Industry" if you have any intention of being an artist. Co-existence cannot occur, as Orson's last two decades sadly showed. He needed them till the end, and they rejected him till the end. And a
half-dozen or more brilliant motion pictures never got made as a result. And a magnificent artist could never get back to the canvas that they had pulled out from under him. So: "Never give them control over your tools," is what I hear Orson telling me now, as I view his final screen appearance. "Make the movies you want to make. On your own. And be free..."

[Jeff Wilson]

Thanks for posting that. I've never thought much of Jaglom's movies, at least the couple I've seen. Didn't like them or hate them, they were just there. It's amazing that he can make films for so long and yet still remain completely under the radar of much of the movie-going world, or at least it seems that way. I've never heard one person say "Man, when's the new Jaglom film coming out??"

[jaime marzol]

JEFF:
i'm laughing, it's so true what you said about jaglom's films.

i've seen mabe 5 or 6 of them and just sat there with my mouth open wondering where it was all going, and how was he going to work the pay-off in. but jaglom has no such worries; his films are pay-off free, plot point free. why dick around with a narrative, it just gets in the way of stream on consiousness filmmaking.

to me his films are like a wallpaper patern; no begining, no middle, no end, just continuos footage, they go on and on and on, till you get bored and turn it off, or fall asleep.

CAN YOU BAKE A CHERRY PIE is the worst of the bunch. that insipid version of the song playing over and over. makes you feel like punching the director in the face if you ever meet him.

his most ambigous film is A SAFE PLACE. you keep asking yourself, is it good, or does it suck? and that question is never answered. i'm still not sure, but it's impossible to sit through the entire film in one sitting..

SOMEONE TO LOVE is watchable. i enjoyed it. it's the first jaglom film i ever saw. imagine my surprise when i saw his other films.

[Harvey Chartrand]

Here is a rather breathless review of Welles' swan song appearance in Henry Jaglom's SOMEONE TO LOVE -- which I consider the most repugnant vanity film ever made. Pity Welles ended his career on such a low note. Still, some critics loved it!
____

From Michael Wilmington's review in the LA Times:

AT THE CENTER OF THIS CHARMING AND PROVOCATIVE GALLERY IS AN UNFORGETTABLE FACE: ORSON WELLES IN HIS FAREWELL PERFORMANCE, with all his masks and false noses and greasepaint removed—himself at last, yet as sophisticated as Harry Lime, as commanding as Kane, as relentlessly interrogatory as Quinlan, as confused as O’Hara, as endearing and poignantly funny, warm and sly as Falstaff. If we have ever wondered what a pleasure it would have been to sit across from Welles at a table to hear his quicksilver thoughts, impudent erudition, ironies and jests, JAGLOM HERE OFFERS US ALL THAT SPECIAL AND WONDERFUL GIFT: THE TREASURES OF WELLES' COMPANY SEEMINGLY UNDILUTED AND PURE. AT THE END, AS IF JAGLOM FINDS IT WRENCHINGLY HARD TO LET HIM GO, HE KEEPS SUMMONING HIS OLD FRIEND—that Prospero, Lear and Prometheus of the cinema—back and back in the editing: through the credits, after the credits, after the blackout, finally roaring at us all with a Rabelaisian, Falstaffian glee—AS IF FOR ENDLESS ENCORES FROM AN AUDIENCE THAT WILL NOT, CANNOT LET HIM GO—AN AUDIENCE WHICH WANTS HIM NEVER TO LEAVE, DOESN'T WANT THE CURTAIN EVER RUNG DOWN. AND OF COURSE, WE DON'T."

[LA]

I think Jaglom has a couple of critics who admire him consistantly, if you look on his website, most of the reviews quoted are from two or three particular critics.

[Welles Fan]

Yes, Welles was apparently the master of stroking the ego of would-be hack filmmakers while avoiding a direct answer to a question like "well, Orson-what'd you think of it?"

[ToddBaesen]

Here's an exchange between Oja Kodar, (who acted in SOMEONE TO LOVE) and Gary Graver. Obviously Oja doesen't think much of Mr. Jaglom.

--------------------------------------------------

OJA KODAR: When people say, "Orson began DON QUIXOTE in 1957, so he's been working on it for twenty years," it sounds as though this poor friend of mind was shooting and editing all that time, and that's not true. In a two year period, he might just shoot one sunset shot, because he thought it would be perfect for DON QUIXOTE. Then a few years would go by and we'd be back in Spain and he'd say, "let's shoot this, because I want to put this color material into DON QUIXOTE. So he wasn't sweating for twenty years over the making of DON QUIXOTE.

GARY GRAVER: Also, Orson was a avant-garde director, and everyone of his films was important. But if Henry Jaglom or Paul Mazursky doesn't finish a movie, nobody really cares.

OJA KODAR: With Jaglom, you hope to God he doesn't finish the movie! (laughter)

GARY GRAVER: But if you're the average director for hire in Hollywood, and you don't finish a picture, nobody really cares. Nobody even writes about it, but with Orson Welles, there's a lot more interest. Everyone really wanted to see everything that Orson made.

[jaime marzol]

Todd, that is so funny what you posted that kodar said about jaglom, that you hope he doesn't finish the film. his films keep you wondering, 'with so many available topics out there, why did he make THIS?'

harvey wrote about SOMEONE TO LOVE:
which I consider the most repugnant vanity film ever made. Pity Welles ended his career on such a low note. Still, some critics loved it!

i didn't feel SOMEONE TO LOVE was repugnant at all, it didn't effect me in that overt maner, however it did bore me. kept waiting for them to show Sally Kellerman's breasts and they never did.

i saw CAN SHE BAKE A CHERRY PIE first run in a reputable movie theater (!). i remember thinking as i was exiting theater, 'man, that movie sucked!' people coming out of theater were telling those standing in line waiting to get in, not to waste their time. that's the first time i ever saw that happen. it must have cost jaglom a fortune to buy that distribution.

[Obssessed_with_Orson]

in other words, mr. jaglom really isn't all that good.

at least he's not mr. higham, writing nothing but negativity crap about Orson in a book.

the only thing i did really enjoy in the movie someone to love was the end.

the rest of it was kind of :p

so that's the part a friend of mine recorded for me.

i'm sorry, but i'm not going to pay $29.95 for a movie with Mr. Welles in the movie for only that length of time.

it would be like buying a group of old time radio shows for $59.95 and only one of the shows his.

[maxrael]

Apologies if this have been posted already... i don't remember seeing it! (but that doesn't mean much!)

The guidelines say i should refrain from posting the entire article due to possible copyright infringements, so here's a couple of good paragraphs followed by a link to the complete article written by James Morrison.

"The truth is that even when Welles had studio resources at his command, he used them in unusual ways, and once he no longer had them, he elaborated an alternative style radically at odds with conventional approaches. For The Other Side of the Wind, Welles shot footage over many years, with the disorienting effect that characters age appreciably, and illogically, from scene to scene. In the footage that's been shown publicly, the movie exhibits a casual mastery--astonishing shots tossed off as if they were easy, with an air of indifference, and without the overt bravura of Kane--and an exhilaratingly impromptu quality. Watching Welles' late films, you feel you're seeing a whole new way of making movies--as if a true professional, sick of it all, had happily reverted in the end to the simpler pleasures of the genuine amateur.
Before his death in 1985, Welles appeared in Jaglom's films A Safe Place (1970) or Someone to Love (released in 1988), and Welles' photo still appears, movingly, at the start of Jaglom's films, in the logo of his production company. What Jaglom learned from Welles' late work is that movies, always in danger of slipping into a stifling mechanism, can be best when you make them up as you go along. Even Welles' last Shakespeare film, the great Chimes at Midnight, has at the base of its magisterial vision an adventurously makeshift quality--stitching bits of different plays joyously together, and reveling in B-grade production values, to give the movie an immediate rush much at odds with typical Shakespeare films. It's classic without ever feeling dourly "classical."

Jaglom adapts the impromptu quality of late Welles, but manages nothing of the polyphonic sense of narrative that energized even Welles' most radically experimental films (like the little-seen masterpiece F for Fake). Jaglom's scenes are often literally improvised, and since they never strive for the kind of emotional rawness of, say, John Cassavetes, they don't typically escape the lumpish inertia that such scenes always risk. "

from:
http://indyweek.com/durham/2002-03-27/movie.html

[Le Chiffre]

For those interested in what Henry's been up to lately, his most recent film, 45 MINUTES FROM BROADWAY, was just sneak previewed:

http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/266959

It apparently concerns the Yiddish Theatre, which Orson Welles had a real fascination for, calling it "the only true international theatre." Here's another webpage on the film:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/the_ticket ... l_2012082/

[Colmena]

Jaglom is terra incognita for me.

Are any of his films that include OW recommended?
Either for themselves, or (more important) in regard to OW?

(Just skimmed some reviews of "Someone to Love" at Netflix, which condemn this flic, on both counts.)

[tonyw]

It is worth looking at since nothing with Orson is totally devoid of interest.

[Le Chiffre]

Quite true, Tony. Welles makes a nice presence in SOMEONE TO LOVE, which also co-stars Oja Kodar. A SAFE PLACE from 1971 was Jaglom and Welles's first collaboration and it's worth seeing too, even though it's a bit flaky and baffling in spots. Welles plays a mysterious, chess-playing magician in the park. Jack Nicholson's in that film too, and has some good scenes.