Evil David Thomson Given Middling Marks in the NY Times:

[Glenn Anders]

In an excerpt attached to a Times review by Caryn James of the first volume of David Thomson's autobiography, Try To Tell the Story, a clue to Thomson's depravity which so enrages Todd Baesen and others here is revealed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/books ... u&emc=bua2

The first volume, which Miss James calls "slight" (only 214 pages), follows Thomson to his 18th birthday. Raised by his mother and grandmother in London, he is haunted by the War and the absence of his cheating, abandoning father. Rather like Laurie Lee in Cider with Rosie, he comforts himself by indulging in fantasies. One of them, confessed in Chapter One, is that his "real father" is not the apparently cruel Philco Radio salesman he sees on occasion but none other than our Orson Welles, or alternatively, the famed British athlete, Denis Compton. You can see this perfidy quoted for yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/books ... ref=review

Presumably, a matinee ticket to the local Tooting Classic movie theater gave Thomson time with one of his avatar dads, whenever he could come up with a few pence:

The question remains, awaiting further volumes of the work: Who is David Thomson, really? Sometimes, here in San Francisco where Thomson claims he lives, I wonder why Baesen wears a mask at the Ha-Ra Club, and sips his gimlets through a straw. Or why Lawrence French pulls his cloth cap so far down over his eyes when he smiles sardonically at his trusting fans, as if savoring a secret. Could Todd Baesen be David Thomson? [It's not the first time that I've asked you to entertain this astounding idea.] Could Thomson be French? [Don't be fooled by his his little conceit that he was born English.] And who is Simon Callow? What better disguise for a man like Thomson, while heaping calumnies on Orson Welles, than to hide in plain slight as a well-known actor and scholar? [It does have a Shakespearean ring, does it not]

I had a dream last night. A phone call was in progress:

". . . right. Yes, we seek Todd Baesen. The BBC calling. Prototype Pictures announced today that Todd Baesen had been signed to play the title character, Lawrence French, in their projected new epic film, LAWRENCE OF ALAMO SQUARE, supported by Simon Callow as Orson Welles in his later years. Mr. Callow, it is said, will finance the project himself. Are you Mr. Baesen? I say, the line is breaking up, and . . . ."

Indeed, who is Glenn Anders? I wish I knew now, some days.

Why is it not wildly probable that any of us, in our Brave New Cyber World, may be David Thomson? We also may be puppets of Simon Callow, who has bought and paid for us, wrapped in a tidy net! Can you not see him taking us out of our little boxes, pulling our strings, pushing our buttons?

In a famous, favorite phrase from my childhood: "Quick, Henry! The Flit!"

Henry the IV . . . Henry the V . . . I don't know which . . . .

Glenn Anders

[Alfred Willmore]

I think Mack Reisarf is, in fact, David Thomson

[Glenn Anders]

A-ha! I salute you, Willmore. Such perception should be celebrated and rewarded, no matter how misguided.

You are evidently a busy fellow, judging by the paucity of your entries. But let us have more of your insights, we pray you. There will be a special place reserved for you in the cellar of The Ha-Ra Club (between the weasley Baesen and our illustrious Lawrence French -- LAWRENCE OF ALAMO SQUARE)!

A man who has often been a prey at Wellesnet invites you for a little "target practice."

Glenn Anders

[Alfred Willmore]

I will host you and Baeson at Orson's in August.

[Glenn Anders]

You're on, my mysterious friend. Orson's in August, it is! And thank you.

I shall retain a private investigator from the Miles and Irma [sic] Archer Memorial Information Center, here in San Francisco, to keep you safe from Todd Baesen.

Glenn

[Alfred Willmore]

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s ... s&aq=f&oq=

I think one of these photos could be the official photo of the Wellesnet Augustfest at Orson's

[Glenn Anders]

A most handsome collection, Alfred.

My inclination would be for a photo which would honor you or Lawrence French -- possibly both of you.

Glenn

[nextren]

Nice photos of Welles...but who is that happy gentleman on the "far right" of the first row? (Is it Larry French?)

[Glenn Anders]

It all depends upon your perspective, nextren.

[ToddBaesen]

Evil David T. has a new piece on OW today in the UK Guardian, which as I've noted below contains at least four lies in only the first paragraph!

Now, how can anyone call this man a "good" biographer or a competent journalist is quite beyond me. Glenn will no doubt chide me and say it's because he has a nice prose style. Which is fine, but I'd much rather read someone who knows the facts about Orson Welles career than someone who can embellish them with his fanciful prose style.

________

ORSON WELLES: THE MOST GLORIOUS FILM FAILURE OF THEM ALL!

Orson Welles's ignominious decline has been well-documented, but he still fascinates and inspires like no other in film. Why? Because, he will never be bettered, writes David Thomson.

________

You can say he was a failure – but that only leads to a more demanding appreciation of success than numbers will ever satisfy (George Lucas, I read the other day, has a net worth of around $5 billion). Orson Welles never directed a picture that made a profit in his lifetime. (Total LIE) He died, alone and broke, in a cottage in the Hollywood hills on 10 October 1985 (Total LIE) at which point his affairs and his estate passed into a chaos that he had known and engineered for most of his life (disputed LIE). This disorder is such that at least one film, The Other Side of the Wind, which was nearly finished while Welles was alive (disputed LIE), has still not been delivered to us.

At the root of Welles's fascination lies this question: how can anyone so creative be so self-destructive?


Now, as Glenn Anders will note, I have not read ROSEBUD, but here is the reason why, as Jonathan Rosenbaum explains so well in his recent article about ME AND ORSON WELLES:


Welles mythopoeia may help to explain why the least researched of all Welles biographies, David Thomson’s ROSEBUD—that is to say, the one most invented out of whole cloth—is commonly regarded by nonspecialists as the best, presumably meaning the most apt and insightful even while it imputes various failings to the man (including racism, classism, and declining productivity) that have no demonstrable basis in fact. Two characteristically unsupported sentences in Rosebud: “There is sometimes a perilous proximity of old-fashioned racial stereotype and yearning sympathy” (posited in Welles’s affection for some black people and black music) and “Welles...always liked his revolutionaries to be sophisticated and well-heeled” (an assertion refuted by the Brazilian fishermen and communists he insisted on hanging out with in 1942, to the consternation of some “well-heeled” government officials and studio spies).

But because Thomson is clever enough to know what some people want to believe about Welles as well as what they prefer to ignore, the falsity of his portrait “rings true” according to the myth, and for many people it continues to hold water. To some extent, Kaplow seems to be banking on a similar trait in his own readers.

________


Now, to be fair, let me give Mr. Thomson the last word from his totally ill-researched article:

At the root of Welles's fascination lies this question: how can anyone so creative be so self-destructive?

[Glenn Anders]

What Toddy Baesen fails to realize when he attacks David Thomson's Guardian column about Orson Welles, CITIZEN KANE, and later career is that Thomson is only making an accurate distinction between the artist, the art, and the human being who produced the art. Thomson tells us that Welles the Artist, in all his multitudinous interests, was uncompromising and well ahead of his time, a judgment likely to remain so, even in regards work sometimes not up to his greatest hopes. The Art, as Thomson repeatedly states, at its best, is incomparable, a model for those who came after, a challenge to a recently "sleeping" Cinema, and always interesting, in part or whole. Welles the man, Thomson tells us, was a fascinating individual, whose great failing derived from his inability to bend his knee (read, kow-tow) to the businessmen who controlled his artistic purse strings. That pressure produced a personality who affected every man or woman he ever met quite differently, and many times struck them as quixotic (in the finest and worst sense of the term).

Those who loved and knew Orson Welles best were often frustrated, hurt or angered by him, but both they, and a number who hated him, could also be charmed by him. That's an observation you may discover anew when you get to read In My Father's Shadow by Chris Welles Feder, his first born daughter's brilliant, intimate, and affecting memoir.

Toddy, except out of blind prejudice, how can you attack this article by David Thomson? It devotes ninety percent of its space to praising our hero, Orson Welles? Did you actually bother to read the article? or did you simply resort to your general practice of quoting a largely out of relevant context reference by one of your favorite critics (and mine)? You freely admit to not reading books or to not having finished viewing films you lose patience with. [You even walked out of my own home on COME AND SEE, one of the most profound and original war films ever made.]

How does David Thomson sum up Orson Welles' career? Not the way you would have it. Perhaps, you began to feel a lit-t-t-t-le bit sleepy and didn't quite reach Thomson's actual conclusion.

In your typical fashion, you fall back on craven canards such as calling Thomson's remarks "total LIE" or "disputed LIE" (whatever that means; disputed by whom?), and then TOTALLY MISSTATING "the last word of his totally ill-researched article."

Thomson's last word is actually: "Real sadness is being worth $5bn [like George Lucas or Steven Spielberg] and not knowing what to do with it."

Don't you get it, Toddy?

Thomson is saying that Orson Welles never sold out, not even in the last moments of his life, no matter what this critic or that director or a once old friend might have thought about some of his individual choices.

In other words, Welles was both a brave genius and totally human -- noble and foolish.

As when others have occasionally failed to meet his high standards, I suggest that fellow Wellesnetters take the time to really read what Toddy Baesen tells us Thomson [in this case] truly wrote or created.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct ... tizen-kane

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn:

I would ask you to address the two total lies I pointed out before going any further. You simply ignore those undisputed lies, which if nothing else, make Mr. Thomson a very bad journalist.

Now, tell me, do you really agree with Thompson when he says:

"Orson Welles never directed a picture that made a profit in his lifetime."

Now, anyone who knows Orson Welles work will realize this is a complete and total lie and a mis-statement of the facts. If you don't agree, please tell me the Welles movie you don't realize actually made money for it's producer?

Do you also agree with Mr. Thompson when he says:

"He died, alone and broke, in a cottage in the Hollywood hills on 10 October 1985."

Another complete and total lie and mis-statement of facts.

"a cottage" -- and "broke" even though he lived in a Hollywood Hills mansion and his estate was worth well over a million dollars. I'd like to die as broke and in such a cottage!

So, please explain why you think otherwise, or how you can simply ignore this mis-statement of fact by Mr. Thomson.

Perhaps, it's because he's not writing a factual biography, but a fanciful re-imagination of Welles life.

Maybe, but I doubt that if Orson Welles were alive he would approve of anything Mr. Thomson had to say about him, and we certainly know Nicole Kidman did not "approve" of his book about her!

In that case, Mr. Thomson fabricated stories to gain an interview with Ms. Kidman, which she later called him out on.

I also have to wonder what Chris Welles might think about Mr. Thomson's latest article. Perhaps she can enlighten us if we get to question her when she visits San Francisco next month... who knows, maybe Mr. Thomson may also show up to see her at The Rafael theater... but I doubt she will be very happy to see him!

[ToddBaesen]

Here is what Jonathan Rosenbaum posted at his blog regarding David Thomson's inaccurate article...

JONATHAN ROSENBAUM: It’s obvious by now that David Thomson is never going to relinquish his unwarranted and unvarying baseline assumption about Orson Welles (see his column in today’s Guardian) that he was a failure whose life and career consisted of nothing but “decline”. Why? Because what Thomson means by success is precisely what he’s achieved himself: uncontroversial popularity and acclaim, taking popular and comforting positions that irritate no one except for a few diehards like me. If failure actually means failure to tell people what they already think and failure to support what they already believe, then I can only agree — Welles was a failure through and through. Unlike Thomson, a glorious success whose career can be described only as continuous ascent into the stratosphere. If only Welles could have turned himself into a David Thomson, goes the apparent assumption, then everybody would be happy.

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Todd: Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but as you are aware, I have more to worry about these days than these character assassinations of David Thomson and the trashing of his works; unfortunately, more importantly, the trivialization of a beautiful memoir by Chris Welles Feder. I trust that when you get around to reading IN THE SHADOW OF MY FATHER, you will have more to praise (or criticize) about the work than the color of the dust jacket (much as I know Mrs. Feder liked the improvements) and the editing, professionally effective though that may be.

And the idea that a principal value of IN THE SHADOW OF MY FATHER is its appraisal of the pedagogical methods of the Hills in formulating Todd School, while possibly true, strikes me as somehow off the mark. The important point that Chris Feder makes about the place of Skipper and Hortense Hill in her life is that they offered her stable, responsible and dependably together mother and father figures which she otherwise never had otherwise. Or what can we make of the notion that the memoir is strongly related to Nick Hornby's latest novel about his favorite subject, obsessive nerds and collectors!

What is tedious about these disagreements is that we talk past each other. Our fellow Wellsian keats, for instance, does not counter my arguments but simply launches attacks of his own.

It's a waste of everyone's time, I agree.

And so, Todd, if I have contributed to this impasse by not countering the "TOTAL LIES" by Thomson you specify, let me do so now:

TOTAL LIE #1: "Orson Welles never directed a picture that made a profit in his lifetime."

The problem here is that Thomson lives in "the reel world of Hollywood." You and I may not agree with that world, but the Studios had and have the accountants. In the old days, finances were pretty fast and loose. As the Studios grew, they wanted to put their operations on "a business basis." They developed theories of proration for days in production, stars' contracted salaries, the cost of maintaining the studio editing and art departments, the employment of composers and musicians, etc., the huge expense of prints, PR, and distribution -- in the good old days, the maintenance of their theater chains. They called it overhead, and they wanted to close their books within a season or fiscal year.

An RKO film, say, like 1939's GUNGA DIN ("quoted" in CITIZEN KANE) was initially regarded a failure because Director George Steven's going over schedule and budget by shooting more days on location at Lone Pine than scheduled. The coming of World War II made this rousing military film profitable, and postwar re-releases rolled up huge profits for the period.

[Now-a-days, as we can not avoid the ordeal of negative or drawn out publicity, they want to declare a film or a star a financial success or failure within a weekend! And many of the profit-loss balance sheets for pictures made before 1950 are no longer available. We are indebted to really knowledgeable film industry people like Roger Ryan for many of the accurate reports we have.]

A fairer question would be, Todd, what Welles' film would you declare a financial success, one "that made a profit during Welles' lifetime"?

Using the above criteria -- and remember, like it or not, accountants, short of indictment, will give you any answer you ask them to give -- the conventional answer would be THE STRANGER, which Welles claimed he directed to show that he could do a money-making picture.

What would be your candidates among Welles completed films, using the above criteria, Todd.

TOTAL LIE #2: "He died, alone and broke, in a cottage in the Hollywood hills on 10 October 1985."

Well, unless you believe that the Prince Alessandro Tasca di Cuto sat around with a dead body on the evening of October 9, 1985, until his chauffeur found it during the morning of the 10th, Welles did die alone. There is some question as to where he actually did die. If he died in the leased house he maintained for himself and Oja Kodar, he did not die in a cottage but hardly a mansion in LA terms. Some say that he actually passed on in a cottage set aside for Sasa Devcic. Welles may not have "died broke," but by Hollywood standards, $500,000 a year income was not then a really a lot of money. It would be a lot of money for me, even for you, Todd. But you have to remember, Todd, that Orson Welles LIVED LARGE, and ploughed most of his income back into his projects, much to the consternation of the phalanxes of women who took care of him (some of whom he was supposed to be caring for).

Please read Chris Welles Feder's description of his funeral, which keats seems to dismiss as some kind of adjunct to the look of her book, Todd, and then tell me he died a wealthy man, either in terms of money or immediate friends.

I want to go do other things, kid. I have several projects lined up before a review of IN THE SHADOW OF MY FATHER, which I want to get to as soon as possible.

Glenn

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Todd: Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but as you are aware, I have more to worry about these days than these character assassinations of David Thomson and the trashing of his works; unfortunately, more importantly, the trivialization of a beautiful memoir by Chris Welles Feder. I trust that when you get around to reading IN THE SHADOW OF MY FATHER, you will have more to praise (or criticize) about the work than the color of the dust jacket (much as I know Mrs. Feder liked the improvements) and the editing, professionally effective though that may be.

And the idea that a principal value of IN THE SHADOW OF MY FATHER is its appraisal of the pedagogical methods of the Hills in formulating Todd School, while possibly true, strikes me as somehow off the mark. The important point that Chris Feder makes about the place of Skipper and Hortense Hill in her life is that they offered her stable, responsible and dependably together mother and father figures which she otherwise never had otherwise. Or what can we make of the notion that the memoir is strongly related to Nick Hornby's latest novel about his favorite subject, obsessive nerds and collectors!

What is tedious about these disagreements is that we talk past each other. Our fellow Wellsian keats, for instance, does not counter my arguments but simply launches attacks of his own.

It's a waste of everyone's time, I agree.

And so, Todd, if I have contributed to this impasse by not countering the "TOTAL LIES" by Thomson you specify, let me do so now:

TOTAL LIE #1: "Orson Welles never directed a picture that made a profit in his lifetime."

The problem here is that Thomson lives in "the reel world of Hollywood." You and I may not agree with that world, but the Studios had and have the accountants. In the old days, finances were pretty fast and loose. As the Studios grew, they wanted to put their operations on "a business basis." They developed theories of proration for days in production, stars' contracted salaries, the cost of maintaining the studio editing and art departments, the employment of composers and musicians, etc., the huge expense of prints, PR, and distribution -- in the good old days, the maintenance of their theater chains. They called it overhead, and they wanted to close their books within a season or fiscal year.

An RKO film, say, like 1939's GUNGA DIN ("quoted" in CITIZEN KANE) was initially regarded a failure because Director George Steven's going over schedule and budget by shooting more days on location at Lone Pine than scheduled. The coming of World War II made this rousing military film profitable, and postwar re-releases rolled up huge profits for the period.

[Now-a-days, as we can not avoid the din of publicity, they want to declare a film or a star a financial success or failure within a weekend! And many of the profit-loss balance sheets for pictures made before 1950 are no longer available. We are indebted to really knowledgeable film industry people like Roger Ryan for many of the accurate reports we have.]

A fairer question would be, Todd, what Welles' film would you declare a financial success, one "that made a profit during Welles' lifetime"?

Using the above criteria -- and remember, like it or not, accountants, short of indictment, will give you any answer you ask them to give -- the conventional answer would be THE STRANGER, which Welles claimed he directed to show that he could do a money-making picture.

What would be your candidates among Welles completed films, using the above criteria, Todd.

TOTAL LIE #2: