Wellesnet: The Orson Welles Web Resource

While looking through the lavish and quite fabulous new Taschen book, THE INGMAR BERGMAN ARCHIVES, edited by Paul Duncan, I was astonished to see how much of Bergman's career outside of his movies I was totally unaware of.

I daresay that most people in America probably know as little about Bergman's work on the Swedish stage as I did. However, like Orson Welles, Bergman's theatrical productions encompassed Shakespeare to Shaw.

It also took in Ibsen, Lorca, Brecht and Strindberg, and included several lauded productions of works by America's two greatest playwrights, Eugene O' Neill and Tennessee Williams.

In fact, Bergman's debut as a stage director in Sweden was in 1938 with a production of Sutton Vane's Outward Bound, which was revived that same year on Broadway, in a production directed by Otto Preminger and starring Mercury alumni Vincent Price. Of course, at the time Welles was at the height of his own theatrical career, before heading to Hollywood.

In the 40's Bergman, like Welles, went on to stage productions of Shakespeare's Macbeth and The Merchant of Venice (I've included more information about this wonderful book, that I highly recommend, at the end of this article).

However, Orson Welles was not exactly a great admirer of the Swedish director, at least according to his published remarks. Here are two of Welles's statements about Mr. Bergman:

*****

I don't condemn that very northern, very Protestant world of artists like Bergman; it's just not where I live. The Sweden I like to visit is a lot of fun. But Bergman's Sweden always reminds me of something Henry James said about Ibsen's Norway—that it was full of “the odor of spiritual paraffin.” How I sympathize with that! I share neither Bergman’s interests nor his obsessions. He's far more foreign to me than the Japanese.

—Orson Welles to Kenneth Tynan, 1967

*****

You could write all the ideas of all the movies, mine included, on the head of a pin. It’s not a form in which ideas are very fecund. It’s a form that may grip you or take you into a world or involve you emotionally—but ideas are not the subject of films. I have this terrible sense that film is dead, that it's a piece of film in a machine that will be run off and shown to people. That is why, I think, my films are theatrical, and strongly stated, because I can't believe that anybody won’t fall asleep unless they are. There’s an awful lot of Bergman and Antonioni that I'd rather be dead than sit through.

For myself, unless a film is hallucinatory, unless it becomes that kind of an experience, it doesn't come alive. I know that directors find serious and sensitive audiences for films where people sit around peeling potatoes in the peasant houses—but I can't read that kind of novel either. Somebody has to be knocking at the door—I figure that is the way Shakespeare thought, so I can’t be in bad company!

—Orson Welles to Barbara Leaming, 1983

*****

Now, given those kind of hostile remarks, it's no surprise that towards the end of his life, Bergman was not very complimentary about Welles's work as a director. Here are Bergman's comments about Welles when he spoke to a Swedish newspaper in 2002:

*****

INGMAR BERGMAN: For me (Orson Welles) is just a hoax. It's empty. It's not interesting. It's dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of, is the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie has is absolutely unbelievable!

JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons?

INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I've never liked Welles as an actor, because he's not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that's when he croaks. In my eyes he's an infinitely overrated filmmaker.

—Jan Aghed, När Bergman går på bio, from the Swedish daily newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, May 12, 2002.

*****

My own guess is both directors were probably over reacting. Bergman admits he owned a print of Citizen Kane, and Welles certainly must have found plenty to admire in Bergman's work, even if he wouldn't admit it in interviews. Which brings up an interesting point where the two men must have agreed: The Cathedral at Chartres. Here is an excerpt from Bergman's introduction to his published screenplays:

(more...)

_________________________________

When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?"

—Rudyard Kipling, The Conundrum of the Workshops
_________________________________

What is the title that appears on the film itself of Orson Welles's 1973 movie about fakers and forgery?

1. Hoax
2. ? (Question Mark)
3. FAKE?
4. ? (Questions) about Fakes
5. Verites et Mensonges (Truth and Lies)
6. F For Fake

This question came to mind when I recently came across the program note for F FOR FAKE when it was shown at the London Film Festival in 1975. Featured is a very informative interview with producer Dominique Antoine. Ms. Antoine’s comments also helped explain when the Iranian company Les Films de l’Astrophore first “took charge” of F FOR FAKE and why it took the film so long to get released after it was first screened in 1973.

In retrospect, it now appears evident that Welles made some extremely bad errors of judgment in regards to both of the films he made with money from Dr. Mehdi Boucherie of Iran. In fact, it seems whenever Welles acted as his own producer, he was often his own worse enemy! Why for instance, would Welles not immediately want to sign a distribution deal with his friend Darryl F. Zanuck and 20th Century-Fox for the U.S. rights to FALSTAFF after Zanuck expressed such enthusiasm and interest for the film in 1965? Why did Welles not sign a deal with Joseph E. Levine’s Embassy pictures for the rights to F FOR FAKE when Levine wanted to buy the movie for the U.S. market? Why did Welles not sign a deal to complete THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND in 1976, when one of the very few viable offers he received finally came his way?

Apparently, in each of these cases, it was because Welles, acting as his own producer, was hoping he could get a much better deal if he just waited patiently. As we now know, in each instance he only received a far worse deal by waiting, and in the case of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, he got no deal at all! Which reminded me of the self critical comment made by another artistic genius, Oscar Wilde, regarding his launching an action of criminal libel against the Marquis of Queensberry who had called him a “sodomite.” After Wilde had spent three years in jail he supposedly said, “What colossal stupidity!” While it’s obvious that both Wilde and Welles were artistic geniuses, it seems they both could be “colossally stupid” when it came to dealing with mundane business matters. That is surely why Welles always needed the skills of a strong producing partner, who was in sympathy with his artistic aims. Someone who could shepherd his artistic vision through the dangers of the studio system in the forties, and in the fifties and sixties through the new found independent distribution process. Which is probably why the many strong-willed producers Welles worked with in his career seemed to have had better results in actually getting Welles's films seen. They include: John Houseman, Sam Spiegel, William Castle, Herbert J. Yates, Albert Zugsmith and Alexander Salkind. When Welles acted as his own producer, while the film may have been artistically brilliant, it was almost always never distributed properly. The perfect example of this is OTHELLO. Welles produced and financed the film himself and therefore owned it outright. He sold it to United Artists for release in the United States three years after it had won the Grand Prix at the Cannes film festival. The film opened at the Paris Theater in New York City, and after a brief three week run there, United Artists pulled the picture and apparently never opened it anywhere else in the U.S. (According to Variety, the picture grossed less than $100,000.) The rights then reverted back to Welles, which explains why, except on a very few rare occasions, the movie was never screened in America during Welles's lifetime.

It appears something similar happened with F FOR FAKE. Welles had completed the film on his own and was attempting to sell it, with Francois Reichenbach acting as his producer. They ended up selling the film to the Iranian company, Les Films de l’Astrophore, who were already involved with the financing of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. However, before he sold the film, Welles certainly controlled every aspect of the final print, including its title. Which is why one wonders what Welles was thinking of when he perversely refused to give his picture a recognizable name! Even after it was brought by Les Films de l’Astrophore, the film took an astonishing three years to open in America. Although looking at some of the reviews that appeared after its initial showings, it’s not that surprising that there was so little interest by any studio or distributor in acquiring the film, or for that matter, in investing in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. Clearly both pictures would be very tough to market, and while they might prove to be artistic successes, there is little doubt their commercial prospects were perceived as being rather limited.

Obviously, with a “new kind of essay film,” on his hands, Welles only further hampered his own commercial success when a myriad of questions surfaced about what the actual title of the film was.

According to Gene Moskowitz’s review in Variety the picture was shown under the title of QUESTION MARK at the Club 13 screening room in Paris, on October 19, 1973. Moskowitz reports: “the film should intrigue buffs and would be a natural for school usage. Welles still shows his film know how despite the thin and sometimes overworked material. Even the title is unclear, for the word “Fake” is used at first and there is then a question mark which may also be the title and maybe more fitting for this glib but interesting pic.”

Jonathan Rosenbaum who was living in Paris at the time and had lunch with Welles in July of 1972, also saw the film at Club 13. Welles told Rosenbaum that he planned to call the film HOAX. Yet, when Rosenbaum saw the film in Paris, his report in the January 1974 issue of Film Comment, gives the title as FAKE. He also added this addendum to his article: “Department of Mystification: Two days after completing and sending off the above (article), Les Films du Prisme sends me a fiche technique of the new Welles film. According to them, the title is QUESTION MARK, Welles and Reichenbach share the director’s credit, and the script is by Oja Palinkas (Kodar), the leading actress. Elmyr de Hory and Clifford Irving (but not Welles) are listed as the leading actors. On the credits of the film that I saw, the word FAKE appears, followed by a question mark, and afterwards the title, “a film by Orson Welles.” For the time being I am content to call it THE NEW ORSON WELLES FILM, co-directed by Irving and de Hory, written by Jorge Luis Borges, and produced by Howard Hughes. …As Welles remarks about Chartres, the most important thing is that it exists.”

The film then apparently had it’s first public showing at The Tehran International Film Festival in 1973, at Roudaki Hall, complete with a tribute to Orson Welles, who received the Golden Winged Ibex Award for Life Achievement in the cinema. What the Persian title for the film was remains unclear, although I find it interesting that Welles was honored for his career in Iran, a full two years before he received an award from The American Film Institute. Ironically when the AFI gave Welles their Life Achievement Award, F FOR FAKE was finished, but still had not been released in America. As a result, no clips from Welles's latest film were shown, since Welles insisted that clips from his work in progress, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND should be featured. The AFI officials naturally resisted this request, since they really weren’t very interested in Orson Welles's future as a filmmaker, only in his glorious past. They also managed to give the incorrect release date and title for F FOR FAKE in their program book. Let’s just be thankful they didn’t invite Richard Nixon back to present their award to Orson Welles!

(more...)

I can hardly be called an unbiased reviewer when it comes to this book, since I contributed an interview with Gary Graver and Oja Kodar that serves as an afterward, but I must say in all candor, I was absolutely delighted when I received a copy of it today. First of all, having talked with Gary Graver extensively, I was wondering what more I could possibly find out about Gary's work with Welles in a volume devoted to that subject.

Well, as it turns out, quite a bit!

I'll offer some more detailed comments about the book after I've read it through completely, but just from my first impressions, this is obviously a must-have book for anyone with even the slightest interest in Welles later career (1970- 1985), and especially The Other Side of The Wind. I happen to think this is when Welles did some of his greatest work.

If you are interested in ordering a copy, it should be shipping shortly, as it has been printed and is on its way to retail outlets. Barnes and Noble appears to have the current lowest price for it on the Net, at $28.00.

__________________________

Making Movies with ORSON WELLES: A Memoir
By Gary Graver with Andrew J. Rausch
Foreword by Joseph McBride
Afterword (an Interview with Gary Graver and Oja Kodar) by Lawrence French

The Scarecrow Press
Pub Date: September 30, 2008
192 pages, Hardcover
List Price: $35.00

In 1958, Gary Graver moved from his hometown of Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles, California with dreams of an acting career in Hollywood. Soon after his arrival, he caught a double bill in a small theater on Hollywood Boulevard, the lower half of which was the recently released Touch of Evil. Upon viewing this noir classic, Graver decided he wanted to be a director and spent many years honing his craft, as both a cinematographer and a director, not to mention writer, actor, and producer--much like his idol, Orson Welles.

In 1970, when Graver learned that Welles was in town, he impulsively called up the director and offered him his services as a cameraman. It was only the second time in Welles' career that he had received such an offer from a cinematographer, the other time being from Gregg Toland, who worked on one of the greatest films ever made, Citizen Kane.

In Making Movies with Orson Welles, Gary Graver recounts the highs and lows of the moviemaking business as he and one of the most important and influential directors of all time struggled to get films produced. The two men collaborated on more than a dozen projects, including F for Fake, Filming Othello, Moby Dick-Rehearsed, The Dreamers and their magnum opus, the still unreleased The Other Side of the Wind. Their close friendship and creative filmmaking partnership would endure for 15 years, until Welles' death in October, 1985.

The book also includes an extensive filmography of Welles and Graver's work together, much of which remains unavailable for viewing, along with 20 rare photos from Gary Graver's personal collection. This fascinating memoir recalls what it was like to work with the legendary Orson Welles and offers advice and tales of caution for future filmmakers.

__________________________

Gary Graver, one of Orson Welles’ closest collaborators, has written a superb book on Welles. It is a captivating and insightful look at their extraordinary relationship, a must-have for Welles fans and academians alike.

—Frank Marshall, Producer, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

__________________________

About the authors

Gary Graver (1938-2006) was a respected cinematographer who worked on nearly 200 films. He served as cameraman on films by such diverse filmmakers as Paul Bartel, Budd Boetticher, John Cassavetes, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, and Orson Welles.

Andrew J. Rausch is the author of several books on film including Turning Points in Film History and Fifty Filmmakers: Conversations with Directors from Roger Avary to Steven Zaillian.

Fake? is a labored and dispiriting jape... No more than a home movie, an indulgent, desperate bit of trick editing; for Welles's sake I hope that it is quickly forgotten.

—Stephen Farber, Film Comment July, 1974

___________________

F For Fake is a talentless concoction of unparalleled ineptitude... It would have been a more generous gesture to show a retrospective of old Welles films rather than remind everyone of how low his ability as a filmmaker has plummeted.

—Rex Reed, New York Daily News Sept 26, 1975

___________________

F For Fake was commercially and critically successful everywhere but here at home. Small-time, amateur distribution and some poor reviews in the smaller cities rendered it virtually invisible in America. This came as a shock to me, because I thought I’d opened up a new movie form—the essay as opposed to the documentary—which would give me lots of scope for future experimentation and would cost little enough, so financing wouldn’t be a problem.

In attempting to explain F For Fake’s state-side failure, it has occurred to me that perhaps the subject matter was at least partially to blame, and that this country is so blissfully enslaved by the notion of the special sanctity of the expert that an overtly anti-expert film was bound to go too much against the national grain.

—Orson Welles, 1983
_________________

By Lawrence French
_________________

After listening to Gary Graver's informative commentary with Bill Krohn on Eureka's splendid UK edition DVD of F For Fake, I looked at some old reviews and was rather shocked to see how vituperative the comments were. As can be seen from just two of the quotes above, it's not that reviewers just didn't like the film, but their attitude seemed to be "how dare Welles try to make anything so radical or different." While there were some glowing comments as well, the overall trend seemed to be that F For Fake was a decidedly "minor" Welles effort, certainly not worthy of the talented director of Citizen Kane.

(more...)

Who are the experts? Elmyr de Hory had dramatized the question of whether or not art exists. It has always existed, but today I believe that man cannot escape his destiny to create whatever it is we make—jazz, a wooden spoon, or graffiti on the wall. All of these are expressions of man's creativity, proof that man has not yet been destroyed by technology. But are we making things for the people of our epoch or repeating what has been done before? And finally, is the question itself important? We must ask ourselves that. The most important thing is always to doubt the importance of the question.

—Orson Welles

_______________

Thanks to "Store" and "Ste" for the information in the message board thread about Eureka's Masters of Cinema UK version of F For Fake. I actually contributed some F For Fake material to Craig Keller, who designed the beautiful 40-page full color booklet that comes with the DVD (which is far superior to Criterion's skimpy little booklet), but when I received a copy of the Eureka DVD, I somehow never got around to looking at it, since I had just recently watched the Criterion version. But after reading Ste's report about the hidden "Easter egg" on the Eureka disc, I quickly gave it a look for the first time and I must say that this hidden feature alone, makes the UK version a must have DVD. Here you get to see Welles mini-masterpiece of a trailer, restored to all it's glory in beautiful color by the Munich film archive, which is far superior to the awful version on the Criterion disc. As Bill Krohn notes in his commentary talk with Gary Graver, he likes the trailer more than the movie! So having it restored in gorgeous color is really something quite special.

(more...)