Official OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND Thread - All things OSotW he

[Tony]

I believe it was in the Leslie McHaffie interview where Welles said that if he ever got to finish Wind it wouldn't be as originally intentioned but as a "Making of" documentary. I think this comment disagrees with your idea, Glenn, that Welles always intended it as a "mockumentary". After all, doesn't Arkadin start in the same way, though it is not a documentary? So I believe Welles's original intention was to make a dramatic picture, with serious distortions of time and perspective, very post-modern, even tho the term had just been coined (by architects in 1973). But he decided in the 80s to change it to a "Making of" documentary, as it had been too long since he shot it, and I believe he says it would have dated. He says something like "It was very much a 'then' kind of picture." (Somebody correct me if my memory is incorrect here please.)

So I think Bogdanovich's reported approach sounds very good for two reasons: It's following Welles's own stated ideas (c. 1982) and it also gets around the Beatrice caveat that it cannot say, or be presented as a film "directed by Orson Welles". It'll be a documentary about The Making of TOSOTW, directed by... Peter Bogdanovich.

Beatrice is very much a purist on this point.

[Roger Ryan]

What I find interesting is that the two sisters are causing some major problems...

Tony - I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny here, but for the record (and visitors to the board who may not know all of the history), Oja and Beatrice are not sisters (Beatrice being Welles' youngest daughter and Oja his mistress).

I agree that the re-edit of TOUCH OF EVIL should not have been called a "Director's Cut" and it was right of Beatrice to insist that term not be used. However, Welles still directed the film no matter how many different ways you cut it. The same is true of TOSOTW. It doesn't matter if someone else edits the project thirty years after shooting was completed, the film was still written (with Oja) and directed by Welles. If one was legally required to remove the "director" credit from every movie that was edited without the director's participation there would be precious few director credits, at least from the days of the studio system. We still consider THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, THE STRANGER, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, MR. ARKADIN and TOUCH OF EVIL films that were directed by Welles despite the fact that they were changed significantly in post-production by others who were not the least bit interested in preserving Welles' original vision. What makes TOSOTW any different? The fact that it may be finished by someone who actually wants to honor Welles' original vision is a real plus.

The imposed "Making Of..." frame might be a fine idea if it simply exists as an extended intro and outro to the attempt to complete the film itself. But, if done wrong, it could distance the viewer from the whole experience of viewing the film Welles directed. Should this kind of framework be retrofitted to THE STRANGER and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI where the "documentary-makers" step in every few moments to remind viewers that Welles didn't actually intend for this scene to be cut this way or that music cue to be used? For better or worse, TOSOTW should be allowed to stand on it's own much like FOUR MEN ON A RAFT which I consider a major Welles directorial achievement despite the fact that he never even saw the majority of footage shot.

[Tony]

Roger: My 'sisters' comment was indeed inended as humour: the tie-in is my 'Lear-like' comment. They both think they are Cordelia, but...

Sounds like I'm sounding like Glenn!

As for your premise re: what to label the film as, 2 things come to mind:

a. You say "as long as Welles directed it, no matter how you cut it..."

Well, would you then say that Welles directed the Franco version of Don Quixote? I believe it says that in the credits, but it certainly seems strange, especially as that is one awful film! And how about It's All True- is that a film directed by Welles? I know it was shot by him, but taking raw footage and editing it 50 years later- it seems very odd to say "this is a film directed by Welles".

b. Welles said that famous statement: "Editing is not an aspect of filmmaking- it's THE aspect."

So I must remain contrary to you on this one (Glenn really is affecting my vocabulary!): I agree with Beatrice, starting with her postion on the re-edited TOE, and continuing with her position on Wind.

But perhaps as Bogdanovich knows so much about Welles's intentions, they could use the credit:

"Directed by Orson Welles, co-directed by Peter Bogdanovich". I wonder if Bea would go for that?

[Roger Ryan]

IT'S ALL TRUE is an excellent example of how to go about presenting and crediting unfinished works. The one segment that could be "completed" in a form that would make dramatic sense ("FOUR MEN ON A RAFT") was presented as a "stand alone" portion of the documentary with Welles acknowledged as the director of the original footage. Given how incomplete and fragmented the ITS ALL TRUE material is, the 1993 release is really the best possible end result (at least until more of that footage has been catalogued and/or preserved).

One would assume that the prospects for creating what could be considered a "complete" dramatic presentation of TOSOTW are much stronger than with ITS ALL TRUE. Therefore I think a "stand alone" presentation should be attempted with Welles acknowledged as the director of the original footage.

Throwing the auteur theory aside, if Welles accepted director's credit for the half of his canon that was edited/re-edited by someone else, I should think he'd get a director's credit on TOSOTW. I would add that I don't think "A Film By Orson Welles"-type credit would be accurate, but certainly "Directed By Orson Welles" would be appropriate.

DON QUIXOTE? Yeah, the credit on that one should have read "With Apologies to Orson Welles Who Directed The Original Footage That We Then Mangled Beyond Recognition". While I'm not happy about it, Welles did direct that original footage. It's the same situation with AMBERSONS or ARKADIN, just a lot worse. It's a matter of degrees, I guess.

Tony, I think we're almost in agreement on this, actually!

[Tony]

I like your credit for DQ very much:

""With Apologies to Orson Welles Who Directed The Original Footage That We Then Mangled Beyond Recognition".

And I agree that so many Welles films were cut by others that if we were to limit his ouvre to only those films he had complete control over we'd have 1/2 his canon gone.

But I think "A Film by Orson Welles" is a graceful way of saying he's the author, but he didn't complete the final version.

But I know the counter-argument: but what about films like Shanghai?

It's an interesting argument.

[jbrooks]

Larry, much thanks for posting the interview.

One point I find confusing is the discussion of the film as a documentary or a mockumentary. As we know the film was always intended by Welles to be a psuedo-documentary about the last day of Hannaford's life, compiled from the cameras of the various journalists and documentarians filming his birthday party. This documentary-style footage was to have been inter-cut in some fashhion with the film-within-a-film footage of Hannaford's last film "The Other Side of the Wind." Okay, we are all aware of that.

But when Bogdanovich states

We’re going to put the whole thing in the form of a documentary about the making of a film, that was a mockumentary of itself. So we can jump in and say, “we didn’t shoot this.” We won’t connive to do that too often, so we can involve the audience as much as possible, but there will always be an unfinished quality to it, because it is unfinished. If we don’t do that, we’ll have a problem with Beatrice Welles (who controls the Welles estate).

Does he mean that the whole piece will be framed as a documentary about the making of Orson Welles' last movie? Or does he just mean that he'll continue the Welles conceit that it was a documentary about the making of Hannaford's last movie? It sounds to me as though he means the former. And the former is the only alternative that would presumably placate Beatrice. But if it's a real documentary about a fake documentary then it wouldn't make sense for Bogdanovich to do the narration as his character, would it? And wouldn't a real documentary have to include additional material from Bogdanovich, Marshall, Oja, etc. about the making of the film? (I'd love to see that sort of stuff as a DVD extra, but not as part of the film itself).

Also, I would be disapointed if the final film turns out to be just a documentary about the film -- in which Bogdanovich, or anyone, jumps into the narrative and says "Welles never got around to filming the next scene ..." or the like. I don't think the film would work as a film if it were presented in that fashion.

On the other hand, I would be more hopeful if the pseudo-documentary form could be maintained throughout. I think it would work if we had brief inserts of Bogdanovich in character doing the narration and explaining any missing bits (e.g. "There was nobody there to film when Hannaford crashed his car, but the burning wreckage was found later that morning.") But wouldn't Beatrice object to that sort of thing? (Not to suggest that she has any actual right to object, of course).

[ToddBaesen]

The Peter Bogdanovich interview on the main page concerning THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND now has some nice nice pictures of Welles directing the film, along with shots of Oja and Gary Graver. Check it out!

[Alan Brody]

Excerpt from a recent thread in a_film_by on The Other Side of the Wind:

>. I've also heard that Gary Graver virtually finoshed
> re-editing the film so the African curse mentioned in the IT'S ALL
> TRUE documentary may be operating again!
>
> Tony W.

I've seen Gary's edit, and calling the film "virtually finished" in this state srikes me as unduly optimistiic.

Jonathan R.

I'd like to hear Mr. Rosenbaum elaborate a bit more on what he thinks is wrong with Gary Graver's edit of the film. Anyone know of any way we can get him to respond, either here or there?

[tonyw]

Gee, Fame at last on Wellesnet.com! One way to get in touch with JR is via "A film By...@yahoo.com. Or, he may be still available at the Chicago Reader from which he is retiring from soon. For the record, I'm mystified since I read that Graver had "virtually" finished it but JR obviously had access to the cut which very few of us have the privilege of doing. So, like all of us on the site, I'd like this enigma cleared up. Good luck.

[RayKelly]

I wish I had taped my interview with Joseph McBride last year. He talked at length about the rough edit Gary Graver assembled of the work print to drum up support.

The only thing I remember clearly enough that I would post is Mr. McBride remarked that he did not believe OSOTW posed a difficult challenge in editing based on his viewing of the Graver's rough edit.

[ToddBaesen]

Here's some interesting thoughts on OSOTW from a blogger site:


http://blog.allmovie.com/2008/07/23/ors ... storation/

Sadly, he also notes that all the nice pictures on the Wellesnet interview with Peter Bogdanovich have magically disappeared!

[Roger Ryan]

Forgive me for being dense but I've been trying to plow through these posts and I cannot tell if the Showtime production is on or off.

Peter

Yes, Peter, you are correct! None of us have been able to determine exactly what is happening to TOSOTW. The last I heard was that someone or something showed up that caused the brakes to be applied again. We don't know who or what. Whether this is a problem that can be worked out or the straw that broke Showtime's interest in the project remains to be seen.

[MartynH]

Am I the only one getting bad vibes about this movie ever coming out?

[Tony]

The last I heard one of Orson's nephews was editing it- no joke.

I've been getting bad vibes about this movie since 1975- when I realized he still hadn't finished it and it had been announced in Joe McBride's 1972 book. This was when he was asking for completion money on the AFI show, and showing unfinished bits to the audience, just as Hannaford's lackey was showing bits to the studio exec in an attempt to get completion money in the excerpt that Welles showed to the audience he was trying to get money out of to finish TOSOTW, which was the name of the picture Hannaford was trying to get money for in TOSOTW in the excerpt that Welles was showing to the AFI audience in an attempt to...

Whew! Maybe Wind just collapsed from all that pomo ironic weight!

[NoFake]

The last I heard one of Orson's nephews was editing it- no joke.

Actually, that may not be as off-the-wall as it sounds. Isn't Oja's nephew a filmmaker?