Welles on Hollywood - Twilight in the Smog

[Le Chiffre]

Another interesting article by Welles printed in the news section recently was TWILIGHT IN THE SMOG, a late 1950's essay about Hollywood's transition from exclusively film production to television production as well. There are many interesting thoughts about art vs. industrial product, but I was especially struck by this passage:

As always, much fun is provided by the current sex symbols, but Jayne and Elvis are too patently creatures of the publicity experts, fuzzy carbon copies of the old freewheeling originals, the vamps and sheiks who invented themselves and lived up so gorgeously to their own legends. The recent crop of Method actors and the official representatives of the beatnik constituency are rather too sullen in their personal style to add much color to the pallid scene. The biggest noise they make is on their bongo drums and their gestures of protest are no less standardized than the conformist patterns they pretend to reject. They have their own conformism, these eagle scouts of The Actors Studio;there is no madness in their method.

Of the authentic mavericks the youngest, men like Mitchum and Sinatra, are in their forties.

As usual with Welles, some interpretation and reading between the lines, so to speak, is required. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Welles saying that, comparing Elvis Presley to Frank Sinatra is like comparing Jayne Mansfield to Marilyn Monroe?

[ToddBaesen]

Thanks for posting that quote...

Reading it out of context it brings up some interesting points... namely, that Welles, when he was writing the piece was in his forties, and very likely considered himself in a class with mavericks like Mitchum and Sinatra.

I don't think Welles was saying anything about comparisons, other than it may be too early to tell who is an authentic artist from who is a creation of the publicity machine. And of the people who may be artists, who among them are also the true mavericks, who would follow their art, as Welles did, and those who cave-in (for whatever reason) and "sell-out".

Of course, you don't know that at the start of somebody's career. Elvis and Brando for instance, who were both still quite young at the time. Another example would be the Beatles. Can you imagine John Lennon's career if had only listened to the advice of his publicity advisors and managment people at EMI? But as we now know in hindsight, people like Brando who started out as part of the system, quickly evolved into their own. They were called "eccentric genuis's, but they could at least dare to be different.

The creatures of the publicity machine, which no doubt Welles was decrying in his article, wouldn't dare to do anything without checking with their "handlers."

[Le Chiffre]

When Welles railed against the method actors, I was wondering whether he was talking about Brando or James Dean or others. The idea of an actor selling out is one of Welles's most interesting points in the article, such as when he calls Henry Irving's acceptance of an honorary knighthood 'an abdication from royalty', the point at which he ceased to influence society through his art and became influenced by society. But Irving, whose manager Bram Stoker reportedly used him as the model for DRACULA, was likely one of Welles's theatrical idols, and his flamboyant style was something Welles certainly carried the torch of, long after it had gone out of fashion and even into the era of method acting.

Glad you mentioned The Beatles, because their story reminds me of Welles in some ways. They always followed their muse no matter what, and their years together could be seen as analogous to the years Welles, Houseman and the Mercury were at their peak. Eventually they all became scattered solo acts too. Since Elvis was a friend of Nixon's, I doubt if he and Welles would have seen eye to eye on much, except food maybe.