Thanks Aysie, and welcome. I like that interview and hope it stays up awhile; it's better quality then the copy in my collection. Welles seems in a happy mood, considering the slightly aggressive line of questioning. I like this exchange:
Interviewer: As you look at your work, are you ever worried about being preoccupied with technique and the superficiality of things?
OW: Do you think technique is superficial?
Interviewer: Technique I quess is not superficial, but it's only one part of the artistic process, and I'm just asking whether you feel that you've been able to go deeply into things...Cicero said something about the principles of rhetoric having to take into account not only what your talking about and who you are, but also who you're talking to, and there's a quality of rhetoric about filmmaking, is there not?
OW: You have a good point, but it's another opinion. You see, Whenever I do anything in the theatre, I do it directly for the audience; that particular audience at that moment. But a movie is made for an audience which is quite seriously unthinkably large and diverse, and therefore it's a simple expression of the artist who makes it, without reference to his public.
Interviewer: There's no impulse to propoganda at all?
OW: No, but I'm a moralist.
Interviewer: How can you be a moralist without being interested in moving society? Surely a moralist is essentially a preacher trying to change things.
OW: That's right, but it's trying to change things in a larger context then any audience or congregation or gathering that one person can conceive of.