Wellesnet: The Orson Welles Web Resource

On the day when Hollywood gives out it's esteemed Academy Awards, I came across an ad for Falstaff that quotes all the excellent reviews it received when it opened in March of 1967. Of course, the most important review for an art house movie at that time, was the verdict from The New York Times. Unfortunately, The Times was one of the few bad reviews Falstaff received.

What is clearly absurd, however, is how Falstaff could receive no Academy Award nominations in 1967, especially against such lightweight films as Doctor Dolittle and Thoroughly Modern Millie, which both received multiple nominations!

Today, of course, many film writers regard Falstaff as Orson Welles's best film, and I agree completely. Logically, that means Falstaff is also among the best movies ever made, since it certainly surpasses the brilliance of Citizen Kane.

So below, I've included the rave reviews that were quoted in the picture's original ad campaign, which sadly couldn't overcome that single bad review it got in The New York Times.

*****

"FALSTAFF IS PHENOMENON ENOUGH WITH ITS BEAUTIFUL, ORIGINAL, BIZARRE, IDIOSYNCRATIC, CHARMINGLY COCKEYED BUT INFALLIBLY INTERESTING notions of how it might have been if Shakespeare had had the wisdom to devote an entire chronicle to Falstaff. EXQUISITELY SUBTLE!"

—Joseph Morgenstern, Newsweek

'WELLES DOES JUSTICE TO HIS OWN GENIUS AND THAT OF SHAKESPEARE! ONE COULD NOT ASK MORE OF 'FALSTAFF'! Welles' 'Falstaff' is a Rabelaisian behemoth, amusing, outrageous, imaginative and lusty! The casting is excellent! His directorial genius is evident in every scene!"

—Judith Crist, World Journal Tribune

THIS IS ORSON WELLES'S BEST FILM SINCE 'CITIZEN KANE'! The movie reaches full stride in the long battle scene—SURELY ONE OF THE GREAT BATTLE SEQUENCES ON FILM!"

—Robert Kotiowitz, Harper's Magazine

'WELLES IS AN AUTHENTIC MASTER OF THE GRAND MANNER IN GESTURE AND IN SOUND—HE OVERWHELMS YOU! A ROUGH AND READY, BIG AND BOUNCY SHAKESPEARE COMPILATION OF FALSTAFF. POETIC ELOQUENCE!"

—Archer Winsten, N. Y. Post

"BRILLIANT CINEMATIC RE-VIGORATION OF SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY PLAYS! VISUAL POETRY-LYRIC, COMIC, EPIC!"

—Mademoiselle

"THE MAN OF GENIUS ORSON WELLES HAS PERFORMED TWO OR THREE ASTONISHING FEATS AT ONCE! It was up to Welles to make several Falstaffs into one and this Falstaff amounts to a new work in the Shakespeare canon. Mr. Welles plays Sir John with a relish and force and tenderness that make his Falstaff ours!"

—Brendan Gill, The New Yorker

WELLES FINEST SHAKESPEARIAN PRODUCTION TO DATE—ANOTHER NEAR MASTERPIECE... Welles has directed a sequence, the battle of Shrewsbury, which is unlike anything he has ever done. Indeed unlike any battle ever done on the screen before. It ranks with the best of Griffith, John Ford, Eisenstein, Kurosawa—THAT IS WITH THE BEST EVER DONE!

—Pauline Kael, The New Republic

*****
And here is the complete review from The New York Times:

*****

Screen: Orson Welles is Falstaff in Uneven Film: Cannes Movie Arrives at Little Carnegie

By Bosley Crowther - March 20, 1967

Nothing has happened to Orson Welles's "Chimes at Midnight" since I saw it last spring at the Cannes Film Festival to cause me to alter my opinion of it.

Although they have changed the title to "Falstaff" (which some people called it at Cannes) and are said to have tried to do something to make the dialogue track less fuzzy and incomprehensible than it was, it is still a confusing patchwork of scenes and characters mainly, from Shakespeare's "Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2," designed to give major exposure to Jack Falstaff, performed by Mr. Welles. And it is still every bit as difficult as I found it then to comprehend what several of the actors are saying, especially Mr. Welles.

This difficulty of understanding Mr. Welles's basso profundo speech, which he seems to direct toward his innards instead of out through his lips, makes it all the more difficult to catch the drift of this great, bearded, untidy man who waddles and cocks his hairy eyebrows and generally bluffs his way through the film.
Is this Falstaff a truly jovial person? Does he have a genuine wit and a tavern-companion's grand affection for the fun-loving scapegoat, Prince Hal? Has he, deep down, a spirit of rebellion against stuffy authority? Or is he merely what he looks like—a dissolute bumbling, street-corner Santa Claus?

Evidently Mr. Welles's reading of Falstaff ranges between a farcical concept of him and a mawkish, sentimental attitude. He makes the old pot-bellied rascal an armor-plated buffoon in the midst of a wild and brutal Battle of Shrewsbury, in which Prince Hal slays the brave Henry (Hotspur) Percy (for which Falstaff claims credit, of course).

He makes him a sort of Jackie Gleason getting off one of his homilies when he gives the great apostrophe to Honor, much of which I simply couldn't understand. And he chokes up like a soap-opera grandma when he is suddenly banished by the new Henry V, giving out with the cruel "I-know-thee-not-old-man" speech. Mr. Welles runs the gamut, as they say.

But his is still an inarticulate Flastaff. It is a big, squashy, tatterdemalion show, and it has no business intruding so brashly in the serious Shakespearean affairs of the Lancasters, the Percies and the Mortimers, which Mr. Welles does get to from time to time in this freely selected composite of scenes from Shakespeare, as it were.
When he does — when he breaks away from Falstaff and his puffy-faced lowlife friends such as Margaret Rutherford as Hostess Quickly, Michael Aldridge as Pistol, Jeanne Moreau as Doll Tearsheet and several others who are stuffed costumes more than characters — he gets to some rather solemn snatches of Shakespearean speeches and scenes.

John Gielgud gives out with several as the conscience-burdened Henry IV, and Keith Baxter does more than nicely with the chameleon moods and speeches of Prince Hal. While his character is more that of a cut-up — a juvenile scamp — in the early scenes with Old Jack, he makes an impressive princeling in his later confrontations with his old man. Norman Rodway's Henry Percy is also impressively strong — that is, the few times we see him. And Alan Webb's Justice Shallow is a cute old crock.
The picture, a Spanish-Swiss production, was shot in Spain, so the scenery, especially that around the walled city of Avila, has a noticeable Spanish tone. Mr. Welles's black-and-white cameras are very busy most of the time, rushing around and sweeping in for mammoth close-ups. This accentuates the patchwork effect.
Mr. Welles had always wanted to play Falstaff. Now he's had his chance. Those who are interested may see him at the Little Carnegie.

*****

FALSTAFF ("Chimes at Midnight"); adapted by Orson Welles from William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Parts I and II; directed by Mr. Welles; produced by Emiliano Piedra and Angel Escolano; presented by Harry Saltzman and released by Peppercorn-Wormser, Inc. Film Enterprises. At the Little Carnegie Theater, 57th Street east of Seventh Avenue. Running time: 115 minutes.

The Other Side of the Wind is Orson Welles only unrealized film project that could possibly be completed without the great man himself. There are many arguments to support this hope. But my goal would be to work with everybody who worked on the picture, Oja Kodar, and anybody who was around a lot. Frank Marshall was there for quite a while, so I would ask them what they all remember, and we would all pool are memories of what Orson had in mind. The idea would be to try and get as close as we can to what Orson had in mind, following the script and following notes that he made, and things he said to Oja about writing the script, and things he might have said to me. There’s a certain rhythm (in the film) that he obviously had in mind, and we’d try to get to that kind of rhythm, depending on the scene and also depending on the things we know about Orson.

–Peter Bogdanovich

***************

With the recent comments in Variety from Frank Marshall and Peter Bogdanovich about
how close they are to striking a deal with Showtime (yet again), I thought I'd update the timeline Welles scholar Kari Elovuori supplied to Wellesnet, with a few more additions of my own.

This new updated timeline includes some more recent information about the rather amazing backing Showtime has provided for the project, along with a very interesting script excerpt which shows how easily the film could be put together, if only the various factions would each agree to a reasonable amount of money!

***************

1966 – Orson Welles writes a script The Sacred Beasts, about a young bullfighter and an older film director who follows him around Spain and "admires" him. Ironically, Welles envisioned shooting this film very quickly.

August, 1970 – Shooting begins on The Other Side of the Wind in Hollywood. The script has now morphed into the story of an aging film director who is making his "comeback" movie. In place of a bullfighter, the director is now enamored with a handsome young man, whom he first encounters off the coast of Mexico. When the boy is attempting a “faked” suicide, Hannaford not only rescues him, but proceeds to cast him as the lead in his upcoming movie.

1971 – Acting as his own producer, Welles continues shooting wherever and whenever he has enough money to continue. He hasn't yet decided who will play the 70-year old film director, himself or John Huston.

1972 – While editing the initial footage of The Other Side of the Wind in Paris, Welles begins working on a personal essay film, F For Fake.

January, 1974 – Shooting resumes in Arizona for three months. Welles has finally decided to give the role of Jake Hannaford to his old friend and colleague, John Huston who joins the company for six weeks of intense work at a house Welles has rented in Carefree, a luxurious new housing development in the desert, outside of Phoenix.

March, 1975 – Orson Welles presents two sequences from The Other Side of the Wind at his AFI life achievement award. Ironically, the film "experts" at the AFI attempted to veto Welles idea to show this footage, and he has to threaten them with not appearing in order to get the clips shown.

1976 – Principal photography is basically completed, but Welles becomes involved in a bitter legal dispute with his Iranian partners over ownership rights to the film. This dispute will effectively keep the picture from being completed during Welles lifetime. However, Welles continues to work on the editing of the film during the final nine years before his death in 1985.

1985 – Orson Welles dies unexpectedly on October 10. Oja Kodar inherits the rights to all of the many Welles movie projects that were still in progress. Kodar, with the help of Gary Graver and Peter Bogdanovich, attempts to find new backers who will “buy out” the Iranian backers and allow the film to be completed. None of the major (or even minor) Hollywood studios show any interest in funding the project.

August, 2002 – Oja Kodar reaches a deal with Showtime to finance the completion of The Other Side of the Wind, but the deal falls apart when Beatrice Welles claims she has the right to “approve” any such deal. Thomas White, Beatrice Welles representative says at the time: “Under the law, Beatrice stands in the shoes of Orson Welles in all matters that would have been his to decide. She controls the estate and protects her father and won't do anything that she knows he wouldn't have approved of. Therefore, the only way this project can go forward is with her blessing." Ironically, in his will, Welles clearly states that anyone who attempts to interfere with Oja's rights to his films would be completely disinherited. Why this provision has never been brought up in U.S. courts remains a mystery.

March, 2007 – A new Showtime deal is reached, which apparently placates Beatrice Welles with a substantial payment. Peter Bogdanovich announces that work can finally go forward on completing The Other Side of the Wind.

April, 2008 – Peter Bogdanovich films the opening of the Los Angeles vault where Oja Kodar has kept the rough-cut and other related material for The Other Side of the Wind.

June, 2008 – Showtime sets up an editing suite in Los Angeles, to begin the preliminary logging in work for all of The Other Side of the Wind footage. Tim King is the Showtime executive in charge of post-production. Sasha Welles, a nephew to Oja Kodar, is also working on the project as an assistant editor.

Dec. 2008 – After six months of work, Showtime puts the editing on “hold,” due to an unspecified complication. One possibility is that the negative is still unavailable for inspection in the Paris film vault where it is being held by French Officials. There is reportedly over ten hours of negative footage in the Paris vault, making access to it vital to properly complete the project.

February, 2009 – Peter Boganovich and Frank Marshall tell Variety the project is still viable. Marshall says: “Showtime is willing to pay for it, but they want to make sure the materials are there. The negative is in a lab in Paris, but we can't get the estates together to get us into the lab to confirm that the negative is in good shape.”
Bogdanovich says: “It's going to happen in the next month or so. We're aiming for Cannes (in 2010). Everybody wants it to happen. It's film history. It will be something for it to finally be seen after all these years."

***************

Script Excerpt follows:
(more...)

I just recently received a copy of a poem Gary Graver wrote that was printed for his memorial service.

Unfortunately, there wasn't time to include it in Gary's memoir, Making Movies With Orson Welles, so I thought I would reproduce it here.

I'll also add this thought, since I've now had the opportunity to see a rough cut of The Other Side of the Wind:

I've no doubt Gary might easily have been nominated for an Academy Award if the film had been released in 1975, or maybe he could still be, if the film were to be released in say, 2012.

One scene that stands out in my mind: a beautiful series of panning telephoto shots of Bob Random, as he is walking through various different locations on the back lot at MGM, including what appears to be a field of tall grass. Welles cuts on these panning shots about five times, so the effect is almost as if the camera move is one continuous pan, except each time he cuts, the background changes, as Random moves from left to right across the screen (think of the similar cutting Alain Resnais did in La Guerre Est Finie)

It's also one of the few scenes in the rough cut that had a temp. music track, in this case a nice piece of Spanish guitar (if I recall correctly), which adds immeasurably to the poetic effect of the scene.

Needless to say, as shot by Gary Graver, the sequence is only one of many that looks quite beautiful in what is clearly Gary's masterpiece of cinematography. No wonder Welles called Gary "Rembrandt."

***********

And the hand scooped up a fist full of dirt
And this was life and it fell back through fingers
Earth to earth
And a foot stepped on it
And this was still life.
From the womb to the grave from lip to lip
From night to night from the touch of fingertip to fingertip
And this was beauty,
The beauty of your loved one's hair
And fresh face caught aglow in an anxious wind,
And the morning frost and smell of dew
And a fallen lonely flower petal and the smile of love
And the strength of the gift of young ambition and heroism
And from the blue crib to the naked grave
This was life

***********

In Celebration of the life of Gary Graver

July 20, 1938 - November 16, 2006

***********

I recently received a letter from a 7th grade student in Mass. who asked me a series of interesting questions about Orson Welles. By a strange coincidence, I had just been talking with Joseph McBride about the upcoming group of younger Welles scholars. In any event, I was quite impressed by the intelligence of the questions about Welles and his career, especially coming from a student who was only in the 7th grade. So I thought instead of giving only short one or two sentence answers, I'd provide the answers to his questions here at Wellesnet, just in case there are any other budding Welles scholars out there who may also be writing about Orson Welles as an important "individual in history" for National History Day.

To begin, here is some background about the National History Day contest:

***************

The National History Day contest engages students in grades 6-12, who engage in discovery and interpretation of historical topics related to an annual theme. Students hone their talents and produce creative and scholarly projects in the form of exhibits, documentaries, historical papers, performances, or web sites. After a series of district and state contests, the program culminates with a national competition at the University of Maryland in College Park each June.

***************

Here is the letter I received along with my replies:

Dear Mr. French:

Hello, my name is Valentin Prince and I am a seventh grade student at a middle school in Somerville, Massachusetts. I am taking part in National History Day and I am writing my paper on Orson Welles. This project is a nation wide competition, and I hope to do well, so I am looking for more information on my topic. I have used your site as a large source of information for my project already, but I still have a few questions about Welles that I hope you have the time to answer:

Most of Orson Welles’ movies were very unpopular at the box office upon release, but some of his movies are now regarded as staples in the movie world, and Citizen Kane is widely regarded by critics as the best movie of all time. My question is: why do you think that Welles’ movies are so revered now, but when first released so unsuccessful?

This is the classic dilemma that all true artists face, but particularly artists who are considered "ahead of their time." Many movie classics from years ago were not very successful when they were first released. The prime example of this is The Wizard of Oz, which like Citizen Kane took years to break even. As did Walt Disney's Fantasia. All three of these movies were re-released in theaters after their initial runs, to much greater success and eventually all became movie classics.

But in terms of a different artistic medium, just think of important artists like Edgar Allan Poe and Vincent Van Gogh. In their lifetime of creative work, they could barely support themselves. In ten short years, Van Gogh completed nearly 1,000 paintings, each of which today is worth millions of dollars. But in his own lifetime, Van Gogh sold only two of his canvases!

Thankfully, Orson Welles was a success on the stage and in radio, before he ever went to Hollywood. But just imagine if Welles had only been able to make his living as a director of movies. In that case, it is very unlikely he would even been able to complete the 12 films he managed to finish in his career, although today most of these 12 films are widely considered to be milestones of the cinematic art.

The point to be made here is that great art rarely has any connection to great success, especially in the cinema. Citizen Kane was pretty much hailed as a masterpiece by every critic in America from the day of its arrival in 1941 (except for people writing for the Hearst press). However, it was simply a movie the public didn’t like. As a matter of fact I didn’t like it, either, the first time I saw it, when I was in High School. At the time I had no idea why people said it was the greatest movie ever made. However, when anything is difficult to understand or demanding, people seem to look to the experts to help them make up their minds. So it has now become almost impossible to say that Citizen Kane is not the greatest picture every made. Which is rather absurd, because Welles himself made a much better picture with Falstaff. Unfortunately, these "best of" lists which used to be fun to look at, have now become nothing more than marketing tools. In any case, it's dangerous to believe in the opinions of the so-called “experts” who tend to believe they are always right and you are always wrong.

This of course, was the theme of one of Welles's own later films, F For Fake. The public is supposed to blindly follow these experts, and believe everything they say. This seems to happen in all fields of the arts. Just look at the work of the sculptor Richard Serra. I personally find most of his work incredibly bad, not only conceptually but in execution. But art critics and museum curators tell us that these ugly slabs of steel are important works of art. Yet, a sculptor like Oja Kodar, who may make more beautiful works of art, is mostly unknown. Presumably, for exactly for the same reason Van Gogh was not discovered in his own lifetime, and why many minor painters who are now forgotten were considered to be great artists in their time.

So as Welles says in F For Fake, most experts views can often prove to be quite incorrect in the eyes of history. True art is in the eye of the beholder. So if you think Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, then for you, it is. If you don’t like it, why agree with the pack who parrot each other, if you in your heart disagree? Welles himself thought his best film was Falstaff, as do I and many other Welles scholars. Of course, that film is nowhere to be seen in the lists of best movies ever made. Probably one good reason why, is because many experts haven’t even seen it, including presumably most of the members of the AFI!

Orson Welles is a very popular man in the movie world, but he also is widely known for his radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds in 1938. Why do you think that this was such an important event for the world, and why did it make Welles so famous?

It was this event that really made Orson Welles career and contract at RKO possible. Welles had already established himself as a brilliant director on the stage in New York, and had appeared on the cover of Time magazine earlier in 1938, before the broadcast of The War of the Worlds. So when Welles’s famous broadcast caused such a panic in October of 1938, the massive coverage it received across the nation insured that there was literally no one in America who didn’t wake up on Halloween morning who didn't know the name of Orson Welles. The immediate result was that Welles's weekly radio show got upgraded with a sponsor, Campbell’s Soup, which allowed Welles's to hire name co-stars to act with him on the air, such as Katherine Hepburn, Laurence Olivier, Helen Hayes, Lionel Barrymore, Ida Lupino and Walter Huston. It wasn't long after that that Hollywood studios began to court Welles services as director and actor, with RKO winning out with it's offer of total artistic freedom.

(more...)