Welles Oscar for sale - Christies to auction July 25th

[Oscar Christie]

With the immeasurable help and guidance of my advisor,
Thomas A. White, and my attorney, Steven Ames Brown, I have
been able to protect much of his work.

Reads like an insincere Academy Award acceptance as much as an apologia for pawning the "family heirloom"

[Jeff Wilson]

[mteal]

Well said, Jeff. Beatrice had me feeling sorry for her when I read some of the details of Welles' will, but now I don't know what to make of her. If she really has a passion for both Orson Welles' legacy and animals as she says, maybe she should transfer what she owns of her father's screenplays and drawings to the Lilly Library and then join the NSPCA.

[ToddBaesen]

-

Here's Beatrice Welles commentary in the LA Times of March 17, 2004, followed by some remarks of mine, where I challenge the veracity of her comments.


COMMENTARY on ORSON WELLES "CITIZEN KANE" OSCAR

By Beatrice Welles

Beatrice: For the last 19 years, I have dedicated most of my life to protecting and preserving the work of my father, Orson Welles.

TB: What exactly does Miss Welles have to show for all this dedication during the last 19 years? I'd like to find out what else she has done to help her father's work and leagacy, other than allowing a mutilated version of "Othello" to be shown, while preventing Welles's own preferred version of "Othello" from being seen in America.

Beatrice: His work was the single most important thing in his life, and I loved him more than words could ever say. My other work is supporting and protecting animals. I spent my gypsy childhood traveling with my father around the world, rescuing animals along the way; he loved it and so did I. My father's film "Citizen Kane" is considered by many people around the world to be the best film ever made. In 1942, it should have swept the Oscars. Instead, when either my father or "Citizen Kane" were mentioned as nominees, hisses and boos came from the Academy members at the Shrine Auditorium - many of them people who feared William Randolph Hearst.

TB: Miss Welles account of the 1941 Academy Awards is obviously based on hearsay and can hardly be termed accurate. Since Academy members voted "Citizen Kane" 9 Academy Award nominations, including 4 nominations for Mr. Welles, there is little doubt that the Academy membership was acknowledging the film's greatness, even if the film eventually only won one award. Why it didn't win more awards is sheer conjecture - on anybody's part, since a voting organization made up of over several hundred members obviously could not agree unanimously on any of the final choices. So while "Kane" may have lost the best picture award (as well as the 7 other categories it which it was nominated), in each case it might have been by as few as two or three votes!

Beatrice: My father refused to attend the ceremony; he knew what would happen, and it hurt him deeply. He won only the best screenplay award that evening, and the Academy members knew it was given only so that "Mank" (Herman J. Mankiewicz, who co-wrote the film) would take home an Oscar. Imagine - this was the only Academy Award given for the best picture of all time.

TB: This statement betrays how little Miss Welles knows about her own fathers career. Welles could not be at the ceremony, simply because he was in Brazil, working on "It's All True." In reality, since Welles was nominated in four separate categories, he would, in all likelihood, have been most pleased to attend, if for no other reason than to help promote "Citizen Kane", which had done poorly at the box office, having been banned and viciously attacked by the Hearst newspapers.

Beatrice: My father was given his statuette, and he promptly lost it for many decades.

TB: Miss Welles once again displays just how little she knows about her own father's career. Welles gave his Oscar to the Museum of Modern Art's film director, Willard Van Dyke, who kept the statuette at MOMA in New York, until Welles needed it as a prop in his unfinished film, "The Other Side of The Wind." After shooting a scene featuring the Oscar in "The Other Side of The Wind," Welles handed it to his cinematographer, Gary Graver and said, "here, keep this." Gary Graver held on to the statuette for Welles, and when Welles died in 1985, Graver still had it in his possession. In 1994, when Graver attempted to sell it, he was sued by Beatrice Welles, who won custody of the statuette from Mr. Graver in a court decision.

Beatrice: In 1994, I was informed that the Oscar had resurfaced and was about to be sold privately through Sotheby's. I was astounded that the Oscar had shown up; I believed it stolen and lost for good. I put all my resources together and sued to stop the sale of the statuette. I regained it, and I wanted to put it in a permanent exhibit at an Orson Welles institute, along with his other awards, screenplays, poems and drawings that I have been fortunate enough to accumulate through the years. The institute was my dream, but it never came to pass. I never had the money or the time it takes to organize and run such an establishment. I now realize that it wouldn't have been a good tribute; my father detested institutions of any kind, which is one of the reasons he never sent me to school and instead hired teachers to tutor me in the various countries in which we lived. My father should be remembered for what he left: his extraordinary work, which changed the way movies were made.

With the immeasurable help and guidance of my advisor, Thomas A. White, and my attorney, Steven Ames Brown, I have been able to protect much of his work. I gave up my career and business for both my father and the animals, which I would do again if given the choice.

TB: It's nice to know that Miss Welles has spent so much time to "protect" her father's work. Here is a short list of all the Orson Welles projects she has helped to "protect." (or if you prefer, to keep the public form seeing):

August 25, 1994:
Sues magician David Copperfield for alleged copyright infringement over the illusionist's use of a snippet from a unreleased 1945 Welles film in his magic act. The 10-minute film shows Welles, who began his career as a magician, dazzling a large audience with slight-of-hand tricks. Beatrice Welles' suit also names CBS, which aired the footage as part of a recent David Copperfield TV special. Her attorney maintains Copperfield never obtained permission from the director's estate to use the footage.

May 21, 1998
Threatens lawsuit against Universal for a re-edited version of "Touch of Evil" from screening at the Cannes Film Festival. The re-edited film, was the result of Universal Pictures spending months reworking it from some 58 pages of notes left by the late director. "Touch of Evil" is subsequently pulled out of Cannes.

January 22, 1999
Beatrice Welles sues Universal Pictures for $1 million, charging that a new version of "Touch of Evil" does not reflect "Orson Welles original vision and editing," as the studio suggests. After Welles was terminated on the film in 1957, Welles' suit claims, he wrote letters "taking exception to changes Universal made to the picture." Universal made use of the letters, Beatrice Welles claims, in re-editing the film, and now states that it is "fully restored to Orson Welles' original vision." This is misleading because "the letters were not intended to constitute his artistic concept." "In fact," says the suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, "Universal retained people to work on the film (such as Academy Award winning editor Walter Murch), who are untrustworthy and otherwise unqualified to edit a motion picture under any Welles memoranda."

April, 1999
Beatrice Welles sues MGM for using footage of Orson Welles acting in "Touch of Evil" in "Get Shorty" without permission from the Welles estate.

October, 1999
Beatrice Welles sues RKO to block them from producing a proposed mini-series of "The Magnificent Ambersons"

August 19, 2002
Beatrice Welles sues Oja Kodar and Showtime from showing "The Other Side of the Wind," the project Welles was working on from 1970 until 1976. Showtime, was planning a cinema and television release for the film, agreeing to meet the cost of editing the film in line with the director's wishes - until the injunction threatened by Miss Welles.

February 4, 2002:
Sues two Hollywood studios, saying they should either pay her royalties on her father's masterpiece "Citizen Kane" or hand over the rights to the movie. Beatrice Welles says in the lawsuit filed in federal court that a 1944 agreement discovered by an archivist appears to terminate a 1939 profit-sharing deal the filmmaker signed with RKO Pictures.


Beatrice: Three years ago, I found myself in a very bad financial situation and was forced to think about selling the "Kane" Oscar. I had used most of my personal funds for my animal welfare work, the primary function of which is education in humane animal control in addition to funding individuals and small organizations, many from Third World countries, that have no resources in the work they do for abused and abandoned animals.

Selling a family heirloom seemed far better than losing everything pertaining to my father's work and seemed necessary to ensure that creditors were paid, although it was the very last thing I ever wanted to do.

TB: On what basis, one wonders, would Miss Welles be in danger of losing everything pertaining to her father's work. Even if she was nearing bankruptcy, how would this have endangered her collection of Orson Welles awards, screenplays, poems and drawings? - most of which Beatrice has yet to share in any meaningful way with the public and/or Welles scholars.

Beatrice: Even though my father loathed everything that this Oscar represented, deciding to sell it was still one of the most difficult decisions of my life. A few weeks before the auction was scheduled at Christie's, the Academy's lawyers tried to stop the sale. I now understand the Academy's dislike of Oscars being sold, but even it admits that a sale does the Academy no harm. Simply, I had no alternative left when I made the decision. To lose what I had fought for my father would have been appalling; to sell the one thing that had no value to him, but was of great value to others, perhaps was not so bad after all. The Academy's own appraisal in 2002 said the statuette's value was in the proximity of $1 million. Despite knowing my predicament and despite knowing it had no right and no basis to stop the Oscar from being sold, the Academy obstructed me and forced me to sue to get a judicial decree stating the Oscar was my property.

TB: This is a totally untrue statement. In fact, the Academy knew just the opposite. Namely, that it had every legal right and basis to stop the sale, which it has successfully done in every previous case where a post-1951 Oscar has attempted to be sold, because the Academy retains the right of first sale on all post-1951 Oscars. Since Miss Welles signed a similar first-sale agreement for a replacement "Kane" Oscar, the only reason Miss Welles won her case in court hinged on the fact that she was not a member of the Academy, and the legal wording of the statement she signed.

Beatrice: I won that lawsuit at a great emotional price. I believe Academy President (actually, executive director) Bruce Davis to be a good and responsible man who was very ill advised by his lawyers, who had their own agenda. For a nonprofit organization to spend copious amounts, as it has in this case, is irresponsible and unnecessary to the point of stupidity. Worst of all, its behavior was harmful and morally unacceptable. I was abused and publicly humiliated by the Academy's legal firm in ways that no Academy member would ever tolerate. Now the Academy is threatening to appeal unless it is allowed to dictate what I can do with my father's 1971 Lifetime Achievement Award, his second (honorary) Oscar.

TB: The Academy has a long standing policy to stop sales of Oscars. How the Academy humiliated Miss Welles appears to be by the simple fact that it pointed out to her she was behaving in a morally unacceptable way. Furthermore, the Academy is not threatening to appeal, but definitely will appeal the courts ruling; And it has no need to dictate what can be done with Welles' 1971 Honorary Oscar, since that statuette clearly cannot be sold, as it falls under the terms of the first-sale agreement signed by all winners after 1951.

Beatrice: My father would have thought this normal behavior from Academy officials. Let me leave you in no doubt how he felt about them: He hated them. His love was for "films and their makers." His distrust for people who run media institutions is now even more understandable to me simply because of how I have been treated. I will continue my work for my father and my work for the animals; my passion for both has not ceased and never will.

TB: Since Orson Welles left his daughter only a small bequest of $10,000. in his will, it's doubtful whether he would ever have wanted her to control any portion of his estate, which Beatrice gained control of only through the accidental death of her mother, Palo Mori. On the other hand, it's quite clearly spelled out in Welles' will that he wanted Oja Kodar to be the sole person to control all his unfinished film projects… many of which Miss Welles has successfully blocked from being completed and/or shown, despite the intentions of Orson Welles last will and testament. So it seems that Mr. Welles, if he were alive today, besides "hating" the Academy, might also hate what his daughter is doing to his legacy.

-

[Christopher]

Thank you, Todd, for your excellent post and for setting the record straight.

The latest wrinkle in the blanket: While the Academy is appealing Judge Pregerson's ruling, Beatrice cannot put the Oscar up for sale; so, even though she won her case, her hands are tied until the appeal is heard in court, and of course, if the Academy wins, then she ain't gonna make a dime out of Daddy's Oscar.

[Cole]

I finally was able to get my hands on the trial court’s order regarding the Citizen Kane Oscar that Beatrice tried to sell last summer. As you recall, this past March a federal court in California awarded the original Oscar to Beatrice free and clear of any rights to the statuette by the Academy of Motion Pictures. The Academy had argued that it had a right to buy the original statuette for $1.00 if Beatrice ever tried to sell it. The Academy claimed it received that right when Beatrice signed a contract in 1988 which gave her a replacement statuette for the one she believed to have lost. As you will see, the 1988 agreement unequivocally gave the Academy a right to purchase the replacement statuette for $1.00 if Beatrice ever tried to sell it. The only dispute between the parties was whether the agreement also applied to the original statuette which Beatrice later recovered and tried to sell last summer. Here is the pertinent language from the main body of the agreement signed by Beatrice:

"I hereby acknowledge receipt from you of replica No. 2527....In consideration of your delivering said replica to me, I agree with your rules and regulations respecting its use and not to sell or otherwise dispose of it, nor permit it to be sold or disposed of by operation of law, without first offering to sell it to you for the sum of $1.00."

This is the language in the agreement which gave the Academy a $1.00 right of first refusal in the replica which Beatrice received in exchange for signing the agreement. There was additional language in the paragraph not relevant, and then there was a signature line signed by Beatrice. Below the signature line, and not part of the main body of the agreement, was the following additional language:

"Any member of the Academy who has heretofore received any Academy trophy shall be bound by the foregoing receipt and agreement with the same force and effect as though he or she had executed and delivered the same in consideration of receiving such trophy."

It is this language in the agreement, drafted exclusively by the Academy, which the Academy argued made the $1.00 first refusal language related to the replica also applicable to the original statuette. The trial court disagreed, and found this language had no application to Beatrice. There were several legal issues discussed by the trial court, but it all boiled down to two things regarding the final contract provision: Beatrice was not a “member of the Academy” and she never personally “received” any trophy from the Academy. The Academy even admitted that technically interpreted the provision had no application to Beatrice but it unsuccessfully argued for a reformation of the agreement due to its mistake in drafting the agreement. Getting a contract reformed due to a party’s mistake is seldom granted by courts, and in this case the court held that the Academy failed to meet its difficult burden in getting that remedy. Therefore, the court awarded the original Oscar to Beatrice free of the $1.00 right of first refusal.

I’m sure many of you will have your own opinion about this, but I would have to concur with the trial court, and thus Beatrice on this one. Read that boilerplate language again at the bottom of the contract: “Any member of the Academy who has heretofore….” How vague can you get? Reads like mumbo jumbo to me. Why not language like, “By signing this agreement I agree that its terms, including but not limited to the $1.00 right of first refusal, shall also apply to the original Oscar statuette should it ever be recovered.” Or some such language. To my way of thinking, if a party to a contract is going to give up a valuable property right by signing the contract, the language to that effect should be expressed very clearly. Here the Academy really botched it if that’s what they intended with boilerplate at the bottom of the contract. This case is still up on appeal the last time I checked, and if the court order is reversed I doubt it will be because the appellate court agrees with the Academy’s interpretation of the contract, but only because the trial court may have prematurely ruled in Beatrice’s favor. Beatrice won on a motion for summary judgment before any trial was held on the matter. The appellate court may order a full trial regarding the contract’s interpretation.

[Wilson]

Thanks for that info, Cole. When I had read the original stories, it sounded like the Academy was screwed, based on the wording. Disappointing, because I frankly would rather she were broke and needing to allow more Welles project to go through. Maybe this will affect that, maybe not.

[R Kadin]

Put perhaps another way, I take it the court's position was that, if the Academy had interests it wanted to protect, it had a duty to protect them effectively in any attendant agreement. Being a large, experienced and reasonably well-funded entity, the Academy didn't lack for access to legal advice and guidance, nor was it coerced into signing; therefore, it has no one but itself to blame for executing an agreement (ironically enough, its own) containing wording that was, in this unusual instance, arguably imprecise.

I can see how, on a simplistic level, the above might be as far as any argument needed to go. However, I hope the appelate court decides that so literal an approach in this case does a disservice to all involved.

For example, it would not be unreasonable to assert that, except when acting as surrogate for an award recipient, a third party would have no standing with the Academy vis-a-vis any award. Thus, when evaluating the agreement in question, one must look straight through Beatrice to her father - because, absent her surrogate's role, Beatrice herself was a non-entity from the Academy's standpoint and no agreement of any sort would have been so much as contemplated, let alone consummated.

So, for the purpose at hand, Beatrice took on her father's identity and the entitlements thereto. She became, thereby, a de facto member of the Academy and a de facto recipient of the award - thus imposing upon her (in her surrogate's role) the same limitations that would have applied had it been her father signing that same document. By both signing the contact and accepting its benefit (i.e., the replacement statue), Beatrice's consent to the above could hardly have been more clearly or effectively proclaimed.

By this line of reasoning, then, it would be fair to say that, in launching its action, the Academy was not pursuing Beatrice Welles in her own right; instead, it was going after her in her role as her father's surrogate, which, to me at least, seems quite consistent and legitimate. Therefore, while it might be permissible for Beatrice the "non-entity" to argue she was not a party to the agreement, Beatrice-the-surrogate should not be similarly excused.

Once you get over that hurdle, the debate over the agreement can then begin in open court. And Beatrice-the-surrogate can be called upon to explain how it was that she bestowed posession of the replacement statue upon Beatrice the non-entity, knowing inescapably the latter's unreliable intentions with respect to it.

Further, still, Beatrice-the-surrogate might have an interesting story to tell about that moment in time when she realized that the "other" Beatrice's plans for the recovered original flew in the face of what she, as surrogate, had agreed to with the Academy in exchange for a benefit both Beatrices had most certainly enjoyed. She can then try and explain to the court how such funny business is evidence of good faith dealings on her part and, thus, why the court should decide to see things her self-enriching way, as opposed to that of some silly Academy filled with flighty notions about dignity, image and the integrity of its awards.

Yep, it might be interesting, indeed.

[Cole]

Mr RKadin writes:

I take it the court's position was that, if the Academy had interests it wanted to protect, it had a duty to protect them effectively in any attendant agreement.

Not exactly. The Academy was trying to gain something it didn’t have. It has no right of first refusal in Oscars it handed out before 1950 so if you own one, you can go out and sell it to the highest bidder. By giving the replacement Oscar to Beatrice it’s possible the Academy was trying to gain a right of first refusal in the original Oscar if it was ever found. If that was the case, the Academy obviously should have made that more clear in the agreement that Beatrice signed.


Mr RKadin continued:

For example, it would not be unreasonable to assert that, except when acting as surrogate for an award recipient, a third party would have no standing with the Academy vis-a-vis any award. Thus, when evaluating the agreement in question, one must look straight through Beatrice to her father - because, absent her surrogate's role, Beatrice herself was a non-entity from the Academy's standpoint and no agreement of any sort would have been so much as contemplated, let alone consummated.

So, for the purpose at hand, Beatrice took on her father's identity and the entitlements thereto. She became, thereby, a de facto member of the Academy and a de facto recipient of the award - thus imposing upon her (in her surrogate's role) the same limitations that would have applied had it been her father signing that same document. By both signing the contact and accepting its benefit (i.e., the replacement statue), Beatrice's consent to the above could hardly have been more clearly or effectively proclaimed.

By this line of reasoning, then, it would be fair to say that, in launching its action, the Academy was not pursuing Beatrice Welles in her own right; instead, it was going after her in her role as her father's surrogate, which, to me at least, seems quite consistent and legitimate. Therefore, while it might be permissible for Beatrice the "non-entity" to argue she was not a party to the agreement, Beatrice-the-surrogate should not be similarly excused.

I think I know what you mean. (I think.) When courts interpret contracts they apply the ordinary and customary meanings of the words. They don’t go through mental somersaults to read something different into them. As I indicated above, the Academy even admitted that the final provision at the bottom of the contract had no literal application to Beatrice. They were trying to get the contract reformed due to their mistake. And absent extraordinary circumstances you cannot get a contract reformed due to a unilateral mistake. The Academy failed to show those extraordinary circumstances and lost.

Incidentally, I was able to find out the subject matter of the lawsuit filed by Beatrice against Sogecable last fall. Nothing too interesting. Just a breach of contract action regarding a television documentary entitled Orson Welles en el pais de Don Quijote. According to the complaint filed by Beatrice, she agreed to allow certain material she owned from the Welles estate to be included in the documentary for $80,000 and Sogecable never paid. Last I checked the parties were close to settling the case.

[R Kadin]

It seems out of character for Beatrice not to have demanded substantial funds up front in the Sogecable case. Lawsuits are rather an expensive collection device, even when successfully used as a means to an out-of-court settlement. You can save more than a few animals with their 5-figure price tags. Makes one wonder all the more about the real interests being served by her advisors...

[Oscar Christie]

Just wondering what finally happened in the Case of the Kane Oscar.

[Cole]

The parties settled and the appeal filed by the Academy was dismissed. I don't know the terms of the settlement, but presumably the Academy agreed to pay Beatrice a tad more than a buck for the Oscar, and Beatrice agreed to take a tad less than what she expected to get on the open market.

[ToddBaesen]

Newsweek is reporting that Beatrice Welles has sold her father's screenwriting Oscar for CITIZEN KANE to someone who in turn has given it to Sotheby's to auction off this December, starting at a low estimate of $800,000. Sounds like Beatrice may still be sharing in the proceeds, but has just gone through a third party to avoid the bad publicity she got last time she attempted to sell the Oscar.

But just think, if Welles was still alive, he could legally sell the Oscar himself and use the money to finish making THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, which ironically features the same Oscar as a prop being handled by John Huston, playing Jake Hannaford.

When the Oscar is sold, maybe Steven Spielberg will buy it up to add to his collection of Welles material on CITIZEN KANE. Or perhaps return it to the Academy, which he has done with other Oscars in the past.

But since the Academy members showed no respect to Welles work during his lifetime, perhaps it could be donated to one of the Welles library collections, such as Lilly, where it could be placed on view.
________

The Oscar Goes to… the Top Bidder

By Ramin Setoodeh

NEWSWEEK - Oct 13, 2007

Wanna buy an Oscar? Because of a rule established in 1950 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which allows the organization to buy back unwanted statues for $1 before the public gets a shot, the opportunity to purchase an actual Oscar is extremely rare. But in December, Sotheby's will be auctioning one off, and it's a doozy: the only Academy Award won by Orson Welles, which he earned for the screenplay to "Citizen Kane." And given its mysterious history, you might call this one the Rosebud of Oscars.

Welles won the award in 1942, making it exempt from the Academy's rule. But in 1988, his daughter Beatrice informed the Academy that the original statue had been lost prior to Welles's death three years earlier. She asked for, and received, a replacement, under the condition that she could never sell it. But then in 1994, the original suddenly appeared on the auction market. The seller was a cinematographer friend of the late filmmaker, who claimed that Welles gave it to him as a gift. Beatrice took the man to court, won back the original Oscar, then tried to sell it herself—and was taken to court by the Academy, where she won again. She sold the original to a private purchaser in 2003, and now the current owner is selling it for charity. Estimated value: $800,000 to $1.2 million. How does the statue look after changing hands so often? "It's worn around the shoulders and back, like someone held it a lot to thank the Academy," says Leila Dunbar, director of collectibles at Sotheby's. Now, for the right price, you can do the thanking.

[Glenn Anders]

"The DAX Foundation," which acquired the Oscar from the Welles' Estate (in 2003, apparently), intends to use proceeds of the sale to relieve poverty, animal suffering, and to help provide human organs to those who need them. These goals would be compatible with interests we know that Beatrice Welles has expressed.

Here is the press release posted on the DAX Website:


SOTHEBY'S TO SELL AN ICON OF AMERICAN FILM

ORSON WELLES' ACADEMY AWARD FOR CITIZEN KANE

THE ONLY OSCAR® WON BY THE FAMED
WRITER, DIRECTOR, ACTOR AND PRODUCER

ESTIMATED TO SELL FOR MORE THAN $1 MILLION ON DECEMBER 11, 2007

NEW YORK and LOS ANGELES - October 16, 2007 –- On December 11, 2007, Sotheby’s New York will offer for sale an icon of American film and one of the most important pieces of movie memorabilia ever to come to auction -- Orson Welles’ own 1941 Academy Award for Best Screenplay for the renowned masterpiece, Citizen Kane. Widely considered the greatest film of all time, Welles’ cinematic masterpiece was voted the number one film in history by the American Film Institute in 2007 and by the British Film Institute in 2002.

The Oscar®, once believed to be lost by Welles himself, resurfaced in 1994 and, after a lengthy legal battle, was returned to the Orson Welles Estate. The award was acquired from the Welles Estate in 2003 on behalf of the Dax Foundation, a Los Angeles-based, non-profit, charitable foundation which is selling the Oscar® and using all of the proceeds to help fund the organization’s charitable initiatives and worldwide humanitarian efforts. The Academy Award, which is estimated to sell for $800,000/1.2 million, will be on public exhibition at Sotheby’s from December 7-10 prior to its sale on December 11, 2007*.

“Citizen Kane is Welles at genius level,” said Leila Dunbar, Director of Sotheby’s Collectibles Department. “Welles was fearless in writing and presenting the story of a powerful mogul such as William Randolph Hearst despite the consequences, and the movie broke new ground in its innovative photography, editing and sound. Citizen Kane is probably the world’s most famous film and for the past six decades has and continues to influence generations of filmmakers.”

Remarkably, Citizen Kane stands as Orson Welles’ first feature film after his move to Hollywood at just 25 years of age. The film records the story of publishing magnate Charles Foster Kane whose early career was guided by a loyalty to the greater social good, a path which would later deteriorate to a narcissistic quest for individual supremacy. Widely understood as being based on the life of American publishing baron, William Randolph Hearst, the film was the subject of a smear campaign, ignored by all media outlets under the Hearst umbrella and the movie ultimately underperformed at the box office, although it received universal critical raves for its remarkable writing and production. Nominated for three Oscars at the 1942 Academy Awards for writer (with Herman J. Mankiewicz), director and actor in a leading role, Welles received only one golden statuette that evening, and it remained the only Academy Award he won in his lifetime. Even more shocking, the film was not even nominated for Best Picture, as the far less controversial (and memorable) “How Green Was My Valley” took home the award.

Welles continued to write, direct, produce and perform film and radio productions throughout the rest of his life, but none would receive the attention, nor the acclaim of Citizen Kane. In 1971, Welles received an Honorary Award for his contribution to the history of motion pictures and in 1975 the American Film Institute gave him the Lifetime Achievement Award. Citizen Kane was voted the number one U.S. film by the American Film Institute in 2007 and the greatest film in history by Sight & Sounds Top Ten Poll 2002, conducted by the British Film Institute.

The Dax Foundation is selling Orson Welles’ 1941 Academy Award for Citizen Kane to “celebrate and honor Welles’ accomplishments in the face of great adversity and further raise awareness of the Foundation’s primary mission of helping all people follow their hearts, discover their passions and, like Welles, to pursue and realize their dreams in order to help make the world a better place.”

About The Dax Foundation
The Dax Foundation is a private, California-based 501(c)(3) non-profit, philanthropic organization that implements and supports innovative programs that help people around the world identify, pursue, and realize their dreams. The Foundation provides resources, support, and raises awareness for those individuals and groups whose vision includes making the world a better place for all people and animals. Sample projects currently supported by the Foundation include the Mayfair Foundation, a recreation and educational facility for severely disabled children, Over A Barrel, a rescue and treatment facility for abused and neglected animals, Organs ‘R’ Us, a program dedicated to raising awareness about the critical need for life-saving organ donation, Maui Cat, a humane program to reduce the pain and suffering of rampant feral cat populations, and other deserving programs around the world. For more information on the Dax Foundation, please visit www.daxfoundation.org.

About Sotheby’s
Sotheby’s is a global company that engages in art auction, private sales and art-related financing activities. The Company operates in 40 countries, with principal salesrooms located in New York and London. The Company also regularly conducts auctions in 11 other salesrooms around the world, including Australia, Hong Kong, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Singapore. Sotheby’s is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BID.

# # #
Press Contacts

Sotheby’s
Lauren Gioia
Mac Joseph
212 606 7176

The Dax Foundation
Randy Shapiro
310 499 1497

*Estimates do not include buyer’s premium

--------------------

Glenn

[Christopher]

Glenn,

Do you think "The DAX Foundation" is legit or just a front for Beatrice to sell the Oscar?

In the fact sheet prepared for the media, which I found on the DAX foundation's web site, it states that the foundation was established in 2007. Yet, supposedly, it or the mysterious founder bought the Oscar from the Welles estate in 2003. This sounds a little fishy to me. Also, the only name of anyone associated with the foundation is David Weisman who is listed as the Executive Director. But who is Mr. Dax?