Despite the System reviewed in Sunday Times - Orson Welles Versus Hollywood Studios

[Harvey Chartrand]

Christopher Bray's review for The Sunday Times may be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1446031,00.html
Bray endorses Wellesnet too.

[Wilson]

I read that last week, and he is correct in that Heylin doesn't want to see Welles as responsible for much of anything that went wrong, at least in what I've made it through thus far, which up through It's All True. I meant to read the damn thing sooner so I could have a review up, but I've had more important things to attend to. Hopefully this week. Just for anyone wondering, the book isn't a bio, but a look at Welles' Hollywood films and how Welles battled the system (and lost, generally).

[mteal]

Yes, Clinton Heylin's book seems like a slightly whitewashed account at times, but it's a very well-written and welcome antidote to the cruel negativity found in the books of Higham and Thomson and even, to a slight extent, in Bray's review. DESPITE THE SYSTEM is a fast and fun read, and Heylin's basic theme is correct: that Welles' adamant unwillingness to compromise his artistic vision was the main root cause of most of his troubles in Hollywood, a factory where compromise for the sake of box office is the name of the game. I've read about 2/3rds of the book so far and I think there is some very good stuff in it, including an analysis of the race issues in the HEART OF DARKNESS screenplay, and an excellent overview of the original conception for THE STRANGER, which shows clearly that the story, in Heylin's words, "lost almost as much from the front as Ambersons lost from the rear".

Of course, the main focus of the book is on Welles' Hollywood films, but fine overviews are given of all of Welles' non-Hollywood films as well, with one curious exception: F FOR FAKE is mentioned only once. There is a particularly fascinating insight on THE IMMORTAL STORY, when Heylin describes Mr. Clay as a hollowed out "shell of a man, waiting for death". I'd never thought of the shell as a metaphor for Mr. Clay himself, but it makes some sense.

So far, it's an entertaining, clearly reasoned, and well-researched book, and Heylin makes good use of many different sources, which are listed in the back. The book also takes some funny and well-deserved swipes at David Thomson's ROSEBUD. Wellesnet's own Jaime Marzol is listed at the top of the acknowledgements.

[Tony]

Sorry to say I find Heylin's book extremely poorly written, and therefore difficult to wade through: it's just not clear. Two or three re-writes would have benefited the text enormously. This is sad to admit, because I think Heylin's book on Dylan's recordings is fantastic, and began reading the Welles tome with great expectations.

On the other hand, the Walsh book (Walking Shadows) is written very professionally, and is a smooth and clear read, no matter what I think of his conclusions.

P.S.: Our very own Jaime Marzol is the person to whom the Heylin is dedicated, and thanked for "opening the door".
Congrats, Jaime, and sorry for my negative impression.

[jaime marzol]

yeah, that's me. i was surprised to see me at the top of the list.

tony, that's cool, clinton would be the first to tell you that his book on welles is not for everybody. he wrote what he felt about welles. i have only read the preface and the first chapter, and so far so good.

i was able to supply clinton with a huge chunk of research, thanks to this site. through fans like mteal, tony rowat, vidamonte, and jeff wilson i was able to aquire a sizable chunk of impossible to get welles stuff. and thanks to this site, clinton found me.

places like the lilly are very restrictive in what you can take with you, so a writer that can't write his entire book in bloomington is screwed. everytime you make a trade with a welles fan you increase the amount of realestate orson's work takes up on this earth. the more realestate his work takes up the more likely a guy like clinton can locate what he needs. so whenever possible, trade, trade, trade. after all, it's not like we are pirating stephen king books.

not long ago a film director named duncan something or other contacted me to get welles' the dreamers screenplay. after reading the original story he was curious what welles did to it, and it sounded like he was interested in maybe doing something with it. unfortunately my mailbox was wiped out and now i don't know how to contact duncan.

duncan, if you read this, email me again.

on clinton's book - whitewash, or whatever they are calling it, i'm happy with that. would have been awfull if all the cool time i spent with clinton and my archive and hospitality aided another higham/kael type book.

[Gordon]

The Lilly has to be restrictive because it houses priceless works that could be damaged or stolen from the Reading Room. But Jaime makes a different and very important point. What we want out of the Lilly's collections is not to handle the merchandise but to get at information.Their are many areas of research that would benefit from accessibility. Sure there are intellectual property right issues, but I suspect the inaccessibility has more to do with the nature of the Lilly as a repository of rare documents.

[jaime marzol]

BOOK REPORT:
ok, i have read the preface, the first chapter, skimmed a few chapters, and read the chapter on the stranger. i cheered as i read the swats clinton dealt the deserving, like higham, kael, and thomson.

before clinton's book there was no permanent answer to the pack of lies printed in the little brown kane book. clinton addressed that, and not in a periodical, he adressed it in a permanent volume that will sit on the shelf right next to the little brown kane book. this is excellent.

clinton has some bitching observations on the stranger.

and so far i have found no problem with the writing style, all is clear and easy to understand.

the only thing i would have done different is every now and then added a furious welles turning over a table of food, spitting on some one, and throwing flaming things at houseman.

[Tony]

Jaime: you can be proud you have been the inspiration for a whole new book on welles- welle done!

[jaime marzol]

in between my travels, and that has been extensive lately, i got through the kane chapter, the lady from shanghai chapter, and the touch of evil chapter, all were excellent. started the arkadin chapter. i like the new angles clinton has on the topics i've read by bunches of other writers.

also, i thought there was going to be a second volume from clinton covering from the trial on, but he said there is not going to be a second volume. so, to date, the best i've read on welles' later life is in the frank brady book. has any one read the second mcbride book on welles? is it out yet?

i find welles' later works much more advanced than his earlier years. the detractors of films like f-for-fake should study a bit before they pan something they know nothing about. it's much like heston seeing the first cut of touch of evil, not really knowing what he was seeing, but feeling comfortable enough to pan it.

[mteal]

I agree with you Jaime, that Clinton's book adds many new angles of appreciation to Welles' movies, especially THE STRANGER. It offers great insight into how important the clock tower was in the original conception of that film, and to how much it would have resonated within the story in the metaphoric sense. The clock-tower, with it's eye-like face, was clearly intended as a 'big-brother' type of idea, and this was three years before Orwell wrote 1984 (BTW, has anyone ever noticed that 'George Orwell', which was the pen name of British writer Eric Blair, sounds like a shortened version of 'George Orson Welles'? Or maybe I'm just cracking up).

Also, Clinton's book draws much-deserved attention to yet another holy grail of lost Welles cinema: the seven-reel (roughly 70 minutes) assemblage of IT'S ALL TRUE footage that Welles was still working on at the time THE STRANGER was made. Anthony Viellor, who wrote the first draft of the Stranger screenplay, called it the most exciting film he'd ever seen. It is absolutely inconceivable that noone (not even Welles!) saw fit to make at least a 16mm copy of it before it was reconfiscated by RKO studio and tossed into the Pacific.

[Wilson]

Another review of the Heylin book, by film writer Scott Eyman:

'System' thesis doesn't hold up
By SCOTT EYMAN
Cox News Service
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -
"Despite the System: Orson Welles Versus the Hollywood Studios," by Clinton Heylin. Chicago Review Press; 402 pages; $24.95.
Orson Welles is the one that got away, the American director with the greatest gifts who had the strangest career. Preceded by an effusive blurb from Peter Bogdanovich ("This is the book Orson Welles always hoped for") Clinton Heylin's "Despite the System" sets out to tell the story of the making and unmaking of Welles' six American movies from his point of view.
As the title indicates, Heylin is essentially an apologist for the great director, and his book is a well-documented defense brief.
But there are several problems with Heylin's thesis. For one thing, to imagine that Welles was somehow innocent of any personal responsibility for his own career difficulties is as absurd as saying that he wasn't the motivating genius behind his movies.
And at times, Heylin's thesis is contradicted his own evidence.
For instance, Welles wrapped up his filming of "Macbeth" on July 17, 1947. He then left for Europe and some acting jobs. In November, the studio shipped the raw footage, and an editor, to Welles in Rome. A rough cut emerged in March, but accompanying the film was a long letter with more changes that Welles wanted made. "Macbeth" didn't open until October 1948 - a year and a half after it was made.
This expensive, dilatory post-production schedule for what was obviously a commercially marginal movie - "Macbeth" may have been a hit at the Globe Theater, but nobody's made a dime on it since - was and still would be insupportable. Truffaut's memorable line about Welles' movies being "shot by an exhibitionist and cut by a censor" sums up the situation nicely.
Welles would take two to three days in the cutting room for every day of production, and he would say things to editors like "Your job as a film editor is not merely to get from one shot to another. There is a living part to this film and a dead part. Please eliminate the dead."
Also, in his salad days, Welles had a tendency to be cavalier about money. Later, Welles toned down this unfortunate trait - "The Stranger" and "Touch of Evil," among others, were shot on time and on budget.
But "The Magnificent Ambersons," almost certainly his masterpiece, went over schedule by 14 days and over budget by nearly 25 percent. When you factor in the reality that the basic story meant the movie was an art film or it was nothing, this lack of discipline was a very bad idea.
RKO sliced the film by a third because Welles was in Rio wrestling with a documentary, "It's All True," that was never completed.
Heylin slags editor Robert Wise for collaborating with the enemy on cutting "Ambersons," but really, what was he supposed to do? His boss was out of the country sending long, frantic telegrams, pressure was building at work, a great deal of money was at stake, and it wasn't as if Wise introduced a happy ending - faced with a movie that wasn't working well, he filmed the end of the novel.
Certainly, Welles' original ending would have been a stronger, more poetic metaphor for the final ruin of the Ambersons, but "Citizen Kane" had lost money, the studio's new regime wasn't happy about "Ambersons," and it was their money.
Far more damaging than Welles' production woes was the fact that he was drawn to stories of loss and dissolution, which run counter to the American grain of optimism. Even Heylin touches on this, when he says that "the man just seemed to draw out all the dark elements from whatever he turned his hand to."
This is why a movie like "Touch of Evil" was taken away by Universal. They didn't like the material, and they were uncomfortable about the lack of narrative clarity. That, and the fact that Welles never really had a commercial hit, gradually made it impossible to find financing.
Of all the things written about Welles over the years, I lean toward the view of Gore Vidal, who wrote that Welles "was a miracle of empathy, and he knew all the gradations of despair that the oyster experienced as it slid down his gullet. But the romantic genius aims not for perfection in his art but for poignant glamour in his ruin." Welles' Byronic half destroyed the observant, Midwestern half.
Heylin offers much interesting material, especially in script extracts that showcase Welles' graceful but energetic writing style, but he gets small things wrong. He dates Thomas Ince's death to 1927, for instance, when any reference book would tell him it was 1924 - the sort of easily avoided mistake that makes me very uneasy about a writer.
He also willfully misreads things, I think; he calls George Minafer in "The Magnificent Ambersons" "a cold-blooded monster," which is very far from the way either Booth Tarkington or Welles - whose script is very close to the novel - saw him, which is more or less as a spoiled brat, but redeemable and certainly far from evil.
It seems to me that even people who acknowledge Welles' greatness have to stop somewhere short of becoming apologists and acknowledge the fact that Welles' handling of his life, and his handling of his own and others' money, clearly shows that he was a rogue, and rogues can do great damage.
In Welles' case, the damage was mostly to himself, and to American movies.
Scott Eyman writes for The Palm Beach Post.

[jaime marzol]

before anyone says conflict of interest, i want to say that if i was feeding you a turd, no matter what i say, that turd will never taste like yorkshire pudding.

i had only read clinton's book in small pieces here and there because i didn't have time. last night i had reading time but instead of reading in another random spot i started it from the beginning. it read real well. but when i got to KANE it took off like a rocket. to me, on KANE, you can't find a more exciting read than david bordwell's essay in his book, FILM ART, that is the pinnacle, the most informative, and exciting read you can find. clinton's investigative work in piecing together the events, and his analysis of KANE is phenomenal. It is the next most exciting read I have found on KANE. writing about it right now i'm feeling the exhilaration i felt last night as I read it. Bogdanovich's blurb on the back cover is justified.

the review posted up top here seems insignificant, and nit-picky. has anyone researched what else that guy has written on welles, does he know what he is reading? the book is not for welles-beginners. it is definitely for advanced-welles users, which is what most of us here are. if this guy found a mistake in ince's murder date, he might be looking for things in the book that a welles fan is not looking for.

So far in 66 pages welles' personal limitations are mentioned twice, but not dwelled on. If I remember right, the frank brady bio mentions his limitations once and doesn't dwell on it either, and I never felt that was a white wash.

Can't wait to dig into ambersons.

there are 3 people from this site in the special thanks column, and the book doesn't make welles look like a shithead. you'd think that would make the people around here happy.

[Wilson]

I have no problem with the book (or what I've read of it, at least), I was simply posting a review. If someone publishes a rave review, I'll post that. You can forget the conspiracy theories.

[Wilson]

As it happens, here's another review, from Los Angeles City Beat, by Ron Garmon:

One puts down Clinton Heylin’s absorbing new study of legendary filmmaker Orson Welles’s protracted battles with Hollywood with the sour feeling of having read the biography of a phantom cartoon character. The story of how Welles destroyed his brilliant chances in movies through hubris and excess has been told often enough to enter the town’s vast stock of self-evident truth. It’s another one of those grasshopper-vs.-ant gigs so beloved in company towns (and usually told by the jolly company storekeeper in the act of shutting off credit), and Heylin’s sick of it.

In Despite the System: Orson Welles Versus the Hollywood Studios, the author of From the Velvets to the Voidoids: The Birth of American Punk Rock deconstructs the myth of bloated loser Orson with scholarly rectitude and a rock critic’s delight in smashing things. A long, diligent wrestle with production notes, studio memos, and other detritus reveals Welles “was undone by real people, with real motives,” namely by frightened studio executives who couldn’t understand his innovations and work habits. The “dream contract” with RKO to make Citizen Kane was handed to the wonder boy of stage and airwave, not as concession to a power-mad artist, but as bait for a studio desperate for a revenue source as dependable as Fred & Ginger’s feet. The Hollywood lumpen at Chasen’s and the Derby – who hated and envied Welles before he’d even shot one untouchable frame of film – itched to see Orson fall … and would gladly push.

The fate of It’s All True, Welles’s aborted semi-documentary, was decided the minute an RKO exec got a look at all the “nigger singing and dancing” footage the director had shot for a segment on Rio’s Carnivale. Originally running more than two hours, The Magnificent Ambersons was cut to 88 minutes, with kindly editor Robert Wise wielding the meat axe on what was probably Welles’s greatest achievement.

On and on it goes: The Stranger, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil – all compromised by studio functionaries committed to the myth of a difficult, “temperamental” director unable to play by studio rules. The opposite is, of course, the truth; Welles could be as fast and economical a filmmaker as Roger Corman or William Castle, flashily disposing of many pages of script in an afternoon with one of his patented single takes. The glorious wastrel was always economical, and he learned further corner-cutting the hard way, by having to secure financing for his own European films in the ’50s and ’60s, and his main excuse for using himself as an actor in those movies was “Because I work cheap.”

No matter. The meme was established, and the industry that wouldn’t give him a can of short ends to expose was glad to use the famous name, voice, and bulk again and again on movies and TV. For all Heylin’s wizardry with primary sources and praiseworthy contempt for the contemptible, his book is handicapped by a lack of understanding of what the system he despises actually is. Company towns are, by their very nature, indifferent to the ambitions of its inhabitants and place “resources” where utility and management whim dictate. What with thousands of hopefuls crawling on the carpet for a chance to be used in any capacity, it’s simply childish arrogance for any favored worker to question where they’re placed. Thus do musicians become A&R reps, hairdressers turn into producers, and actors morph into phone-sex employees.

The place Hollywood ultimately found for as formidable a personage as Orson Welles was hoisting a glass of cheap wine and intoning a company slogan for the camera. This business truly takes care of its own.

Link to review

[jaime marzol]

i never thought you had any problem with the book, you are doing what a web master does, he finds articles that have to do with the content of his site and posts them.

i don't know what you mean by conspiracy theories?

the guy calls orson a bloated loser. what a total shame. then he says orson selling wine is the system taking care of it's own. this guy would rank high in the kael/higham camp.