'What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?' by Joseph McBride

[Christopher]

Tony,

Thank you for your excellent summary of Jonathan Rosenbaum's division of Welles biographers and commentators into two camps, pro and con, and for referring us to the three Rosenbaum articles, none of which I have read.

Norman Corwin, who knew Welles during his radio days, said in an interview that was screened last summer at the Locarno retrospective that he felt a lot of animosity towards Welles was the result of jealousy or envy. I would add ignorance of Welles's European films which are so rarely screened in the U.S. and a closed mind to the worth of his achievements after KANE.

It is my fervent hope that the next comprehensive Orson Welles retrospective will take place in the United States so that all of his films, complete and incomplete, can be seen in this country. I can't help thinking that if Schickel had been in Locarno last August, viewing all the footage, attending all the workshops, he might have modified his view of Welles.

[Iago]

Mr. Schickel is obviously a bitter, senile old man, who's envy for OW is very transparent from the opening paragraph of his book review. To claim (in print, no less) that Welles didn't direct anything worthwhile after 1942 shows that this old fart probably doesn't know his left hand from his right. Why would his editor, after proof reading Schikel's blabbering nonsense, allow the review to actually run? In a major newspaper no less. I guess we can add the old geezer to the list of other jealous OW haters like Kael and Higham. In the end, all you have are three people who time and history won't even remember long after they're gone. OW, on the other hand, is eternal!

[Tony]

Iago:
I've found no evidence to support the idea that Schickel is senile or bitter, and being old is certainly no crime; however, I do believe he shares certain assumptions with the Higham/Kael/Conrad/Carringer/Thomson camp (as outlined above) which inevitably lead him to his conclusions. His review was published because he's one of the most respected writers on film in the country, and has been since the late 60s. The Higham/Kael etc. camp all got their books and articles published, and continue to do so.

Christopher:
Your comment about jealousy reminded me that Oja Kodar mentioned this at Welles's funeral service; at the time, I thought perhaps she was just being emotional, but could it be she was right? I've always wondered why, when it was known he was having trouble making films especially from the 70s on, that few came to help in terms of the Hollywood community. Perhaps they actually shared Schickel's assumptions, or were unconsciously jealous; or perhaps they thought he was burned out, when in reality he was just as strong and original as ever: Big Brass Ring, the Dreamers and The Other Side of the Wind were all very unusual and unique when he was shopping them around (in fact, they probably still are). As Rosenbaum has pointed out, part of the problem was that Welles refused to repeat himself and turn himself into a commodity, like Hitchcock, Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese or Ron Howard. Investors want a sure bet, not something they've never seen before. One of the few directors I can see today who is uncompromising and truly original like Welles is Terry Gilliam, and he's always having financing problems; of course, he has what Welles had: real vision.

[tonyw]

:( Christopher. Even if Schickel had attended Locarno (and he would not since it is a formum for experts and scholars), nothing there would have made him change his mind. He is a merely a shallow reviewer who has to follow nonsensical popular myths such as the "decline of Orson Welles.". That is why newspapers and television appoint folksy commentators on the lines of Rush Limbaugh and Jonthan Ross in England who add nothing of depth to what they say and are mere empty show-biz personalities.

Also, since Kael comparisons have appeared in this thred, let me remind you of her reaction to the auteur theory when she said that she is not going to see any crappy film made by somebody like Phil Karlson to check up on whether the evidence is correct or not. he same thing is true about Schickel. He does not want to know. He also has belittled the influence of the blacklist which, indirectly, was responsible for Welles going to Europe in favor of biographies favoring the betraying figures of Elia Kazanm and others.

If Schickel actually considered the evidence we all know about, he would have to change his mind radically, admit he was wrong, and realize that Welles did represent a creative alternative to the Hollywood system. Were that so, it would not only finish him as an industrial-based critic, but the threats of withdrawl of advertizing space by the Hollywood machine and its multiple conglomerates would result in his removal from the well-paid, but trashy, type of biased journalism he produces for a system which now produces movies that are even worse than they were a decade ago.

The truth will become apparent as we all know in the near future. That is why Schickel is so desperate. He knows he is on the losing side and his work will eventually fall into the dustbin of critical writing unlike Welles who will grow more in stature. But it is a great shame as he said to Bogdanovich, "They will only appreciate me when I'm dead." In the meantime, this site started by Jeff and continued by Lawrence and others, as well as the informed postings here that will set the record straight.

[Iago]

"Tony wrote: I've found no evidence to support the idea that Schickel is senile or bitter, and being old is certainly no crime".

What are you, Shickel's son-in-law? Married to his daughter, are you? Either that or you've got a screw loose. No, I get it. You're Wellesnet's resident "devil's advocate". Taking the side of the unpopular, the unsubstantiated and the untrue.

I guess someone has to.

Back to lurking. It's funner that way.

:angry:

[Gordon]

Sorry to take the focus on this thread away from Mr. Pister's Third Volume, but I want to follow up on Christopher's

It is my fervent hope that the next comprehensive Orson Welles retrospective will take place in the United States so that all of his films, complete and incomplete, can be seen in this country. I can't help thinking that if Schickel had been in Locarno last August, viewing all the footage, attending all the workshops, he might have modified his view of Welles.

Can we reach consensus on a city to approach? The Filmuseum, to my knowledge, has made no commitment yet to a location, but it seems to prefer to hold a Welles Triennial in conjunction with an established film festival. What would be our choice to recommend to Munich as the best candidate in the United States to approach, following up on Christopher's suggestion, to host the 2008 Welles Triennial?

[Christopher]

Tonyw,

You are right. My vision of Schickel modifying his views at an Orson Welles retrospective -- in Locarno or elsewhere -- is mere wishful thinking. I should have remembered that some people are uncomfortable with greatness. It reminds them how small and insignificant they are, how soon they will be forgotten. These same people don't want to look up at anyone -- only down -- and the more charismatic the great person is, the more determined they are to shove him off his pedestal and bring him crashing down to their shabby level. We can all think of a number of charismatic individuals (in addition to Orson Welles) who have met this fate in recent times.

[Christopher]

Gordon,

I like your suggestion that Wellesnetters brainstorm on the subject of where to hold the next OW retrospective in the U.S., but perhaps we should start a new thread on this topic? Since it was your good idea, I'm leaving it up to you.

[Tony]

Iago:
My point was that we should not engage in personal attacks, but rather concentrate on building strong arguments against the attitudes of the Higham et.al. camp. Your post is not only intemperate and rude: it accomplishes nothing by attacking me.

[ToddBaesen]

I've started a seperate thread for the discussion of where to hold the next Welles conference if it should be held in the United States, so please post all further comments and suggestions there.

[Tony]

Just read about 2/3 of 'Whatever Happened to Orson Welles?', and I'm really shocked: McBride manages a much more devastating critique of Welles's personality than does Thompson, because McBride knew Welles and worked with him for several years. The picture he draws is one of a control freak, a man who could not accept equals in relationships, a man who dominated people, a man who could draw people in, but either quit the relationship once the intenisty grew too strong, or who became cold to the person (as with McBride) so that no true communication could happen. Also, a man who was an intellectually superficial thinker, who was a reductionist, self-righteous, and bullying. McBride himself actually cut off the relationship in order to escape the situation, and all he writes is very dissappointing, if one believed that Welles was a nice guy most of the time. The surprising thing is that all the reviews don't mention this; they are treating it as just another McBride apology on Welles, which it most certainly is not.
There are also some shockers in the book, and one that really sticks in my mind is regarding TOSOTW: according to McBride, Robert DeNiro offered to play Pellarin in Big Brass Ring, but Welles rejected him as too ethnic for the part. And DeNiro in 1982 had just won the academy award for Raging Bull 2 years before. When I read this, I was quite angry. I felt a lot less sorry for Welles when I read that.

All in all, a devastatingly ugly portrait of a man who, while a genius film maker, was an absolute amateur human being.

???

[Glenn Anders]

Tony: You seem to blow hot and cold to me.

I've been reading McBride's book, too. His portrait of Orson Welles seems no more condemnatory of him than several other books. Welles was indeed a complicated human being, as are many artists. I believe that he said to someone, perhaps to Bogdanovich, that you could have Independence, or you could have Love. You could not expect to have both.

I think it clear which he chose.

[Or, maybe to be fair, what circumstances chose for him, after a certain point.]

If you have spoken to McBride, as I have a couple of times, it is clear, no matter how they may have parted, that he retains great love and respect for Welles and his works.

Welles seems to have known himself better than many men. I know you don't believe that works of Art contain autobiographical references, but surely, from CITIZEN KANE to THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, Welles constantly throws in illustrative remarks and incidents which comment upon characters much like himself. Most of the people he fashioned and acted are not at all admirable human beings. Some of them, I would suggest, he knew only too well, for they were unpleasant sides of himself, which he used in creating his work.

The interview between Welles and Juan Cabos contributed by Larry French (safely back from Spain) contributes an insight into Welles' creative process, which shaded the roistering Falstaff into a melancholy, sad, but well-meaning figure.

Perhaps CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (which I have seen only once, in a poor copy) may, as French suggests, be his best work, the one where Welles combines the two sides of his nature most poignantly in an artistic work.

We have both agreed: It's the work that counts.

He could have spent his time, after all, perhaps a happier man, one you would have liked better in a biography, tony, just making cuckoo clocks! :p

Glenn

[Le Chiffre]

The picture he draws is one of a control freak, a man who could not accept equals in relationships, a man who dominated people, a man who could draw people in, but either quit the relationship once the intenisty grew too strong, or who became cold to the person (as with McBride) so that no true communication could happen.

Sounds like Kane or Mr. Clay

A few years ago I read McBride's book on Welles's acting career, and was rather surprised by it's harsh tone, since it was written during the late 70's, when McBride, presumably, still had some kind of working relationship with Welles. Here's a thread on it from three years ago:

McBride on Welles's 'Acting-Only' career

[RayKelly]

A feature story I have written on Joseph McBride's book is available today on www.masslive.com It is written for folks who have a casual interest in Welles. Here is the text:

Copyright 2006 Newhouse News Service -- All Rights Reserved.

Author Blames Hollywood, Politics for Welles' Eclipse

By RAY KELLY


`What Ever Happened to Orson Welles? A Portrait of an Independent Career' by Joseph McBride (University Press of Kentucky, $29.95).


Scores of books have been written about Orson Welles since his death in 1985, some by colleagues of the great director, others by film scholars.

Readers will find the best of both worlds in Joseph McBride's "What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?", which blames a combination of right-wing and Hollywood politics for Welles' fall from grace.

The director of "Citizen Kane" found that by the late 1940s, the major studios were no longer interested in his proposals, but the FBI and House Committee on Un-American Activities were fascinated with his politics. In the four decades that followed, Welles struggled to make movies on his own terms.

McBride, a professor in San Francisco State University's Cinema Department and author of 15 books, first met Welles in 1970. Then a budding young film critic, McBride was given a role in Welles' still unfinished satirical take on Hollywood, "The Other Side of the Wind."

Welles was dogged in his final years (and beyond) by accusations that he was a profligate filmmaker crippled by a fear of completion, McBride said in a telephone interview from his home in Berkeley, Calif.

"The myth collapses in the light of the facts," McBride said. "One of the reasons I wrote this book was that I was awfully tired of reading biased and ignorant reports of Orson Welles' life."

A review of 64-year-old box office records by McBride showed that Welles' sophomore film, "The Magnificent Ambersons," was performing well in some cities before the new head of RKO yanked it from distribution and pronounced it a flop.

McBride has unearthed RKO studio records from 1942 that reveal Welles had spent half of the $1.2 million budget earmarked for a South American film when he was fired and blamed for overspending. More likely, Welles was let go because "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons" were not commercial enough for the cash-strapped studio.

"He was used as a scapegoat by the new regime at RKO. They had taken a chance on an offbeat director," McBride said. "In his later years, Welles said he wished he had been the American Charles Dickens, but he never had that appeal, except in radio."

Unable to find support at the major studios, Welles left Hollywood in 1947 to make movies in Europe.

McBride persuasively argues that a contributing factor in Welles' decision was that he feared he would be called to testify during the communist witchhunt. Welles' progressive politics, which had earned him President Franklin Roosevelt's friendship, also brought him a spot on an FBI list of communists and subversives.

In Europe, he became what McBride calls a "one-man operation his own studio boss." Welles wrote, directed and starred in an adaptation of "Othello," which won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1952.

The seldom-seen "Chimes at Midnight," released in 1965, is considered one of Welles' finest works, though it had poor distribution in the United States.

Welles also directed a number of European television projects that received scant attention in America. Even less has been reported about his work in America between 1970 and 1985.

Until his death, Welles financed many of his own films through acting jobs and commercial work. He was often derided for pitching Paul Masson wines or appearing as an actor in lesser films.

"He was willing to compromise as an actor to make money, but he was unwilling to compromise himself as a director," McBride said. "To me, he is a great artist who tried his best ... but he was not meant to thrive in the Hollywood system."

As McBride researched Welles' unfinished film projects, he found each had a unique set of circumstances that prevented completion.

McBride said Welles was a poor businessman who often dealt with shady producers and made questionable choices.

"It's the fault of the system that there was no room for an Orson Welles," McBride said. "It's partly our fault as an audience that we did not support him as an artist."

Ray Kelly is arts and entertainment editor for The Republican of Springfield, Mass. He can be contacted at [email=rkelly@repub.com.]rkelly@repub.com.[/email]

[Tony]

All I can say is, if you've read the book, you'll know what I'm talking about; my post above focusses on the character of the man, not his work. What's devastating is that this critique comes from a solid supporter of the artist, for McBride has supported Welles since the 60s. But personally, he had to break from the man, as he found it impossible to continue a relationship with any kind of independence, which means Welles could only really accept people who did not strongly express differing opinions, and bullied those who disagreed. This actually reinforces my opinion (Glenn) that the work is totally seperate from the person: for me, Welles's work towers above all other English filmmakers, but the man was full of extreme flaws, and definitely his own worst enemy, both personally and professionally. In fact, in Welles's case, the work towers over the man, as is illustrated when McBride questions how Welles could be so reductionist, dogmatic, and black and white about issues in conversation, while as a filmmaker he illustrated the fundamental ambiguity of realty. What I find odd is that McBride doesn't connect Welles's personality more strongly with his professional problems: doesn't it seem obvious that Welles sabatoged himself far more often than any studio or producer? In fact, far from the work representing the man (as Glenn and David Thomson would have it) I believe Welles (the man) kept sabatoging Welles (the artist), therby further illustrating my belief that the artist is totally separated from the man. I wish I could remember who it was that said "The further the man is seperated from the art, the purer the art."

And Welles's art was very pure. :;):