Welles never made another film after Ambersons

[Terry]

Mark Lawson is a British journalist, playwright, and host of arts and cinema programs for BBC radio and television. He's been in the profession for decades.

Recently I viewed the July 23rd, 2006 episode of the BBC Four series "Mark Lawson Talks To" in which he interviewed aging director Terry Gilliam. Of potential interest to Wellesnetters are the following two excerpts.

First, regarding the production problems and commercial failure of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and subsequent lingering reputation Gilliam has as a [Lawson's words] "maniac who goes over budget":

TG: "It was my comeuppance. All film directors want to be Orson Welles. Well, I got my moment. You know, I did my Citizen Kane in Brazil, and then I did my Magnificent Ambersons with Munchausen."

Hats off to Terry Gilliam for divulging the secret motive of all film directors.

And second, regarding the abandoned production of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and accompanying documentary:

TG: "I can't watch the documentary. I mean, I've watched it enough times, and I just can't do it. It's the moment when you know - somebody said there's a moment when I'm watching, there's a scene on the screen, and I'm just - my face is gone, and that's when I know it's really over. Because I will - I literally think I am berzerk on every level. I will go right 'til I die to make something, but at a certain point you realize it's just not gonna happen, and that's when it really hits, but there was a weird sense of relief as well."

ML: "And that's the difference. Whereas Orson Welles - Magnificent Ambersons, the studio interfered, and he walked away from it and went and made sherry commercials and virtually never made another film. You're the exact opposite. No matter what happens you keep going on to the next project."

Hats firmly back on for the destructiveness of Mark Lawson's absolute ignorance. He should certainly know better, seeing as knowledge of such matters is his livelihood.

Reputation, reputation, reputation. I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial.


Terry

[ToddBaesen]

---


Now, I'm quite sure there is a reason why I've never even heard of the name of Mark Lawson, besides the fact that his TV show is only seen in England.

I don't think it's simply because he doesn't even know that Welles actually completed a third film after the fiasco of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS in 1942. Yes, Mr. Lawson, Orson Welles did spend nothing but 25 years of making only TV commercials, but in 1966 he made a brilliant film called FALSTAFF.

I'm sure that Mr. Lawson, with his limited knowledge of cinema, obviously never saw it, but he apparently had a lot of time to study Welles commercials for the period from 1943 to 1965. Maybe he can enlighten us on that aspect of Welles career. I'm sure besides the Sherry Wine spots, he must have done some others.

Now, while I think we can all agree that Mr. Lawson can be forgiven for not having seen Orson Welles's FALSTAFF (also known as CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT), I do wonder how anyone who lives in England might not know about one of the greatest Shakespearian films ever made.

Don't people in England know that the Bard from Stratford is the greatest writer in the history of their country? Jesus, the days that I have seen. Never in my lifetime would I think a Englishman could be so... well let's not go there.

But to be realistic, how could you expect, in today's world, that an English TV hack would know that an American director made a film classic based on several plays of William Shakespeare? That would really be pushing it, don't you think?

At least he knew that Welles directed CITIZEN KANE. What more can you ask for? You can't really expect every amateur TV host to know what his guests are talking about, can you? Even if he happens to be one of the greatest directors in the history of the cinema.

So please, lets all give Mr. Lawson a break.

Hopefully, quite a long one - that will remove him from the job he has on UK television, and put him where he belongs, in a UK pensioners home, as Welles portrayed so vividly in AROUND THE WORLD WITH ORSON WELLES.

[ZenKaneCity]

I'm noticing a lot of folks here at Wellesnet referring to "Falstaff" rather than "Chimes at Midnight." Is "Falstaff" the preferred title? Apologies for the digression...

[Terry]

I always refer to the title as it appears onscreen:

[ZenKaneCity]

Yes, thanks, I had been intrigued when I first saw the titles onscreen, but, given the general popularity of the "Chimes at Midnight" title, I figured maybe there were different prints with different titles. In the original Bosley Crowther review now posted on the home page, he speaks of the title being changed to FALSTAFF after Cannes, granting that there had been a difference of opinion even AT Cannes. But, yes, the titles as pictured are certainly emphatic, if a little conflicted.

[Terry]

That screen capture is from the Studio Canal PAL DVD, available briefly in France. I've never seen a print of the Cannes version, which apparently was titled just Chimes at Midnight. I'm sure either title would suffice, though the above is the general release (or generally unreleased) title.

[ToddBaesen]

___



Zen Kane City brings up quite an interesting point.

I've always preferred the title CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but that title is actually on no print of the film that I've ever seen. In America, the release title was clearly FALSTAFF. The CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT title is also not on any of the many posters I've seen from the countries in Europe where it was released, with the exception of the country it was filmed in, Spain. There, it was released under the title of CAMPANADAS A MEDIANOCHE (CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT).

However, I wonder what title in was released under in the UK?

Does anyone there know?

[Harvey Chartrand]

Although FALSTAFF has many things to recommend it, such as the documentary-like realism of the Battle of Shrewsbury (all the more remarkable for having been done on a shoestring budget) and the very moving banishment scene at the end, I find it a big yawn. I've seen FALSTAFF twice and would watch a cleaned up DVD release, but I'm puzzled by all this talk about how it's Welles' best film. I would agree that Welles' single greatest acting moment onscreen is the heartbreak he expresses when King Hal tells Fat Jack: "I know thee not, old man." (But at least the new king gave Falstaff a pension when he laid him off.) I believe Welles' much maligned THE TRIAL is a more accomplished work of cinematic art than FALSTAFF. As for the long-awaited Hollywood exposé, I doubt THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND could ever top John Schlesinger's THE DAY OF THE LOCUST, filmed around the same time with a huge budget. Welles' career was on a downward spiral by the early seventies.

[Lance Morrison]

For me, Falstaff and the Trial are both top-tier Welles, which makes them top-tier films in general. I was immediately dazzled by the Trial when i watched it, whereas i feel Falstaff is in many ways a rather finer and subtler work. The Trial for me has a craftsmanship and confidence akin to Touch of Evil, and is without a doubt by the same hand that crafted the more beautifully erratic and jagged Macbeth, Lady From Shanghai, Othello, Mr. Arkadin.......whereas Falstaff for me seems like it represents a new aesthetic for Welles---measured and comparably understated. It breathes more easily. I happen to think that The Immortal Stories functions to some degree along these same lines, though it would appear by tOSotW that he had already moved on!

[Cole]

Although FALSTAFF has many things to recommend it .... I find it a big yawn. I believe Welles' much maligned THE TRIAL is a more accomplished work of cinematic art than FALSTAFF.

And that isn't saying much since you've also written on this forum that you thought the remake of The Trial by David Jones (or was that Davy Jones of the Monkees?) was better than the Welles version.

[Harvey Chartrand]

David Hugh Jones' low-key remake of The Trial is a more faithful adaptation of the Franz Kafka novel, with Kyle MacLachlan outstanding in the role of Joseph K and Anthony Hopkins making the most of his limited screen time as The Priest (the role Welles wanted Jackie Gleason to play). British director Jones died last September, spending his final years directing American television series. I'm no fan of Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, in which Scottish comedian Robbie Coltrane plays Falstaff in a bit of stunt casting, so maybe I'm really not into Shakespeare, no matter how well done. Give me Kafka and Whit Masterson anyday. Released 20 years ago with tremendous fanfare, Henry V is almost forgotten today. Branagh's smashing debut as a director was compared to Welles' taking Hollywood by storm with Citizen Kane, but after a string of Shakespearean flops (Hamlet being the notable exception) and a crummy remake of Frankenstein featuring a Brooklyn-accented Monster, Branagh is today better known for his acting than for his directing. Sound familiar?

[Lance Morrison]

Perhaps you are right about Branagh.....but in the circles i have moved in, i have only heard his name mentioned---by Shakespeareans and psedo-Shakespeareans alike---as a director of Shakespeare on celluloud. Besides Kurosawa (whom i don't take into consideration as a W.S. adaptator because of the lack of the man's poetry), i pretty much exclusively hear Branagh discussed as THE film adaptor of the Bard's works. Just last week a music professor was discussing him as an example of someone who creates FINE ART in film. I have yet to encounter a single one of these people who has encountered Welles' 3 great shakesfilms. They may of heard of his Othello, but that is usually the extent of it. Of course this is not so surprising due to the current availibility.....but it is bothersome. The Branagh i have seen has seemed, to my biased brain, utterly contrived compared to Welles, and a great example of how to make *less* when you have *more* resources. One could say Welles' limitations were a blessing, and it would be easy to believe if we hadn't seen what he was able to do in Kane, Ambersons, ToE.

My good friend who is studying German literature encountered an adaptation comparison of the two aforementioned versions of "the Trial" in one of her courses. She had to compare and contrast the Welles with the Jones. She and the entire class initially much preferred the Jones version, noting its seeming faithfulness and, i think, lured by its more conventional gestures. But after she spent a week digesting and examining it, she couldn't help but be wowed by Welles, and has now declared it among her favourite films. She feels that, adaptation aside, it just functions better as a filmic entity, and creates a strong feeling of disorientation for the viewer that, while not how she pictured "Der Prozess", is very effective. As an adaptation, she feels that it textually has some very intriguing interaction with the source text that make for some interesting abiguities. I have not yet been brave enough with my German to read the novel, although i undoutedly will sometime. I do agree that Mr. Machlachlan is fine in the newer version (another good sort of detective role for him outside of Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks).

[Glenn Anders]

At the risk of "special pleading", which we tend to be guilty of here, I think Orson Welles was a genius who displayed a certain discomfort, in later years at least, to being called a character known as "Orson Welles," whereas Kenneth Branagh, throughout his heyday, was "modest" about BEING both Laurence Olivier AND Orson Welles. I've always thought that the real talent in the family was Emma Thompson, and that his pretensions to being a great director went downhill, for some reason, when they broke up in 1995. On the other hand, I think Brannagh has become better as an actor over the years, especially since he has begun to play Nazis. [ He has even grown to look like Welles did in THE STRANGER.]

As does Harvey and Lance, I thought that Branagh's HENRY V was highly overrated, and though his HAMLET deserves points on presenting the full text, it contained some of the worst Shakespearian acting ever committed to film.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

One of the interesting things about Kenneth Branagh was after the acclaim he got for HENRY V (followed by MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING), it seemed like he was on track to adapt quite a few more of the Bard's plays. In fact there was even a mini-Shakepeare revival, with films being made from A MIDSUMMER'S NIGHTS DREAM and THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE winning an Oscar no doubt also helped keep interest in Shakespearian movies alive, but after HAMLET Branagh seems to have had trouble finding backers, as his last two Shakespeare productions LOVE'S LABOURS LOST (2000) and AS YOU LIKE IT (2006) were hardly shown (and apparently were not very good.)

Which now puts Branagh in a position just like Welles, at least when it comes to making Shakespeare movies. It's still a very hard sell. Laurence Olivier only got to direct three of Shakespeare plays for the screen, the same number as Welles, although both men wanted to do more. For Welles, there was simply no money to do projects like KING LEAR, JULIUS CAESAR or MERCHANT OF VENICE. Branagh has gotten to do five Shakespeare films, but it seems unlikely that he'll ever get the money again to do something on a grander scale, in the style of his HENRY V.

[Roger Ryan]

Back to FALSTAFF/CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT...Reportedly Welles grew to prefer the title FALSTAFF which was shorter/punchier, although I wonder if he did so because it could be considered a more commercial title? I think CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT is a much better title and suspect most Welles fans agree since that's how the film is almost universally referred to by those who refer to it at all.

I'm curious how Gilliam responded to Mr. Lawson's claim that Welles never did another film after AMBERSONS. Did he let it pass, comment on it, or give Lawson a strange look?