Best books on Orson Welles?

[Holly Martins]

Possible theory for Callow's hatred of Welles: he worships Charles Laughton and when Laughton did a production of Brecht's "Galileo," he didn't credit Brainerd Duffield and Emerson Crocker for the translation. Duffield and Crocker were two of Welles's friends and Welles sent a telegram to Laughton condemning him for not giving credit where credit was due.

Possible reason Callow worships Laughton: in all of Callow's writings on Laughton he insists Laughton was gay (a claim Laughton's wife origionally made). However, actress Maureen O'Hara refutes this claim. Maybe Callow has some fantasies about Laughton we do not know about

[Tony]

I have a little theory that the best biographical books and articles on Welles have been those written by authors who knew, or who had at least met him. This would include Peter Noble, Maurice Bessy, Joseph McBride, Peter Bodanovich, Jonathan Rosenbaum (book coming in 2006), Barbara Leaming, James Naremore, Peter Cowie, John Houseman, et. al.

But when the author never met Welles. then there is a problem with a biographical book, for example: Charles Higham (with his "theory" of Welles "fear of completion", Simon Callow, (with his "theory" of Welles "repressed homosexuality"), David Thomson, (with his "theory" that Welles had in general a bad personality), Peter Conrad's book, Clinton Heylin (although he is "pro-Welles", I think he still has no sense of the man- how could he?), et. al.

Now, to me it's very interesting that nearly all the books written by people who knew Welles, or at least met him and got a sense of the man, are very "pro-Welles", even if they have some criticisms (this includes biographical articles as well, such as Audrey Stainton's work on the Don Quixote period). But- nearly all of the biographical work done by writers who never met Welles is extremely critical of his character- and this is why books on Welles are becoming more and more critical of his character as the decades proceed.

I am talking here only of biographical works- not aesthetic discussions of Welles' work- such as Callow's work on the W.P.A. and Mercury Theatre playscripts, Andre Bazin's discussions of the films, Bridget Lyons work on Chimes at Midnight, Robert Garis's discussion of the films, Michael Anderegg's book on Welles, Shakespeare and popular culture, Claudia Thieme's book on F For fake, et. al. These are critical works, and anyone can write them who has thought inteligently about film, and who has something to say. This kind of critical discussion will go on forever in the arts.

But it's this relentless "psychologizing" of Welles and his work (and we know what Welles thought of psychology) that I find absurd, and the reason why I find myself increasingly uninterested in new biographical books on Welles. They are what I think Welles would call "dollar-book Freud", written by people who never met the man.
John Houseman is extremely critical of Welles' character in "Run-Through"; but he also praises Welles' genius, and actually knew and collaborated with Welles for several years, producing plays, radio, and Citizen Kane. Houseman is not god, but he has the right and the authority to give his opinion about Welles' character. For Simon Callow to hypothesize anything about a man he never knew is laughable. This 20th century obsession with identifying the art and the artist as one thing is I think a great danger to art, and one which surely Welles did not support.

What do you think? ???

[tonyw]

What more can one say? It is the work, after all, which counts and not surmises over an artist's supposed psychpathology. But books like these sell these days, especially promoted by marketing divisions of publishers seeking a National Enquirer type audience and disseminating the same old tired myths.

[catbuglah]

Yeah, I'm not big on the tendency to poke into people's private lives:O or to rattle off dime-store psycho speculation:p - Having said that, the thing with Welles is that rarely has the interest in the artist's work and the artist's life been so intertwined - so there's a fascinating relation with artistic expression and individual identity going on there...

And let's face it, Freud WOULD have a field days with Welles' films!:blues: So I think Carringer and Naremore's ideas in that regard are valid as far as they go - now to what extent can artistic manifestations be used to diagnose the creator is another question - probably best left to an experience professional - I think it's a field of study that is fairly underdeveloped???

I think the obvious Wellesian self-reflexive, multi-media, study in techno-complexity would be a film on Welles using the Maestro's own ubiquitous Kane structure (Film opens with man typing Lear directions at typewriter...) The big problem I think would be to convey the level of genius of the artist's accomplishments (which was to me was a problem with Chaplin) and to somehow cover the vast labyrinth of Welles' professional and personal experience. One solution could be using a virtuoso incorporation of the original Welles material (film, etc...) along with the standard film bio-drama, which in a filmakers' case, could be feasible and do a back and forth juxtaposition of a piece of Welles' work and slice of his life, having them more or less correspond or parallel each other...(Just his childhood juxtaposed with Kand and Ambersons is the more obvious example, I guess.. but I'm just boppin' and scattin' here:cool: ...

[chrissie]

For a picture of the MAN, the more direct books are preferable, and surely few better than TiOW -- it's The Bible, really. But I did enjoy Heylin's book enormously... the research was intensive, the collation of info on its focus points very impressive indeed.

[Tony]

Catbuglah:

You reminded me of Carringer: His theory that Welles had some deep psycho fear of Hamlet- what's it called- "Oedipus in Indianapolis"- that is the best example of what I was discussing above; I mean it's just a darn silly idea. People can speculate forever on the psycho influences on an artists work, but it's merely going to be silly speculation forever. You can never prove anything. On the other hand, discussing an artist's work as work- that's a distinct possibility in the world of the real.

I'm reminded of all the celebrity culture that seems to have grown exponentially in the last couple if years- "Are Brad and Angelie really involved?" "What will Britney name her baby?" - as taking over from any discussion of the work ( if there is work to be discussed). Even classical artists like Glenn Gould have been subjected to this nonsense,and the bio ends up merely as a ego trip for the writer.

Remember Welles said: "They no longer review my work- they review me".

[catbuglah]

Tony wrote : You reminded me of Carringer: His theory that Welles had some deep psychco fear of Hamlet- what's it called- "Oedipus in Indianapolis"-

I think Carringer does go too far - (in the Ambersons book) I don't know what his psychological credentials are- (Even Freud had some rather over-the-top views on Leonardo Da Vinci) ??? Welles to me is an artist of a very pure sort and I don't know that the psychology of artists is a very developed area of study, I suppose it must be somewhere.

From a Jungian perspective, in a general way, good artists do tend to manifest purer, archetypal psychological content. So I find it interesting to study from that perspective. But I do agree that it's a mistake to make direct, cartesian assumptions about the artist based on the content of his work.

And like Glenn Gould, I believe that the term genius can be applied to Welles. The psychology of genius I think is a developing field of study, but again, I think were far from a psychological understanding of that class of people. So with artistic geniuses its doubly daunting. But people are fascinated these kinds of beings, I just don't think they should be judged with standard, commonly accepted criteria. :O

(I did happen to recently read a refutation on the Glenn Gould Asperber Syndrome theory by a psychologist that was OK, much better than the usual mumbo-jumbo.)

[Tony]

You're ahead of me on the jargon and info, but I was impressed years ago by Stravinsky's absolute refusal to undergo analsysis- he had a belief it would render him impotent as an artist. Today it's soaked into the culture so deeply; remember Welles called the reductionism of "Rosebud" as "dollar-book Freud". The final lines of Kane ""You can't sum up a man's life in a few words" are similar to the last lines of TOE: "What can you say about a man" and "He was some kind of man". Welles said he wrote the last lines of Kane in order to try to take some of the mickey out of the Rosebud thing. Welles, Gould, Stravinsky- they would just laugh at all the garbage that's written about them now. The fundamental mystery of creation- Stravinsky's famous quote: "I am the vessel through which Le sacre de Printemps passed" says it all, I think.

Gould called questions about creativity "centipedal"; he related the story of the centipede being asked the question: "In what order do you move your legs?" and the centipede could never walk again.

Still, I agree with everything you say- it's uncharted waters. I just don't think we'll ever understand genius- thank God.

[NoFake]

Jonathan Rosenbaum touched on this issue of how-much-does-the-work-reflect-the-artist in his presentation on TOSOTW at Locarno. According to my notes and memory, Jonathan pointed out the discrepancy between director Jake Hannaford’s persona — a DeMille-type director in the classic mold — and the film-within-a-film, which is highly experimental, more like Antonioni than Hemingway. He then posited that the disconnect was intentional on Welles’ part, that the public image vs. private man was, like “Kane,” an intentional iteration on the impossibility of “explaining a man’s life.”

Taking it one step further, Rosenbaum noted that Hannaford was of a pattern with those characters — Kane, Quinlan, Lime, Clay — whom Welles disliked, and suggested that developing them may have given Welles the chance to explore them — maybe even, as Mr. Clay, to give him the temporary, tangential illusion of power over them — but NOT to explain them. Jonathan faulted journalists who tend to mythologize Welles and try to define him, saying they are denying him the possibilities he granted his characters.

I found his hypothesis very convincing...

[Tony]

NoFake:

Thanks for that fascinating summary of Rosenbaum, whom I believe to be one of the great writers on film today, and one of the few really good writers on Welles; I'm reminded that Welles told Andre Bazin ( quoted in the Bazin book) that he morally detested the Kanes, the Quinlans, etc.; but that he nevertheless wanted to give them the best argument possible for their actions. He felt it was his duty, morally and dramatically, to do so. Bazin, though, held the then popular (especially amongst French critics) opinion that the Kanes, Othellos, Macbeths, Arkadins and Quinlans et.al. are like supermen, and are above normal moral laws, which Welles found odious.Today, these pscho-bios claim that Welles was these characters, or that they show a side of him, which of course is missing the point entirely.

I think we are in such a sad state of affairs in terms of the modern biography, and the interpretation of works of art, reading them all as telling us secrets about the author's character.

Yikes! :O

[Alfred Willmore]

I would add the latest book on Welles, "In My Father's Shadow: A Daughter Remembers Orson Welles" by Chris Welles Feder, to the list of the best, most interesting books on Orson Welles.

[Glenn Anders]

Alfie: Like many of us here, I'm sure, my own anticipation for Chris Welles' memoir is great.

I look also look forward to a tremendously insightful review of that work by David Thomson, who in a Guardian column singled out by Todd Baesen on another current thread strongly suggests that Simon Callow's three volume biography will probably be "definitive," when it is completed.

Glenn

[Alfred Willmore]

Glenn,

Oh no !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/22/orson-welles-citizen-kane

I sure hope Todd Baeson isn't DT

Lee

[Glenn Anders]

Alfie: That is a tremendously insightful speculation! David -- I mean Todd Baesen and David Thomson are, in the eyes of some who have met them both, similar in profile. They both live in San Francisco. They are both obsessed by Orson Welles. They both exude a rather superior air. David Thomson is the Deacon Brody of the two, maintaining a family and a respectable reputation. But by Baesen's usual logic, he himself should be the world famous authority on Orson Welles, feted, doing lunch on Saturdays and Mondays at Orson, flying to London to preside over "film symposia," (with his own column in the Guardian instead of a gossip item in "The Geary Street Loin's Mouth," bought drinks by those who can really afford them in all the upper class watering holes of Nob Hill. And miserable David Thomson should be the one creeping in back doors, body snatching when necessary, and caging drinks at the Ha-Ra Club in the deep mists of Frisco nights.

As they say in the more chi-chi bars of San Francisco: "David Thomson at his worst is Toddy Baesen at his best!"

Therefore, I'm most hopeful that Thomson will be in splendid form when he reviews IN MY FATHER'S SHADOW, as I'm sure he will be, without even consulting the man we know as "Todd Baesen."

Think of it, Alfie: In years to come, there might be a "Todd Baesen Chair of Wellsian Literature" at a formerly obscure Southern California community college. Our grandchildren might well be required to take a grad course in "The Age of Baesen" in order to be granted a Doctorate in Media Studies. A classic travel book of the next decade might easily be entitled: The Secret Life of Todd Baesen; Down and Out in San Francisco and Pomona.

I don't know about you, but I'm outlining for submission to a major publisher an expose: The Todd Baesen Story; or David Thomson Unmasked!

And of course, by then, there would be . . . THE VIDEO GAMES!!

Yours, as always . . . In Imagination . . . .

Glenn Anders

[Alfred Willmore]

Glenn,

Maybe they are separate people but related, with Todd Baeson filling a niche like that of Mycroft Holmes.

L