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

[RayKelly]

Frank Marshall spoke briefly about OSOTW in The Telegraph on 4/15/06:

Soon after he saw Touch of Evil for the first time in the early '70s, Marshall and his friend Peter Bogdanovich began working on a picture directed by Welles himself. "It was called The Other Side of the Wind, and starred John Huston," he says. "Orson was extremely overweight and incredibly funny - one of the most generous, wonderful people I've ever worked with. He was irrational in a lot of ways - he created his own dramas - and I think he was very hurt by Hollywood, because he wasn't respected. But he was obviously a genius. I didn't want to miss a minute. He died before finishing the film, but one day we will - it's all there except for a couple of transition shots."

[ToddBaesen]

Thanks for that Frank Marshall piece, Ray.

But you know, I think Frank Marshall is a bit of a phoney. Of course that sort of goes without saying for most people in Hollywood. But here is the right hand man to Steven Spielberg, and at one time Peter Bogdanovich, and of course on OSOTW, Marshall was the production manager. But as the producer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, which was a huge sucess in 1981, when Orson was still alive, wouldn't you think this man might try to use his clout to get a studio to finish that film?

I remember quite well when I talked to Marshall at the preview of Raiders: I asked him why he wasn't trying to help complete this film. Marshall simply took the studio line, which was, "you know, you have to finish a film, not abandon it."

So the point to be made clear here, is that somebody like Frank Marshall, or Steven Spielberg, or George Lucas, or Jack Nicholson, all of whom claimed to be Orson's bosom buddies, could easily just pick up the phone, call the the head of Universal or Paramount or Warner Bros, or Miramax, or whoever, and not even have to spend a penny of their own money and just say, "Why don't you invest $4 million and complete THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND!

But do they do that? Absolutely not!!

And why not? Oja Kodar explains it here:

Q: Didn't Orson also meet with Steven Spielberg, to see if he'd help finance THE CRADLE WILL ROCK?

OJA KODAR: Yes, Orson was going to use Amy Irving for a part in THE CRADLE WILL ROCK, and at the time she was married to Steven Spielberg. So Orson had dinner with Spielberg and Amy Irving, they talked about the movie and then they both left. They also left Orson with the bill. Once again, Spielberg had a right to say no, but if you have courage, and you've paid $60,000. for a piece of wood, (the Rosebud sled from CITIZEN KANE), wouldn't you think he might give $60,000 to a great moviemaker? Wouldn't you think he might say, "Mr. Welles, here's $60,000, write me a script," instead of paying for a reproduction of the Rosebud sled. Orson said it was a fake, because the real Rosebud sled had burned up. Even if you don't shoot the script, wouldn't you like to have an original script by Orson Welles? You could put it on your coffee table and boast to your friends that Orson Welles had written an original script for you. You know what it is? These people don't love movies. First they love themselves. Only after that, do they love movies. They always say, "I admire Orson, I was impressed by him, I learned so much from him." But it's just something that sounds wonderful to say. It's like people who look at the Mona Lisa. They stand there and don't see much. You can see the disappointment on their faces. They fly all the way to Paris, go to the Louvre, and stand in front of the Mona Lisa and their faces look like a Cocker Spaniel. Everything is drooping down, because they don't know what they're looking at, but it's a great thing to go back and say, "it was wonderful."

____


Anyway, Spielberg also supposedly told the executives at Columbia that he'd never direct a film for them again, if they didn't spend the money to restore David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. Of course, Columbia jumped at Spielberg's threat, and we can thank him indirectly for that restoration. But let's face it, any film of Orson Welles, it worth five Lawrence of Arabia's, even if Spielberg doesn't have the taste to know that!

[mteal]

I remember quite well when I talked to Marshall at the preview of Raiders: I asked him why he wasn't trying to help complete (TOSOTW). Marshall simply took the studio line, which was, "you know, you have to finish a film, not abandon it."

Very interesting. Makes me think of Barbra Leaming's book which claims that Orson Welles was offered the opportunity to finish the cutting of WIND in Paris, but decided to stay in L.A. so he could do commercials instead. I wonder if that's what Marshall meant when he said that Orson abandoned the film.

[RayKelly]

Todd,
The abandoning a film remark is really distressing, thanks for repeating it here. I really don't know how much clout Frank Marshall would have to get a studio to drop $4 million, but I totally agree with you about Steven Spielberg. One of the stories that came out of the recent Gary Graver appearance in Northampton, MA was that Orson flat out asked Spielberg for help. Spielberg reportedly told Orson that he had carte blanche use of his private SCREENING ROOM to show footage to potential investors. He didn't offer a dime to help. Add that to the often told tale that Spielberg didn't pick up the lunch check after dining with Orson and it doesn't paint too flattering a portrait of Spielberg.

[Tony]

In Spielberg's defense, he might not have paid the lunch bill in deference to Welles's senior status, not wanting to embarrass him. On the other hand, it's indiscreet of Welles to talk about Spielberg not paying the bill, especially to a biographer.

In terms of the movie "business", Spielberg's a pragmatist: Welles's movies never made serious money, but he kept on making them his way; when Spielberg's flop, he goes back to the tried and true. This is the difference between an artist and a "professional". Spielberg is addicted to the idea that to be successful, a movie must make money; if it doesn't, there must be something wrong with it: he has a very middle-class (petit-bourgeois) understanding of art and commerce. It has always seemed strange to me that Spielberg didn't help Welles make a film, but remember, Spielberg had had a couple of flops in the late 80's, and had only just made his comeback in 1982 (was it?) with the first Raiders, so was just reestablishing himself in Hollywood financially and business-wise as a reliable money-maker: how could he, at that time, support Welles, as Welles had long before solidly established himself as a money-loser; this, I believe, was the central reason preventing Welles from getting money and respect in Hollywood, which is run on business principles, not art principles. I recall an interview Spielberg did to promote "The Colour Purple" (which of course was a sanitized version with the lesbianism removed, etc.) wherein he was asked why he had done such a different kind of movie than he usually did, and he said: "I never read books, I just read scripts, but someone gave me a copy of this novel and I read it in a couple of hours and thought: "This would make a great movie!" Of course, Welles read Shakespeare every day and this is the difference: Welles was brought up in an elite family, with private school education and certain assumptions and beliefs about society: he was an elitist (or perhaps 'aristocrat') artistically, socially, as a person, though he was always trying to be a populist: however, he just couldn't compromise: it wasn't his nature. Spielberg has no problem making the compromises of the populist: it's his essential nature.

Or should I say 'character'?

Remember what Welles said at the A.F.I show? "If somebody else had directed my pictures, they might have been better [made more money?] but they wouldn't have been mine."

[Glenn Anders]

Spielberg would have been putting not only his money and his reputation on the line, but also the career of his wife (at the time), Amy Irving.

I rather think that Frank Marshall did what he could with Spielberg, and that he will do better before this saga reaches port.

Glenn

[The Voice of Cornstarch]

Glenn,

As always, you're insight is impressive.

Tony,

Your comments about Spielberg were interesting.
Probably the best source for information about Spielberg and Welles would be McBride's Spielberg biography.
We know how deep McBride goes in his research on Welles. His Spielberg bioigraphy is authoritative.

ToddBaesen:

With respect to Marshall, it appears from your post that you are basing a conclusion about a man's activity on what Welles called "one of those festival remarks."
A significant encounter for the person asking the question, often an incident to be minimized to the person being questioned.

In fact, Mr. Marshall did actively try to mediate the dispute over conflcting claims for TOSOTW so that the film could be released.
At least one party to the dispute was willing to consider mediation specifically because of Mr. Marshall's credibility.
That his efforts were done outside the public eye and were not successful does not diminish the credit he deserves for trying to do something positive to get the film before the public.

On what sources do you base your claim that Marshall did nothing to release the film?

[ToddBaesen]

All these people, Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson, George Lucas... they all had every right to ignore Orson's pleas for help while he was alive. And after he died, they all did nothing to complete OSOTW.

They also have no obligation, god forbid, to pick up the check for dinner when Orson invited them to Ma Maison in a vain attempt to get their help (especially since Welles might be offended by such a gesture!).

But the point to be made, is that most of these so-called admirers of Welles were typical ego-centric Hollywood types, and concomitant with that, they were also total hypocrites. They all say they love Orson and his work and would do anything for him, then quickly ignore his pleas when it's time to act. And after Welles death, for 30 years they have done nothing to help finish OSOTW.

In this category the main culprits are Jack Nicholson and Steven Spielberg, because either one of them could easily have the backing for a release of OSOTW by putting their name behind the film and just calling up a studio...

Now in Frank Marshall's case, he doesn't have that kind of clout, but he certainly could be doing more than he has in the past to help bring out a film that he worked on, and presumably knows quite a bit about. Of course, in the past, he did try to do something when the Iranians where still involved and making demands for money... but it's obviously not something he's going to be out there fighting for. And as Oja Kodar notes below, he has every right to do so. It's just that he'd rather be out there directing his own movies, like "Congo".

__

Q: I thought THE BIG BRASS RING was an absolutely brilliant script, but what I can't fathom is why so many big name actors turned down the leading role. I guess it's because they would have only made $1 million. It's too bad Charlton Heston wasn't still bankable...

OJA KODAR: Well, Clint Eastwood turned it down because he's really a right-wing guy. I like him as a director, he's a very good director, but he's really a fascist. Then, Jack Nicholson came to our house and said, "for you Orson, anything at all," but then when it came time to really say yes, he wanted $4 million, and our entire budget was $4 million. You know what I think? I think everybody lives their own life, and can do whatever they want. They have the right to do so. I'm not even criticizing Jack Nicholson, but if you were a big star, who makes a lot of money, wouldn't you think that maybe they'd like to be in a movie by a great movie director? Even if it's for free?

[Tony]

Todd:
I don't know about you, but when I invite somebody for lunch, I pay. And if they insist, I get insulted, like maybe they think I expected them to pay. Also, are you sure you have the inside story on each and every individual you have criticized as to why they refused? If I was the head of a studio in the 70s and 80s, there's no way in the world I would have paid for a Welles project, because it would be throwing away money. You know, the shareholders don't like that sort of thing, since the purpose of businesses is to make money: George Schaeffer learned that lesson the hard way. And whether it was Welles's proven track record, scripts that were disliked, the perception that his health was slipping, or perhaps career concern, I think it's not for us to judge these individuals and their reasons with as little info as we have.

But if I was a millionaire at that time, I most certainly would have paid for a Welles film, because I wouldn't have been in the "business": I would have been a 'patron of the arts'.

Just my opinion. :;):

[The Voice of Cornstarch]

ToddBaeson posted

Now in Frank Marshall's case, he doesn't have that kind of clout, but he certainly could be doing more than he has in the past to help bring out a film that he worked on, and presumably knows quite a bit about. Of course, in the past, he did try to do something when the Iranians where still involved and making demands for money... but it's obviously not something he's going to be out there fighting for.

ToddBaesen based this comment on an evasive response by Frank Marshall to his question at the premiere of Indiana Jones. The Indiana Jones films premiered in the 1980's. Depending on which Indiana Jones film Todd baesen refers to, Ten to twenty years later, Frank Marshall was working to get the claimants to reach a settlement so that the film could be released.
No good deed goes unpunished

[Jeff Wilson]

It may be true that a Welles film would have lost money in the short term. But Lucas and Coppola used their clout to get Kurosawa's Kagemusha financed, and that was not exactly a blockbuster proposition then or now. Had someone with the appropriate clout actually wanted to finance a Welles project for relative peanuts, they could have. They didn't. Whether that is down to some problem in dealing with Welles or their own hypocrisy or both, we will likely never know.

[ToddBaesen]

Tony:

Since I generally agree with what you have to say, I want to make it very clear I'm merely disagreeing with you on this one particular issue.

Having said that, I must say I'm rather surprised you could take the POV of a studio head in the 70's (or 80's) and say that you would have turned Orson down flat. That is very disheartning news to me, because you are obviously someone who likes Orson Welles, but what you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that because Welles was not bankable, as a studio head you would have automatically turned down anything OW proposed to you, even if it was the greatest script you had ever read!

Now, have you read the script Orson wrote for OSOTW?

Frankly, this is one reason why I'm still mystified as to why no one seems to have wanted to invest the rather low budget of $4 million to complete what I consider to be one of the greatest films that has never been seen!

I think OSOTW is certainly one of the most brilliant OW scripts that he has ever written, and had it only come out in 1975, (when I'm sure it would have been totally misunderstood - but that's usually the case with Welles... by now it would have been seen as a masterpiece).

Anyway, to me, it's quite criminal that the script didn't get any financing from a Hollywood studio at the time, even after Welles went begging for completion money at his 1975 AFI award tribute (and at the time the amount needed was well under $1 million).

Of course, I can understand the kind of the "Crazy Welles" talk that would give studio executives pause at the time, such as Paramount's Peter Bart, who with Coppola and W. Friedkien vetoed Peter Bogdanovich's idea for funding a Welles film in the early 70's at the Director's Company.

But from somebody who knows Welles work, as you do, can you really and truly say you'd veto any Welles project because of his previous track record, if you could actually green-light a Welles film?

Please, say it ain't so!

And strangely enough, Paramount actually did offer Welles several other projects later on, after they rejected his own scripts. One of these was POPEYE, which Welles thumbed his nose at, since he didn't have any interest in the subject or the script (this info comes from Gary Graver).

But anyway, my main point here is that I strongly disagree with you about studio heads only thinking in terms of $$$. And about funding of a Welles film, which they knew in advance might not make much money. I recall a story about John Calley in the 70's when he was the head of WB. He offered Welles carte blanche on several studio projects and Welles apparently turned him down, because of the lack of "artistic freedom" he would be granted.

And as Welles said, in the old days of Hollywood there always seemed to be room for at least one OW movie. And since then, while it's been quite apparent that Hollywood has always been about making money, the moguls, both then and now still realize that making movies is like a crap shoot to a great degree. But this seemed to be especially true in the 70's, when the studios heads had absloutely no idea what might make them any money, so they gave artistic freedom to any young directors who they though might be "with it." Like Dennis Hopper, like Henry Jaglom, like George Lucas, like Michael Sarne, like Steven Spielberg, like Paul Mazursky, like Orson Welles... opps, scratch that last old director... he's not really a with it director...
So it's just too bad that Orson wasn't a young director when he started shooting his own "with it movie" in 1970. Then we might all be enjoying his final masterpiece, a film that those other "with it" directors who are now bankable don't seem to think is worth the measily $4 million it would take to complete:

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND

[Roger Ryan]

One could say that studio officials would not have been interested in financing a film that satirized themselves, but then almost every film about filmmakers is a satire on Hollywood business dealings. As far as the idea of TOSOTW being possibly misunderstood at the time only to be applauded later reminds me of Richard Rush's "The Stunt Man". My understanding is that this particular film was held back from release for a couple of years due to studio disinterest, but after it came out in 1980 went on to win several awards (three Oscar nominations as well). The relationship between Peter O'Toole's character of the director and Steve Railsback's stunt man strikes me as similar to what Welles was aiming for with Jake Hannaford and John Dale.

[Tony]

Todd:
If it's food on my table or Orson Welles's latest movie, it's going to be the former. And yes: I was being a bit 'hard-nosed' when I wrote that, to make a point: everyone in Hollywood knew that Welles had been a genius and made the greatest film ever in 1940, but by 1975, things had changed. As Welles hinself said, he did much better under the old Hollywood studio system that he ever would under the independents: when a studio released 50 pictures a year, there was room for an Orson Welles picture (though none of the majors ever paid for one). But with the independents, it was a different game: everything rides on the box-office, more then than now, since today canny DVD marketing can turn a box-office loser into a Blockbuster...blockbuster. Also, by 1975, several key things had happened: the hat trick of Higham, Kael and Housman had severely crippled Welles's reputation, ironically just at the time of his return. In 1970, Welles returned to America, largely because of the scandal in the Italian rags of his affair with Ojar Kodar; also in 1970, Higham published his infamous first book about Welles, in which he first propounded the dimestore psychological theory that Welles had a "Fear of Completion". With examples such as Ambersons, It's All True, Don Quixote and The Deep to back him up, Higham's idea held some weight, especially when Welles had trouble finishing, and then finally couldn't finish "The Other side of the Wind". Welles told Bogdanovich that he lost at least one financier for TOSOTW because of Higham, and Welles wrote a hearbreaking letter to an exec of Astrophore Films in 1977 stating clearly that his career had suffered a mortal blow after the non-release of TOSOTW. Welles knew what was going on in people's minds; as he said "That crazy Welles". Another irony is that Welles felt he had been carrying that weight of his reputation for many years, and in the late sixties, he felt it had finally started to wear itself out. But Charles Higham gave it a new life in 1970.Then, in 1971, Kael published her intro to the Citizen Kane book, wherein she attacked the strongest achievement of Welles's career: Citizen Kane. Being a writer, Kael thought writers had unfairly been ignored in Hollywood, had not been given their fair due. She set out to correct this, and she started out with Kane: Welles didn't really write it, Mankowitz did. Welles had never been attacked this way, but there was more: John Houseman pulished his book featuring Welles in 1972, and he described how Welles was a weak writer, and not only that: Welles was a crazy man to work with. After all, their relationship ended when Welles threw a flaming can of burning fuel at Housman in a restaurant.

Well, let's sum up: Higham, Kael and Houseman: Welles had a fear of finishing projects, so if you invested in him, he might abandon it. He wasn't as talented as people thought, and his biggest success was authored by someone else. And he was a crazy man, with a crazy temper; as Higham described, in Brazil Welles had gotten drunk and thrown all the furnture out his hotel window. and he threw that flaming can right at nice Jack Houseman.

So it's 1975, and I'm an executive, and I've worked for years to get there. Am I going to phone up Orson Welles and offer him 5 million dollars to do a film- a film which has a low probability of making money, since Welles only had one mildy profitable film ever, and that was back in 1946? Do I want to repeat what happened to George Schaeffer in 1942, and lose my career in order to support Welles?

I think not. No, I'm going to go to the AFI dinner tonight and toast the man , but I'm not going to risk my reputation and livlihood so that he can make another flop. This is called "survival" and apparently every studio and every major star in Hollywood took this position from 1970 to 1985, except for the few brave souls who helped out on TOSOTW.

I know you know all this, Todd: I'm just trying to make my point: Welles's career stopped for many reasons, but you can't just blame the people in the business: they were in the movie "business". As Chuck Heston said (in reference to Welles's rudeness to studio execs): "You have to be nice to those guys: they give you the money. If you don't get the money, you don't get to make a movie". And you also have to make money.

No, I think the villains in this piece are not the studio bosses or the big stars; the villains in this piece are capitalism, opportunistic writers, and of course, Welles himself. As Heston also noted: "Welles was the most charming man in the world, but he never treated the studio heads with any respect." I also remember reading about the night Welles fired the entire cast and crew of TOSOTW because he was angry about something; of course, he had to hire them all back the next day. And there's Robert Arden's story about how he first met Welles, when Welles bit his head off when Arden merely said "Hello"; seconds later, Welles apologized sincerely and eloquently. Check out how Welles spoke to his crew and actors on the set of Mr. Arkadin in the extras to the new DVD set: Welles was one scary guy when he was in a bad mood, and the most charming man in the world when he was right with the world.

A friend and I (both who are devout liberals) once did a thought experiment: who would we rather have for a neighbour: Ronald Reagan (whose policies and values we hated) or Orson Welles ( whose films and values we loved).

We both chose Reagan: There's no doubt he would always be pleasant and help you in a time of need. Neither of those could you rely on Welles for.

But Welles was the genius. :;):

[ToddBaesen]

Interesting to note that Paul Mazursky recalled his hair was "down to here" because in 1971, that was the kind of director Welles wanted to include in his movie, the young directors who were then "making the scene" in Hollywood.

From WELLES script:

To celebrate J. J. Hannaford's birthday ZARAH VALESKA has invited the widest possible range of cineastes and cinema buffs. She has managed to include such men as CHABROL, GODARD, ROHMER, TRUFFAUT and BERTOLUCCI, as well as some of the brighter young Spaniards and Englishmen. And of course, there are premier figures from the younger Americans:
JACK NICHOLSON, DENNIS HOPPER, CASAVETTES, PAUL MAZURSKY,
HENRY JAGLOM-the whole spectrum, from video-freaks to ANDY WARHOL.

But by no means are all of these guests already here in the projection room. Many are scattered about the ranch, arguing together, or just quietly getting stoned...