TMA memos - 70th anniversary Wellesnet blog series

[Glenn Anders]

Thank you, Mike, for putting up the reference to the The New Masses, probably the most important generally circulated left wing magazine of its time. Whatever one might have thought of its politics, the magazine's correspondents were often right on the mark describing the ambitions of the Wall Street people. Certainly, we may now discern how far thinking they were, as over sixty years later, we see Brazil finally emerging as a World Power, at least in financial terms. You evidence another reason how Orson Welles' Good Neighbor trip to South America had other purposes.

Todd, you were absolutely right that Welles was REALLY DESPERATE. I would only ask, why did he not think of the source of that desperation during the three months that everyone at RKO, both friend and foe, was warning him of the coming disaster? Why could he not have checked in with his trusty New York Lawyer, instead of turning everything over to that grifter, Jack Moss?

Glenn

[Le Chiffre]

Glenn, maybe Rockefeller didn't like the relentless anti-auto (and thus, anti-oil) message of the original Ambersons. I find myself wondering if George Schaefer was anything more then a stooge of Rockefeller.

TMA Memos Part 7:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1548

It seems apparent from the memos in mid-April that the decision to reshoot the ending came from George Schaefer. Wise and Moss had been willing to keep the original boardinghouse ending according to their film-shortening scheme of March 24th. Knowing how important the boardinghouse ending was to Welles, why didn't someone try to preserve it, at least in 16mm? Cotten and Moorehead probably could have requested, or even demanded that in exchange for redoing the scene.

Here are a few excerpts from David Kamp’s January 2002 Vanity Fair article MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION:
 

“Sneak previews are a notoriously unreliable gauge of a film’s worth and potential for success, and RKO did THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS a particular disservice by previewing it before an audience composed mainly of escapism-hungry teenagers…
 
Although (the many) critiques were slightly mitigated by the occasional eloquent, favorable assessment…Wise and his compatriots could not ignore the sense of restlessness in the crowd and the waves of sarcastic laughter that erupted during the film’s serious scenes, particularly those involving Agnes Moorehead’s flitty, frequently hysterical Aunt Fanny character.
 
But while Welles’s 22 minutes cut no doubt robbed the movie of some of it’s dramatic momentum, Schaefer, in entrusting The Magnificent Ambersons to a bunch of callow high schoolers, showed some questionable judgement of his own.
 
As Henry Jaglom says today “If I’d gone to the theatre to see a Dorothy Lamour movie, I’d have hated Ambersons too!”
 
In mid-April, Schaefer gave Wise full authority to whip the film into releasable shape (though his hoped-for Easter release was no longer a possibility), and on April 20, Freddie Fleck, Welles’s assistant director, shot a new, improbably tidy ending to the picture to replace the existing one.

This is at odds with Simon Callow’s account in HELLO AMERICANS which claims that the new ending was shot on May 19, the day of Jacare’s death.

[Glenn Anders]

What you say, Mike, may be quite possible. If Nelson Rockefeller didn't like "the message" of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, consider what he might have thought of an underlying thesis of CITIZEN KANE -- that materialism was ultimately worthless in the life of a human being, whatever his station. The mission Rockefeller sent Orson Welles on to South America might have been, partly, to get "the boy genius" out of their hair. I don't know if I'd call George Schaefer "a stooge," but he definitely was a company man, possibly a little more soft-hearted than some heading studios back then. He had been placed in charge of the bankrupt RKO Studio by the Rockefeller-Sarnoff faction of the Board to turn the ailing studio around. Among the many problems that would have plagued THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, in the best of times, was a devastating one to bankrupt studio: the effects of World War II on studio profits. Long before December 7, 1941, Hollywood's profitability was hit hard by the beginning of the war in Europe, September 3, 1939. The old rule of thumb was that a picture paid for its costs in the United States, but made its profit overseas. Suddenly, that rule was in the dustbin.

When I went to the Saturday matinee at Shea's Theater in Geneva, Ohio, in 1939, I paid a nickel (with another nickel for Watzitz from Von Besslor's next door, and money left over for after). My parents paid a dime for a Sunday matinee. But by 1942, those prices had risen to a dime for me, fifteen cents for my parents. Somewhere in there, the prices went up again, and my father practically stopped going to movies. "No picture ever made," he would say, "is worth twenty-five cents!"

People, more and more, were staying home to listen to the Radio (a main reason for RKO's hiring Welles, in the first place). One can see how these financial uncertainties added to the anxieties around the production of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.

I think we should remember, too, that Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead, though having extensive professional experience in Radio and on the Stage, were new to Hollywood, and in the hierarchy of the Mercury Players, final word was always assumed to come from Welles. Part of that was evidently useful PR hype, but it was also a proverbial two-edge sword. Cotten and Moorehead had no standing in Hollywood, other than their contracts with the Mercury. Their movie careers on the line, they may not have been so assertive when their leader seemed so uncertain himself.

Glenn

[Le Chiffre]

The mission Rockefeller sent Orson Welles on to South America might have been, partly, to get "the boy genius" out of their hair.

Yes, so they could screw up Ambersons without his interference. Often forgot is the fact that Schaefer was not the only one who got abuse over CITIZEN KANE. Rockefeller received threats from Hearst over the picture too.

Long before December 7, 1941, Hollywood's profitability was hit hard by the beginning of the war in Europe, September 3, 1939. The old rule of thumb was that a picture paid for its costs in the United States, but made its profit overseas. Suddenly, that rule was in the dustbin.

As Catherine Benamou points out in her book, opening up Latin American markets for Hollywood product - to compensate for the loss of European markets - was an important part of the Good Neighbor Policy as well. Disney had already gone there the summer before, several months before Pearl Harbor.

Benamou also points out another example of how the fates of Ambersons and True were intertwined:

The Technicolor restriction (for FOUR MEN ON A RAFT) coincided roughly with the previews for Ambersons…In all probability, the disposition of Schaefer and other RKO executives toward Welles’ requests to enhance the Brazilian episodes (with FOUR MEN ON A RAFT in Technicolor) was influenced by the negative box office prognostications for THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS extracted, rightly or wrongly, from the unfavorable audience response to (the Pomona) preview.

Here's a memo from Orson Welles to George Schaefer, dated April 12th, just before the memos posted by Larry in Part 7. I've put it in letter form to make it easier to read:

April 12th, 1942
Orson Welles to George Schaefer
1270 6th Ave.
New York City

The phone service reached only my apartment despite my instructions to ring the number where I was rehearsing and waiting your call. Armour’s wire today advises me that RKO will not recognize verbal commitments regarding the Urca Casino sequence. Although this and other similar communications have not been from you or addressed to me, I am replying directly to you.

First, it need not be said again that my anxiety to keep costs down is as great as yours, since you yourself requested the abandonment of Technicolor for the “Four Men On a Raft” story. I readily consented to this economy, despite the drastic sacrifice to the quality of my film which it represented.

As to the Urca commitments, I made them personally, in no wise acting in excess of my authority, and in no way inflating the original plans for shooting Carnival in Brazil. These commitments are valid, and as producer I should be consulted before their validity is questioned. I must insist that, if I don’t hear from you personally in these matters, I hear from whoever is issuing the orders; and further, that I be consulted before they become orders. This recent arbitrary treatment has not only been a serious embarrassment to my position in this country, but is costing precious time and money.

Obviously the front office would take no steps regarding any motion picture being made in Hollywood under my responsibility, without first – and at the very least - referring such action to me, it’s producer. Here, real disaster will be the consequence of needless assaults on my authority. Here, true collaboration of interest and effort is terribly necessary, since Hollywood must be ignorant of our problems, the needs of our picture, and their relative proportions. The simple fact in the Urca matter is that our Carnival story is built entirely around and up to the Casino scene. This is the grand finale and single big production number.

Regards,
Orson Welles

Here's Schaefer's reply of April 13:

April 13, 1942
George Schaefer to Orson Welles

Dear Orson,

Cable received. Sorry I was unable to reach you by phone, but I gave up in desperation after trying for four days, and after the operator reported she heard your voice on the phone. I frankly cannot agree that you had to “abandon” Technicolor for “Four Men On a Raft”, as we were dumfounded to hear that you even contemplated shooting in anything other then black and white, especially since the equipment had been sent for that particular purpose. I’m sure you can appreciate my worry and concern when I hear commitments have been made to augment the show and practically reconstruct the Urca Casino at a cost of $25,000. At that rate we will have another Ambersons situation on our hands. This latter picture as you know has gone well over $1 million.

It is very painful to send this cable because I know what a stickler you are for quality, but on the other hand, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you have no realization of the money you spend and how difficult it is to recoup cost. Enough of that however, I am most anxious that you phone me not later then Wednesday this week.

Regards,
George Schaefer

And the first part of Welles' reply of April 15 (Larry has already posted the conclusion of this memo in Part 7):

April 15, 1942
Orson Welles to George Schaefer

Since “Four Men On a Raft” is connected with the “Carnival” story, Black and White is excusable only on grounds of the strictest economy. Technicolor was sent for Carnival, but Carnival was to determine Four Men On a Raft. I therefore came here with the clear understanding that Men On Raft was to be in Technicolor. Black and White equipment was sent principally to protect and cover. I would have no reason to talk to the operator on the phone without talking to you.

The Urca show has only been augmented by a few chorus girls, and I mean a few. This represented no recent caprice on my part, but was always in my calculations, since it was decided to build the Carnival picture up to and around Urca. All that is required, or that we’re paying for, are enough girls to fill the screen. The Urca show was overlong, and rehearsals are necessary to brighten it up. This is part of the cost, since the girls must be paid, Rolla notwithstanding.

I cannot think how you imagined that I planned to reconstruct the casino. Some large areas of the mirror would have to be covered for purposes of camera. The first prices for this were quoted to Hollywood before I had a chance to cut them down.

[ToddBaesen]

Mike, thanks again for the additional memos. I really can't understand why no previous Welles biographer has included more of these full memos. It seems very strange to me, since I find they vindicate Welles and his whole approach to everything he wanted to do as an artist during this period.

By the way, does anyone reading this doubt that Orson Welles was a cinema artist on the level of a Picasso, a Renoir or a Van Gogh?

If you do, nothing I can say could possibly change your mind, especially when it comes to Welles artistic intents vs. the corporate mentality of a major studio, even if it was controlled by people Welles considered his friends. In Welles case, those friends would be George Schaefer, Nelson Rockerfeller and General David Sarnoff.

To me they all betrayed Orson Welles and what is far worse, the art of the cinema.

This was especially regrettable in the case of Nelson Rockefeller, who spent millions on paintings by Picasso, Renoir, Matisse, etc. many of which ended up in The Museum of Modern Art, but Rocky couldn't even spring to make a copy of the uncut AMBERSONS or fund the completion of IT'S ALL TRUE. It's no wonder Welles called him a "great coward."

Interestingly enough, George Schaefer wrote to Welles about a "confidence that has been betrayed," on April 29, 1942, which has got to be the most absurd thing anything could say about Welles, given he has already delivered RKO two cinematic masterpieces. That Schaefer fought for CITIZEN KANE to finally be released is quite wonderful, but that he caved in on THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and IT'S ALL TRUE is not so wonderful.

Of course the betrayal of friends became a theme for many of Welles subsequent films. It had already been established as a theme in CITIZEN KANE, but it went on to become a re-occuring theme in such Welles films as: MACBETH, OTHELLO, TOUCH OF EVIL and FALSTAFF.

Hey, maybe Robert Carringer can turn this idea into a book... But seriously, if nothing else, I think from Mike's research and memos, we can completely discredit Robert Carringer's very faulty research. While it may have been initially valuable in the pre-internet age, it is now completely incorrect, not only in it's factual elements, but in it's very bizarre conclusions.

However, playing the Devil's advocate, here is one of the reports that Lynn Shores was sending back to RKO while Welles was writing to the head of RKO telling him why he needed all those "chorus girls." Welles "experts" like Charles Higham and Mr. Carringer would no doubt say it was so Welles could fuck them. What I wonder is why so many "so called" Welles biographers want to fuck over Orson Welles!

LYNN SHORES TO WALTER DANIELS (excerpt):
April 22, 1942

I cannot say much for this week's work because I do not feel any progress whatsoever has been made toward getting out of here. After working day and night to build three sets on the stage, Welles decided to shoot a building... called the Rio Tennis Club. This was supposed to be one night's shooting but... it went on and on though the week, and to the best of my knowledge it seems that these sets are not finished yet.

These particular scenes were mostly young girls and boys making love in various odd corners... with a background of 50 or 60 extras and continual calls every day for more beautiful girls. As far as I can judge there seems to have been no bearing whatsoever on what we are trying to do in connection with shooting carnival.

[Glenn Anders]

Mike: Thank you for the additional evidence via Larry's copious cache. Certainly, Hearst's anguish and threats might have been a factor, thinking of the importance to RKO of his publicity departments, but I think, in the beginning at least, there was no vengeful motive toward THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. All involved at RKO and in the Mercury seemed to be wrestling with a film that they didn't quite understand, and the man who might have straightened it out, was not on the scene. [Rather like the puzzlement that some of us have when we look at the rough footage of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. How can what we can see come together as the movie we read about in the script? Only Welles -- or maybe Peter Bogdanovich -- knows!] The whole thing always came down to money. For the brass, that was the primary concern. Perhaps as month after month passed, a number of people both in the Mercury and in the Head Office became embittered toward Welles.

Remember the anecdote concerning my father. He was not alone. Many people who had seen silent movies when kids in Nickelodeons, or for a few pennies in storefront showings in their youth, who had been wowed by the art of the silent film, never liked the added expense of sound movies. For tens of millions with language problems, sound was not really a gift, especially at higher prices. Theaters lost over a quarter of their domestic attendance between 1939 and 1947. That, combined with the loss of the European market, explains a lot of the attitudes the executives had toward uncertain and extra expenditures which Welles' films accrued. And RKO had gone broke at a pinnacle of the studio box office!

Orson Welles' memos here sound quite reasonable, Mike, but though I don't want to sound like a philistine, between the lines, one can sense certain sources of George Schaefer's frustration with him. For example, Welles' throwaway explanation of their inability to speak over the phone for days at a time makes little sense. Obviously, the overseas operator was telling Schaefer that Welles was talking with someone else on the line. Welles acts as if the charge was that HE was the one talking to the operator, clearly something Schaefer was not suggesting. It's equally obvious from the record that the State Department and RKO expected a little propaganda documentary, not an epic of South American musical culture, and subsequent negotiations bear that out. RKO didn't even get the promised seed money.

Todd: I see you have nipped in here. Working as I am with my last minute taxes, I will only say that "a Picasso, a Renoir or a Van Gogh" did not require a large commercial apparatus to produce his masterpieces, a point that Welles would have agreed with. You forget how very few critics or scholars, in America at least, were convinced that Movies were an art form. John Ford's THE INFORMER and STAGE COACH, and Welles CITIZEN KANE, helped change that view, over time. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS had the potential for greatness, which in a sense, created the legend of Welles career in Film, but what we have, whoever is responsible, is no masterpiece -- an intriguing fragment, perhaps. I don't know what we can say about IT'S ALL TRUE. Unlike the fascinating HEART OF DARKNESS recently produced by the BBC (and little remarked upon here), IT'S ALL TRUE never had a script that I can determine. Get Larry digging, Baesen!

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn:

While I understand that you don't find AMBERSONS to be a masterpiece, I dare say your view can hardly be considered to be the widely accepted norm, especially here, on a site devoted to Orson Welles!

So, I hope you realize that yours is very much a minority opinion, since most Welles scholars and film writers in general--who after all have placed AMBERSONS, not once, but twice on the SIGHT and SOUND poll of the ten greatest films ever made--would obviously disagree with you.

Of course, some people look at Picasso's "Guernica" and say "my child could paint better than that." The point being, both AMBERSONS and "Guernica" are widely considered to be artistic masterpieces, just as CITIZEN KANE is widely considered to be the greatest film ever made. You can disagree and say AMBERSONS is a mess, but the point is this: it's not a very widely accepted view, either by the so-called "experts," or I daresay by most of the readers of this forum.

Which brings me to your other point... that films cost much more money than paintings. Yes, exactly. But what does that mean to a true artist?
That you should perhaps comprise your art to make a bigger profit for the studio?

That is exactly what a true artist cannot, and should not do, and which I find so admirable in Welles memos of April 15, 1942: The Titantic is sinking, and Welles is saying, it must be done my way--there is no other way!

Now obviously, you hope your movie will make money, but through his entire life, none of Welles films, except for THE STRANGER,turned a profit.

That is why we only have 12 Orson Welles films to enjoy, and it's also why he was one of the cinema's greatest artists.

He simply did not know how to compromise.

[Le Chiffre]

Todd wrote:
Rockefeller, who spent millions on paintings by Picasso, Renoir, Matisse, etc. many of which ended up in The Museum of Modern Art, but Rocky couldn't even spring to make a copy of the uncut AMBERSONS or fund the completion of IT'S ALL TRUE. It's no wonder Welles called him a "great coward."

Tim Robbins in CRADLE WILL ROCK presents an interesting theory that Rockefeller was part of a plot to publicize and promote “Modern Art”, which was mostly abstract designs and forms, in order to undermine the power and influence of political art. What happened to Welles in South America is similar in a way to what Rockefeller did to Diego Rivera 10 years earlier.

Welles decided to shoot a building... called the Rio Tennis Club...These particular scenes were mostly young girls and boys making love in various odd corners...

Very interesting memo, Todd. I’d love to see that Tennis Club footage; sounds pretty racy for the time. I wonder what Welles would have done with it. From his memos it appears that Lynn Shores just basically wanted to go home, and resented as much as, if not more then anyone else, Welles’ attempts to expand the project and be an artist.

Glenn wrote
...one can sense certain sources of George Schaefer's frustration with him. For example, Welles' throwaway explanation of their inability to speak over the phone for days at a time makes little sense. Obviously, the overseas operator was telling Schaefer that Welles was talking with someone else on the line. Welles acts as if the charge was that HE was the one talking to the operator, clearly something Schaefer was not suggesting.

Funny how a little misunderstanding like that can possibly have helped bring about such damaging consequences. Sounds almost like an OTHELLO handkerchief moment.

[Glenn Anders]

CRADLE WILL ROCK does propose the interesting theory you suggest, Mike. To put it more finely, Robbins seems to be saying that Rockefeller and his fellow Corporatists concluded that Fine Art could be turned into a commodity and an advertising vehicle, that abstract artists like Rivera and Picasso (and commercial artists copying their style) lent themselves to this kind of exploitation as long as leftist attitudes were erased from the layouts. You may remember the review of CRADLE WILL ROCK that I did for Epinions, over a decade ago now:

http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu- ... 629B57-bd1

The lesson you take from the Welles/Schaefer phone conversations, in my opinion, is a good one, Mike.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Todd: No matter how inadequate my evaluation of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, in its present state, may be, it is my opinion, bolstered by what I consider rather compelling stated evidence, that Orson Welles' THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is a beautiful but failed assemblage of what might have been a great movie. The film runs down hill from its promising beginning for reasons that our experts here like Roger Ryan can document. Of course, I "realize that [mine] is very much a minority opinion." Would you rather that I compromise my opinion in order to go along our little herd here? How very Un-Wellesian of you!

Do you really consider THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, as it stands, comparable to "Guernica"? Such evaluations are, of course, subjective, but I have not seen that comparison made before. Even if that ranking has been made by a critic of substance, I would have to disagree with it. It's grandiose. Other Welles' films which followed, such as JOURNEY INTO FEAR, THE STRANGER, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, or MR. ARKADIN, were altered by other hands,too, but they remain interesting and entertaining films within the scope of their conceptions. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS does not, for all its excellent parts. A point could be made that Welles' original films afterward were never again on such a grand scale. Those are my conclusions, and without better arguments than those presented here or in other places, I'm not going to alter my opinion to be popular.

Tell me, Todd, specifically, in your opinion, backed by evidence, what makes THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS as it stands "a masterpiece"?

On your other point, I did not say that money an the object in Welles' mind (though he always liked to live well). But the apparatus and services provided in the early 1940's by a studio like RKO were imperative for the films he wanted to make. As I suggest above, the studio humbled him, leaving him in the wetlands of Eastern Brazil with a small crew, a single camera, and b&w film stock. Welles, admirably, went on to make a number of pictures with similar meager resources.

Indeed, Welles "did not know how to compromise," and we should praise him for that in many cases, but not, I think, in loss of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS -- which might have been a masterpiece.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn:

To clarify for you, I was trying to point out that both Guernica and AMBERSONS are regarded by critics of substance to be artistic masterpieces, but in their respective fields. I wasn't literally comparing the two, since they are obviously from completely different forms of artistic expression. I thought I had made that point clear, by saying twice in the same paragraph, "the point is..." Sorry if that confused you.

Now, to give you some critics of substance who put AMBERSONS on their ten best list of all time, here are some names I'm sure you will know:

Vincent Canby, Molly Haskell, John Russell Taylor and Allen Eyles... just four out of the 12 critics whose rankings landed AMBERSONS at the # 7 spot on the list of greatest films ever made in SIGHT AND SOUND's poll of international film critics in 1982.

And obviously your opinion is valid, and of course you should not alter it to be popular... did I ever say anything to suggest you should? What I did say was it was not a widely held view on a Welles forum, or in the general consensus of critical opinions, and I took special objection to your opinion that the film is "a mess," an opinion I disagree with quite emphatically!

[Glenn Anders]

Todd: Given your explanation, I wonder why you made the entry. Really, whether or not we think "Guernica" is a masterpiece, we can go to the museum or look at a print, and come to a conclusion. It's all there, in all of its magnificent abstract desolation. To call THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS a masterpiece evidently requires one to drag in portmanteau of memos, explanations of why a certain scene or piece of music should be where it is, or not where it is. You require us to dismiss the work of one worker on the film . . . but praise another. OR imagine what the film MIGHT have been like if other choices had been made by Orson Welles, the maker we most admire.

You didn't answer my question, Todd: '. . .Todd, specifically, in your opinion, backed by evidence, what makes THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS as it stands "a masterpiece"?'

I didn't ask you to throw in a bundle of critics. I asked you to explain, personally, what makes THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, "as it stands," a masterpiece?

As Mr. Rawlston said, in another context: "It'll probably turn out to be quite a simple thing."

Glenn

[Le Chiffre]

Lock outs are common today. They're called "down-sizings," or "lay-offs," and our movies and other popular arts say little about them.

Most of our fine arts, as well as our popular art, is decorative, easily adapted to commercial advertising, of little lasting value to ordinary people, except as the sensory Muzak in their lives. We value our art, as we do everything else, by how much money it makes.

…learn some history of why our Popular Arts offer so many explosions, meaningless sexual encounters, fart jokes and appeals to our greed. The fact is that large corporate, political and commercial interests think we are stupid; they have profits and data to support that idea. In case you hadn't noticed, they have defanged the once dangerous beast known as American Art

Well said, Glenn. Another good review; makes me want to see CRADLE again, despite it's negative portrayal of Welles. Maybe Robbins should have watched the IT'S ALL TRUE documentary before he made the film. He might have recognized Welles and Rivera as kindred spirits. The film's Rockefeller, John Cusack, has reportedly just turned Edgar Allen Poe into an asskicker, a 'la Robert Downey's Sherlock Holmes.

I did enjoy seeing MOMA when I was in New York a few years ago, but I don't remember much that was political about it. We do seem to have an impetus towards the separation of art and politics in the U.S. that's analogous to the separation of church and state. As for political/social commentary in Ambersons, the studio's version allowed Welles to touch on his anti-auto points (as in Eugene's speech and George's accident), but not to dwell on them. The original version of TMA was "defanged" as well as shortened.

[Glenn Anders]

Thank you, Mike: As a general rule, as you know, I'm sure, didacticism is the enemy of Art. Yet, most of the great works of Art tend to have philosophical or political judgments layered into their possible meaning. I think Tim Robbins speculation is a brilliant one in CRADLE WILL ROCK, that abstract expressionism and other styles of Modern Art appealed to people like Rockefeller and Hearst because they lent themselves to advertising. I'm sorry that he decided to make Orson Welles and John Houseman the clowns of the show. In the following interview with Charlie Rose, when CRADLE WILL ROCK came out, he explains almost apologetically why he made that choice [about half way through this 25 minute clip]:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3929

But it's true, isn't it, that a kind of Gresham's law in Art today seems to prevent most meaningful creative works from either finding its audience or registering with one?

Glenn

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks for the link, Glenn. Excellent interview.

[Le Chiffre]

TMA Memos Part 8:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1556

On Bonito the Bull they only have 40 per cent of what’s needed, though the accumulated expenses are $400,000—so we are just pouring money down the drainpipe……

I was astonished… that even you would have the audacity to turn over such a disgraceful synopsis to Lynn Shores. How in the world with such an outline you expect Shores or even your own men to carry on and give any loyalty to this company and yourself is beyond me to comprehend. The whole thing is a catastrophe, quite apart from the financial aspect: I placed my confidence in you because of my fervid desire to do something for this country… but let me remind you, you are making a picture for our company and are not down in South America as a representative of the Government or an Ambassador of Goodwill. That, while secondary, is something you naturally were supposed to do and it expected from any good American…

In Brazil, they will come to the conclusion that you, the one person in whom they have had confidence, have spoiled all their future possibilities of motion picture production. Everyone admires your work as ambassador, but quite evidently, you have come to the conclusion that you are down there representing the Coordinators office and not RKO.

It was one problem on Citizen Kane; sickness on Ambersons; $150,000 over on Journey Into Fear, now what is the answer in Brazil?

Too bad we don't have Welles's response to this, if he made one. After all, it was the Coordinator's Office that sent Welles down there in the first place. It's all pretty confusing, but the fact that BONITO had already consumed $400K is pretty telling. It seems to suggest that IT'S ALL TRUE was in serious trouble before Welles even left for Brazil.