George Hickenlooper and THE BIG BRASS RING

[Le Chiffre]

As a small tribute to the late George Hickenlooper, here's a few excerpts from threads he contributed to from the old Welles board. Some concern his film adaptation of Welles's screenplay for THE BIG BRASS RING:

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

Posted by George Hickenlooper on June 24, 1999 at 09:07:51:

This is excellent. I had no idea there was an Orson Welles message board. Bravo to the genius who started it!
I've read all the various entries regarding the film version of "Brass Ring" which I directed and adapted with my co-writer F.X. Feeney from the original script by Orson Welles. The film stars William Hurt, Nigel Hawthorne, Miranda Richardson, Irene Jacob, Ewan Stewart, Gregg Henry, Ron Livingston,and Jefferson Mays.

As I get more information about the future of my film I will post it. Once again, bravo to all those Welles fans and aficionados out there who keep his memory alive.

*

JW: Good luck with the film. I look forward to seeing it. As a fellow (albeit former) St. Louisan, I wish you the best. Hopefully, I can make it back home when the film plays there. I'm curious to know what attracted you to that script. I don't think it's one of his best, although it does have some interesting stuff in it.

*

HICKENLOOPER: Dear JW, thanks for your interest. First, BRASS RING will be screening in St. Louis as the opening night film of the film festival there. That'll happen sometime in November. Secondly, you might be interested to know that the film was shot in St. Louis which leads to my answer to you question about the script. The screenplay I used to shoot the film was actually an adaptation. Though I loved the dynamic of the story's central relationship between Pellarin and Mennaker, I felt that much of the original script felt incomplete, as if it were a thumb nail sketch that Welles were to flesh out as he shot. I would never be presumptuous in trying to second guess what Welles would have done. Stylistically that would have been like trying to shoot PSYCHO II.

Ultimately, what I loved about the original script, as flawed as it may have been was how richly drawn the characters were, and how Welles had so brilliantly made a beautiful poem about the state of America at the end of the 20th century. It was that essence which I tried to capture. When you go see my film, don't expect to see something directed by Welles. Though my own shooting style has many Wellesian flourishes, I tried to shoot the film with a certain mis-en-scene quality. I actuall thought more about John Ford and Renior when I shot the picture than I did about Welles.

I treated this project strictly as an adaptation. I've been criticized for this of course, but I was simply looking at Welles as the writer -- the brilliant writer that he was, regardless of Pauline Kael's insipid essay. Welles in many respects was the Shakespeare of the American cinema. So, if Welles adapted Shakespeare, why not adapt Welles. His characters are so timeless they lend themeselves beautifully to interpretation.
Thanks, yours, George.

*

JW: I had heard you had adapted the script Welles wrote, and I can imagine some people had a problem with that. Frankly, it's just a script, not a finished film, so one should expect it to be altered in production. Certainly Welles would have tinkered with it had he gotten the chance to film it. Nobody has really done anything of this sort yet, so you're really treading in uncharted waters to a certain extent. I'm looking forward to seeing what you've done with it. Hopefully, this will encourage other filmmakers and studios to make some of Welles' unproduced scripts.

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

RESPONSE TO JONATHON ROSENBAUM'S NEGATIVE REVIEW OF THE BIG BRASS RING:

Posted by George Hickenlooper on November 30, 1999 at 19:50:21:

Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of broadcasting my opinions in a major alternative newspaper because I am not a world renowned famous film scholar like Mr. Rosenbaum. Over the years, I have enjoyed Mr. Rosenbaum's opinions (I think he is one of the better critics in the country), I have enjoyed his scholarship, and I have respected his perseverance in preserving an "unadulterated" memory of Orson Welles. However, at this point, I must object to his persistent bashing of my filmed ADAPTATION of the Orson Welles script "The Big Brass Ring". I regret that this is the only forum I have to do so, but nevertheless, here goes.

When Mr. Rosenbaum first learned of my intention to adapt BBR, he brought it up in his rather mediocre review of my film "The Low Life." I'm not sure what relevance BBR had to this film, nevertheless, Mr. Rosenbaum found the space to chastise me for even having the thought. Subsequently, I knew I was doomed in his eyes from the very beginning.

Now that BBR is finished, I don't mind that Mr. Rosenbaum doesn't like it. I know for a fact that he saw it at a screening at the Toronto Film Festival. A screening in which, by the way, the film broke, there was a twenty-minute forced intermission and when the film re-started three minutes of a crucial, expositional scene was not shown (a nightmare for any filmmaker, believe me). And whatever Mr. Rosenbaumís opinions may be about my film, let me make it clear that I am not pining away to be celebrated by his inner circle of aesthetes, a circle that includes mostly publications of leftist leanings that have insidiously contributed to the debasing of American art in literature, fine art, and most blatantly, the cinema. I would equate the current state of film criticism and independent film in general to that ridiculous "Sensation" exhibit at the Brooklyn museum. We live in a kind of Hellenistic, hedonistís age where aesthetics and criticism have become bankrupt (like the avant garde) to the point of becoming a celebration of meaningless shock value -- kind of like a fart in the wind. Now, I would say that Mr. Rosenbaum is less guilty of this than most. Most of the blame frankly exists with Janet Maslin and all of the other solipsistic sycophants of Pauline Kael, but here I digress, so let me get back to the point.

Mr. Rosenbaum is welcome rip apart my movie, I only wish that he would look at the film on its own terms. ITS OWN TERMS. Critics who have successfully done this are Stephen Hunter of "The Washington Post" and Howard Rosenberg of "The Los Angeles Times" among others. But in a way, I can understand why Mr. Rosenbaum is doing this, because after all, he is the most persistent keeper of the Wellesian flame, and fancies himself a purist, no doubt. And here let me challenge Mr. Rosenbaum with the word "hypocrisy" by asking the question IS Mr. Rosenbaum more guilty of aesthetic arrogance by pretending he can step into the shoes of Mr. Welles and properly reconstruct "Touch of Evil" from a 58 page memo. Welles was known to be highly improvisational, even in the cutting room, so wasn't this memo a simple reaction to the changes that the studio wanted? In other words, did this memo reflect pure changes, pure Wellesian changes, or were they a frightened reaction to what Universal was doing to his film? What I'm trying to say is that Mr. Rosenbaum is just as guilty for tampering with the Welles memory as anyone (and let us not forget that he was paid money for his consultation), and perhaps more guilty of hubris by his repeated insistence that "Touch of Evil" is an honest reflection of Welles' vision.

I, on the other hand, never pretended to be stepping into Welles' shoes. If Mr. Rosenbaum had bothered reading any of the press material to BBR, he would have learned that my writing partner F.X. Feeney and I treated this as an ADAPTATION. We adapted this like we would adapt any great piece of literature, from William Shakespeare to T.S. Elliot. We looked at the script as a kind of unfinished poem that only Mr. Welles himself could have realized (so unlike Mr. Rosenbaum and the "Touch of Evil" crew, we were not trying to assume to have the genius touch of Mr. Welles). We were simply being inspired by him and the timelessness of his great writing, as Mr. Chaplin was on Mssr. Verdoux.

However, I am being dragged through the coals because I am not Mr. Chaplin (nor is BBR Mssr Verdoux), nor am I Mr. Welles, but I am rather a no name documentary filmmaker who has virtually no reputation in the crititical world. And since most critics (not Mr. Rosenbaum) are sheep and have very little ability to judge movies on their own terms, unless they come out of Cannes, Sundance, Toronto, or New York or unless they are by a "name" director, or unless they fit some hedonistic or political chic, then they ultimately will be dismissed, because critics' editors of these various newpapaers and alternatives won't be interested in giving those unknows filmmakers space, because after all, space is limited and advertising revenue is more important than ever (again here I digress, but all things are relative to even those leftists who pretend to be the sole perveyors of integrity in the capitalist world).

So, in the end, I only ask that BBR be judged on its own terms. And as difficult as this may be for Mr. Rosenbaum to do (after all he published the original BBR screenplay in 1987 with an invaluable essay on the history of the project), it is only fair. I never set out to try to assume Mr. Wellesí vision. I was trying to make my own film (as brazen as that might be) inspired by his idea, and idea that personally struck a chord with me. If anything, in the end, I would hope that my film would only bring more attention to the SOURCE material, to the ORIGINAL Welles script, and to Welles as a writer, a reputation that was substantially diminished in Pauline Kaelís unscholarly essay "Raising Kane." If anything, I hope that this dialogue will be a healthy one between me and Mr. Rosenbaum and in the end, will only draw more attention to the great master Orson Welles. And if Mr. Rosenbaum continues to have problems with young filmmakers taking on Mr. Welles, then he should go to the source of the estate itself, Oja Kodar, and ask her not to license the rights to any of his work. But then, I doubt he would ever do that, for he cannot afford to alienate Mrs. Kodar for that would negatively affect his own pursuits, many of which are monetary regardless of their honorable intentions.

*
John Koehler: It is difficult for any creative personality to accept criticism which seems all too high-handed, even arbitrary. Kael's purposefully sensational "expose'" of Welles' supposed plagiarism, his innate lack of writing talent, as she claimed, is an example. It hurt him deeply. When David Lean was once asked to be a guest at a conference of critics upon the release of Ryan's Daughter, he was told to his face (by a well known critic) that the film was "a bunch of bullshit." Criticism? Or jealousy? Or patent ignorance? Certainly a lack of basic courtesy.

Mr Rosenbaum has done more for the contemporary re-evaluation and appreciation of Welles than anyone, Bogdanovich a close second. Rosenbaum takes a no-nonsense and scholarly approach to his subject, clarifying many an apochryphal legend or misleading anecdote. Often, when someone in a position such as this takes on what too many others ignore, then by word and deed rights the critical wrongs, he sets his own terms for orthodoxy. Any interloper must be regarded as pagan, lest the work of Keeping the Flame be diminished. This is a natural attitude.

Consideration should have been given to your own personal esteem for Welles; a consultation with you, BBR's director, initiated by Mr Rosenbaum would at the very least have steered the criticism away from Welles Orthodoxy toward a film which claimed to be nothing more than a Welles adaptation, to be judged on its own merits.

As someone who has no authority or professional competence with respect to judgment of Rosenbaum or your picture, yet one who admires Welles as one of the century's greatest artists, it is regrettable to witness conflict where unity of purpose should play. You BBR is an *adjunct* to Welles, not necessarily an interpretation, or realization of his unfinished work. It should be viewed as such. Similarly the restored Touch of Evil, which I had the pleasure to see in a restored old movie palace: this is an exercise in Welles scholarship, not pure Welles (he did not edit personally). I am grateful for your film and for Rosenbaum's work to bring back TOE. Your audience, in the theater, at the bookstore, is the ultimate critic. That audience would have precious little to sustain them without people like Hickenlooper and Rosenbaum.

No. My only claim to respond is the fact that I was born and live in a town 33 miles away from Kensoha, Welles' birthplace! I fell for him big when I first saw Kane, when I was a callow 21 years old. I haven't lost my respect or admiration for him since. Just as I appreciate the efforts of you and Rosenbaum, Callow and Carringer, and Bogdanovich, certainly. In my eyes you are colleagues. High-handed criticism is a personal conceit and ultimately non-productive. You should have been extended the courtesy of input before the critique was written.


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

Robin: I'm looking forward to finally being able to see the film. Could you please tell us Mr. Hickenlooper, why the film is in such a limited release? With all of the talented cast, William Hurt, Ewan Stewart etc. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. If you have time, would you be able to tell us a little bit more about what your experiences were while making the film? Thank you and best wishes, Robyn

*

HICKENLOOPER: Dear Robyn, thank you for your interest in THE BIG BRASS RING. Though the film has already garnered several outstanding reviews, and the overall audience response has been overwhelmingly positive, it still will not get a decent theatrical release. Why? The only answer I can give is that people who work in acquisitions are afraid of the picture, I believe. One top level studio person told me that the film was "brilliant," but that it was "too intellectual." In fact, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, which gave it a favorable review, called the movie uncommonly erudite."

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the American cinema in general has reached an all time low in quality. Call me a sour grape, but if you just look at the movies that are released into the market place today versus 25 years ago (i.e. NASHVILLE, RAGING BULL, FIVE EASY PIECES, THE CONVERSATION, TWO LANE BLACK TOP, etc.), well, 
there is no comparison. Anything that has an ounce of intelligence or originality tends to get quarantined into obscurity.

I'm thinking of making a film about lesbian pornographers who swing between heroine and meth-anphetamines. Then,
perhaps I'll pique somebody's interest.
Anyway, see the film if you can. Let me know what you think. I hope you like it, and if not, I'd love to hear why.

Yours sincerely,
George H.

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

NOTE OF THANKS TO GEORGE HICKENLOOPER:

John Koehler: With all the criticism coming from certain self-anointed Defenders of Welles, I didn't know what to expect in George Hickenlooper's Big Brass Ring. After months of working overtime, catching only snatches of the film on Showtime, I finally last night, at 9 p.m., put on my new DVD version of the film, intending just to see if the transfer was up to par. I was so damned exhausted from the mundane office labors. Then, the film brought me back to life. I had to stay with the picture until then end, then listen to about 30 minutes of the GH/Feeney commentary.

As a devout Wellesian, I discovered all I could hope for: Welles' preoccupation with male/male relationships, the homoerotic undertones which became more apparent in his later writing, though they had been there as early as Bright Lucifer, the political commentary, the literary quotations so dear to him, the ponderings on love ("I hate love, because I need it." CK: "Here's to love on my terms. Those are the only terms anyone understands."), the nods to Wellesian camera angles, the Richard Welles allegory, the part of each human life which is dark or hateful yet which is one of the only things we each of us can truly call our own...on and on the spirit of Welles was called, acknowledged, indeed sanctified.

Finally, a picture with substance, cinematic skill, genuine talent in front of and behind the camera (Hurt is nothing less than superb). This is a work of art I have longed for since Mr Welles' death. A perfect homage to one of the 20th Century's truly genial men (the denotation meaning infused with genius). Those critics who cannot understand the film, who complain about a muddled story linearity, or unclear flashbacks, or poor construction generally would undoubtedly say the same of Kane were it premiered today. BBR is not passive entertainment. The viewer must pay attention, not eat popcorn. The director and Feeney and Welles assumed some literacy in their audience as well. Watching the film is an intellectual challenge, not a shoot-em-up light show.

I discovered Welles when I was 21, just at the time the shrewish Pauline Kael asserted that Welles was only a buffoon, a plagiarist, a man who stole credit from Herman Mankiewicz. Of course I knew who he was from his appearances on TV and in the movies of other directors, stints of "buffonery" undertaken solely to finance his own projects. He was then and still is to many a jovial big man, a raconteur, a magician of practice and of guile. To those who saw what he actually was, first revealed with Kane and its myriad autobiographical clues, and who took the time to learn more about him, all that jocular public posturing covered a much deeper intellect, a more profound and philosphical real Welles. This aspect is amply reflected in Hickenlooper's Ring.

It is NOT a Welles film. It is a respectful homage. It is Wellesian enough to take the place of what could have been had the Master himself been able to direct it. It is the understudy to this "lost" Welles film. It is welcome reward to one such as me, hungering for more from his dead hero.

Few movies leave me with impressions that take days to digest. Kane was the first to have that effect on me, Vertigo another example. BBR is now added to that short list.
Mr Hickenlooper, I can't thank you enough for this effort, so many years in gestation. Because of you, your evident devotion to a great artist, the shade of Orson Welles is brought back to life.
And yes: You are correct about that bloated soap opera Titanic. Ewan Stewart was the best thing in that movie! And he is a most appreciated addition to your Ring cast.

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

THREAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND:

Phil: Surely a copy of this nearly completed film must be in circulation somewhere. Has anybody seen anything other than what was in the documentary 'THE LOST FILMS OF ORSON FILMS' (containing scene in a car and a load of press interviewing star). I would infinitly grateful on any information about this film and the possibility of me ever seeing more.
The car scene rates as one of the best I've seen from any film. Thanks for any help.

*

Tom Novak: In 1988 at the 50 Anniversary Celebration of The War of World's Broadcast I had an opportunity to speak with the late Richard Wilson (hopefully he was alive at the time I was talking with him and someone wasn't squeezing the back of his neck to move his mouth). Wilson of course worked with the Fat Man. I asked him whatever happened with The Other Side of the Wind. At first he told me with a degree of sadness that it could not be released in it's unfinished state. I told him that was a shame because of all the great actors in it...John Huston etc. He became nostalgic, and reminisced about all those talents in that uncompleted movie. He had a lost but uplifting look to his face as if the movie could be raised from the ashes. Then I added that Edmund O'Brian was in the movie. He thought of him, then said he was going to look up Oja Kodar to see what was going on with that movie.

I have a number of wishes. In movies before I die I would like to see The Other Side of the Wind and the director's cut of The Magnificient Ambersons. These wishes are unlikely to be fulfilled, but I'm sure it's possible with the new technology to clean up the soundtrack of Chimes At Midnight, and if that is possible, it would be quite possible to computerize the ending for The Other Side of the Wind.

*

HICKENLOOPER: I was recently at a screening with Oja Kodar and Gary Graver in which 2 hours of "Other Side Of The Wind" was shown. It was a compilation of scenes (some of which appeared on the 1975 AFI tribute to Welles), many of which no one had ever seen before. The footage was visually brilliant and it was fascinating watching John Huston play Orson Welles' alter ego. Even though many of the costumes and looks of the characters dated back to the early '70s, the footage nevertheless had a timeless quality. One could say that Welles' use of fast cutting, hand held camera and overall cinema verite style was two decades ahead of the kind of MTV approach to storytelling which is now the style du jour as seen in such pictures as "Trainspotting" and "Run Lola Run."

What is the fate of the footage? Gary Graver, who came to a screening of my film "The Big Brass Ring," says that he has found the $5 million necessary to bring the project to fruition. Bingham Ray, the former head of October Films, told me at this year's Independent Spirit Awards, that it might be more practical to try to make a documentary about the making of "Other Side Of The Wind" in the same way that Bill Krohn so successfully made "It's All True." Who knows what will happen? But whatever does it certainly will be interesting.

*

JW: I think the documentary approach might be more interesting, if for the sole fact that no one knows what exactly Welles would have done with the footage. How much did Welles shoot in total? I would think a good deal more than 2 hours. He was constantly revising the film as he went along, so there really isn't much to go on as far as editing and post-production work, is there? My basic fear is a repeat of the Quixote sitiation, where someone else slaps together the footage and it doesn't add up to much.

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

THREAD ON THE 1999 MUNICH WELLES CONFERENCE:

Posted by R. Fischer on July 05, 1999 at 23:14:39:
From October 20th through October 24th, 1999 an Orson Welles Conference will take place in Munich, Germany at the film museum (located in the Stadt Museum).
Some 1.8 tons of footage, left in a Los Angeles storage room after Orson Welles' death, is being sifted through and partly restored by the Munich Film Museum, will host the conference on the legendary filmmaker's career.

Much of this material will be screened in up to 15 programs that will include never-seen-before footage from THE DEEP, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, DON QUIXOTE, among other incomplete treasures.

Among the guests participating will be Oja Kodar, Welles scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum, Welles cinematographer Gary Graver, and filmmaker George Hickenlooper.
For more information, contact the Munich Film Museum.

************************************************************************************
THREAD ON THE DEEP:

Posted by Peter Tonguette on December 01, 1999 at 17:23:06:

Hi everyone, Long time lurker, first time poster and huge Orson Welles fan...
I read a while back about Oja Kodar's plans to finally release Welles' film "The Deep," filmed in the late '60s. In "This Is Orson Welles," the book by Welles and Peter Bogdanovich, I get the impression that "The Deep" never finished shooting. Has anyone ever determined what the actual state of the film is in? Of all of the various OW projects out there, this would seem to be one of the more promising if indeed most of it was shot and edited.
Look forward to whatever insights you might be able to provide,

Peter, age 16

*

HICKENLOOPER: Last June had a conversation with Robert Fischer, who is the archivist in charge of THE DEEP footage which is held at the Film Museum in Munich, also the location of the recent Welles conference. If I remember correctly, according to Mr. Fischer, much of the negative of THE DEEP has been lost. In other words, the footage that does exist, only exists as a work print (the material the editor works with before the negative is cut). This would not make it impossible to finish THE DEEP, but it would make it very difficult, and very expensive, because you would have to digitally restore or clean that footage that no longer has negative.

*

Peter Tonguette: Mr. Hickenlooper -- Thank you for your reply -- I appreciate it. I guess the main question I would have as a follow-up is, was all of the footage actually shot? Although, as you note, it would be very costly to restore, THE DEEP would seem to be one of the more promising un-finished OW projects out there if it was indeed completely shot.

BTW, I haven't seen THE BIG BRASS RING yet, but, as a very big admirer of Peter Bogdanovich's THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, I really enjoyed your documentary on the making of the film, PICTURE THIS. Thanks again.

*

HICKENLOOPER: Thanks for your comments regarding Picture This. With respect to The Deep, yes, it is my understanding that all the footage was shot. Unfortunately, not all the sound was recorded. Consequently, a good impressionist would need to finish the dialogue work of Lawrance Harvey's character. 



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

HICKENLOOPER: For anyone interested, who has a DVD player, I shot two scenes from THE BIG BRASS RING (a version of my adaptation which was a lot closer to Welles' original script, but which I ultimately didn't use). The scenes star Malcolm MacDowell as Kimball Mennaker. MacDowell ultimately didn't play the part in the feature, Nigel Hawthorne did, nevertheless, the scenes might be interesting to look at for those interested.

The scenes are also accompanied by a short documentary about the project. They are available the the DVD magazine, SHORT CINEMA JOURNAL, NO. 2. Also, for those interested, my short version of SLING BLADE with Billy Bob Thornton is on SHORT CINEMA JOURNAL, NO. 1.
Take care, all.
GH






[Glenn Anders]

Dear mteal: Your excerpts are a sensational insight to both George Hickenlooper and the depth of the Wellesnet Archives. Like a number of us here, I have been on this site a relatively few years. When most of these comments were made in 1999, I didn't even own a computer. Thank you so much for pulling the exchanges together for us. Reading Hickenlooper's intelligent and earnest words makes his premature passing seem the more regrettable. Here, too, may be found a hint of those jealous factions, which I just satirized in another place, but which have scarred the History of Wellesnet.

As for THE BIG BRASS RING, Hickenlooper's troubled indie adaptation of Welles' "comeback" script, your excerpts, mteal, reminded me of my June 2001 review of the film, "George Hickenlooper Reaches for Orson Welles' BIG BRASS RING." I do remember some discussion of Hickenlooper and his picture, but not referencing my review, that I recall. Here is the URL, then. I added an "update" in 2004, which suggested parallels in the film to the nomination of John Kerry on the Democratic ticket. The film seems, if anything, more creepily relevant on this insane Election Day, November 2, 2010! Here is the piece (again, with thanks to you for the reminder):

http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu ... 8860059268

Glenn

[tonyw]

Thanks mteal for digging back into the archives. I've always wondered why Malcolm McDowell was mentioned in the acknowledgments and wondered why. Now, I'm relieved he did not financially contribute to this misguided project.

[Le Chiffre]

Those old posts were a bit before my internet time too. The first time I ever logged onto the internet was January 2000, shortly after those posts were written (I guess learning how to use the internet must have been one of my resolutions for the new millennium).

Anyway, Glenn, I think that’s one of your best reviews, and I agree with most of what you say. Hickenlooper’s BIG BRASS RING, keeps you intrigued for most of the way, wondering where it’s going to go. But then, it’s denouement is disappointingly weak and sentimental after all the buildup. But there are many Wellesian themes and allusions that fascinate along the way.

That’s very interesting that Oja Kodar had a hand in helping Hickenlooper update the story; I didn’t know that. I’d like to know exactly what her contributions to the new version were, since she probably knew things about Welles’s personal life (and perhaps about his personal demons) that few, if any others would have known.

The fact that the Hickenlooper version departs so much from the Welles/Kodar original, including drastically diminishing the original’s globe-trotting scope, was probably what drew the wrath of Wellesian experts like Rosenbaum, but what has always struck me is that it also, as you say, adds things that seem to hint provocatively at the mysterious relationship between Orson Welles and his older brother Richard, and possibly between the two brothers and their father Richard Sr. and even Maurice Bernstein as well. Charles Higham’s RISE AND FALL OF AN AMERICAN GENIUS claims that, after Richard Sr.’s death, Richard Jr. was badly exploited by Bernstein, but it doesn’t go into any real specifics. Naturally, one hesitates to go there, but then, the Hickenlooper version does seem to point towards there, doesn’t it?

I like your mentioning John Kerry’s failed presidential bid in ’04, as well as the plot-twisted story of the Bush brothers. Some definite food for thought there. Like you, I’m more interested in analyzing Welles’s politics then in psycho-analyzing his inner demons, fascinating though that may be. And I agree that the movie focuses too much on the latter at the expense of the former. The difference between the two is akin to the difference between the grand, international playing field of Welles’s BBR, and the smaller, parochial playing field of Hickenlooper’s.

[Glenn Anders]

Thanks, Mike: Oja Kodar, I believe, would have helped Welles latterly on the script, perhaps polishing it. After his death, she and Hickenlooper got together on it, but the results were evidently unsatisfactory. Later still, Hickenlooper procured the rights, and he collaborated with F.X. Feeney on a quite different adaptation of The Big Brass Ring script, which Hickenlooper subsequently shot. As someone mentioned, Rosenbaum has a splendid essay in the private printing of Welles' original version, which discusses some of the history.

The name "Hickenlooper," ironically is one to conjure with politically. A famous former Lt. Governor, Governor, and leading Far Right Wing Senator from Iowa (1945-1969), Bourke Hickenlooper, was a power in the Republican Party, an extreme Cold Warrior, and an opponent of Civil Rights. He would have been the very kind of politician Welles would have been warring against during the years which produced the McCarthy Period, and after.

To continue the irony, when George Hickenlooper died of a sudden heart attack in Denver, a few days ago, he had been working for the election of his cousin, John Hickenlooper, as Governor of Colorado.

John Hickenlooper was elected Governor last night.

It is a story that could have fitted perfectly into the plot of THE BIG BRASS RING.

If you google the screenwriter, F.X. Feeney, you can get a video clip of his hopes for the Election last night.

Glenn

[Le Chiffre]

Glenn, are you sure that FX Feeney interview was from Tuesday's elections? I think it might have been from the presidential election of '08. Some of the things he says could have applied to this year's elections as well, though. F.X. Feeney's book on Welles for Taschen was a disappointment, but I did enjoy his audio commentary on the DVD edition of TEN DAYS WONDER as well as the Special Edition of TOUCH OF EVIL. It would be interesting to know what his contributions to the BBR screenplay entailed. And if it still exists, I'd like to see the Hickenlooper/Kodar draft that was deemed unsatisfactory. I don't suppose there's much chance of that happening, though.

Must have been a bittersweet victory for John Hickenlooper. I wonder if he and George were related to Bourke Hickenlooper in some way.

BTW, the original segment shot for BIG BRASS RING with Malcolm MacDowell as Menaker, which Hickenlooper said was closer to Welles's original screenplay, is available on this DVD of shorts, which also includes Chris Marker's classic LA JETEE.

http://www.amazon.com/Short-Cinema-Jour ... 207&sr=1-3

[tonyw]

Thanks, again, for this reference. I'm sure Malcolm was much better. Although he has done some dubious work, at least he has a good track record for an actor and states that he is proud of five films he has made during his career. I recently viewed his performance as the "Stanhope" character in Jack Gold's reworking of JOURNEY'S END - ACES HIGH - and his performance is good. Let us hope the Welles origins brought out another challenge to his talents.

[Glenn Anders]

You are right, Mike: The video was from the 2008 Election. [My eyes are becoming blurred by glaucoma, my stamina by my various pains, and so I miss significant (and obvious) details.] Feeney has a blog now. He's certainly interested in politics. I wonder what he DOES think about the election of the other night?

Orson Welles' original script ("with Oja Kodar") has received high praise. As I said, at one time, I had two first editions of the private printing, which I foolishly either sold off, or gave as a gift to someone who I don't believe ever acknowledged it. All is not lost, however! The original script (160 pp), including a forward by James Pepper and the admired essay by Jonathan Rosenbaum, is available in paperback from Black Spring Press in England for under twenty bucks. Here is the URL:

http://www.blackspringpress.co.uk/books/brass.html

Tony: I like ACES HIGH, too. The film is a kind of British HELL'S ANGELS.

Glenn

[tonyw]

On an OT matter, Glenn, yes. The film is also a DAWN PATROL parallel with the original characters removed from the trenches to the world of WW1 aviation. It was interesting seeing Richard Johnson as one of the uncaring brass since I remember him as Stanhope in a BBC TV production of JOURNEY'S END. In ACES HIGH, we are given a reason why parachutes are not issues, a reason that takes on ironical associations when the German spotter in the balloon has one so he can bail out when the RFC approach.

[ToddBaesen]

A short except from Walter Goodman's review in the NY TIMES for the George Hickenlooper mess that was unfortunately called THE BIG BRASS RING.

I must say the blame for this fiasco must really go to Oja Kodar for this abortion, just as she allowed the Jess Franco DON QUIXOTE version to be seen, and what is more unfortunate, shown on a DVD version. I guess, Oja and Beatrice Welles are really sisters under the skin.

WALTER GOODMAN: It pains me to relate that Orson Welles is credited with having had a hand in the portentous and preposterous script. Maybe he was kidding. The dialogue seems to emerge from people deep in their cups: ''You are seeking absolution from some great sin,'' says the journalist to the candidate, but then she'll say anything

[RayKelly]

Mildly interesting, especially since it is from the San Jose MERCURY news:
http://www.mercurynews.com/joan-morris/ci_18710981

Joan's World: Orson Welles' last screenplay
By Joan Morris

Dear Joan:

There's a quote -- "If you want a happy ending, it depends where you stop the story" -- attributed to Orson Welles, who may or may not have been the first to use it. But where does it originate? Is it from a film? At first I thought it was Welles saying it in "Citizen Kane," but I was wrong. Can you find out? There are three of us going bald pulling our hair out over this.
-- D.N., San Leandro

Dear D.:

Stop torturing your follicles. It would appear that legendary Orson Welles was the first, or at least the best-known, to utter the phrase. And it was spoken in his last known Hollywood screenplay, "The Big Brass Ring."

Welles, whose ill health did nothing to stifle his creativity and urge to push the envelope, wrote the screenplay in the early 1980s. He described it as being about the choices in life a man makes and then wonders about.

The screenplay is focused on American politics. The central characters are a gay former adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt and a young, wealthy presidential candidate. The adviser has been a mentor to the candidate, but now the candidate's handlers want to put distance between them and hide the past connection. Everything sort of blows up when the mentor, candidate and the candidate's former lover meet up in Spain.

In the final pages of the script, the numb characters seem to accept the destruction of their lives and Welles, who planned to play the mentor, utters the line in question, "If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."

Did Welles lift it from someone else? Doubtful. It sounds too much like something Welles would write.

Welles died in 1985 with the film still in the planning stages. But in 1999, George Hickenlooper adapted the script and turned it into a play-within-a-film starring William Hurt.

[Le Chiffre]

There's a variation on Welles's line in the film MR. AND MRS. SMITH, where Angelina Jolie's character says "Happy Endings are stories that haven't finished yet". Hollywood picking at Orson's bones again.

[F.X. Feeney]

... Although I'm no stranger to Wellesnet, I've never read these entries before. George spoke warmly of the conversation here. It is certainly wonderful to read such intelligent reactions to our efforts, pro and con. If it's not too late, perhaps I can shed some added light?

Oja Kodar made the rights available for adaptation, but did not participate beyond that. She kept a friendly distance. When she and I met by chance on the street in 1998, she was extremely welcoming -- she has a warmhearted nature. She accompanied me to a Picasso exhibit the following Sunday, then invited me to bring George to a screening of two hours of OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. She elected never to see our adaptation of THE BIG BRASS RING, a choice I imagined years in advance of encountering her in person and well understand. Oja is both sensitive and absolute -- rather as I imagine Welles was, in private.

My contribution to the script is what's onscreen. I wrote it solo, basing it on the Welles / Kodar original and an earlier script George had prepared with Matt Greenberg. (Matt graciously backed away when he read my version.) So? Blame me for all that purple and portentious stuff. Bear in mind that Cela is a youthful whiz of a journalist, ala Oriana Falacci, and highly conscious of her ominous seriousness. As Welles wrote of Cela, "drama is in her nature." Irene Jacob caught this wonderfully. It is the character's subterranean bond with Kim, and Blake, and Welles and Cela. Perhaps because we made the film at warp speed, without the rehearsals that would've helped the lines to float and sing, the elements of comedy and irony I hoped would drive the film like a heartbeat don't come off as intended.

I pursued the rights between 1991 and 1998, hoping to direct the picture myself. I scouted locations, all over Europe; I prepared a shooting script, faithful to Welles' original, set in Spain and the Congo after the 1984 Presidential election. My only radical departure from the original was to weave in a bit of "clairvoyant" Iran-Contra material during the Madrid scenes. Madrid is where CIA chief William Casey and, it is rumored, George H.W. Bush met with the Iranians in 1984. This melted into the original like butter into pancake, because Buckle, the Gordon Liddy-like spy, remarks in Welles's script that Madrid is a great CIA hub, ideal for recruiting "assets."

I also studied Welles' life with a practical eye, the better to understand what HE wanted out of Big Brass. By the time I hooked up with George I brought six years' in-depth experience with the script.

George's adaptation was very deliberately wild of the original -- only the title and character names remained -- but I was impressed by what he had done. It was a film about ambition from a young man's perspective, and had great vitality. He took a liberty I found intriguing. Welles created a Blake in search of a mistress who got away. George had given him a brother -- a twin. Given that Bill Clinton's marital misadventures had reshaped the public's reactions to infidelity, and given that Welles had a tragic brother -- Richard -- who physically resembled him but was not a twin, I recommended we lose the symbolic "twin-ship" George and Matt were working with, but keep the fraternal competition. We could therefore draw the script back toward what Welles had written, and -- if we needed to -- take liberties that were thematically of a piece with his body of work.

And here we are. A film got made! Fifteen years after his death, Welles -- the idea of Welles; the romantic ideal his quest holds out to filmmakers -- was putting people to work and providing some profit to the woman he loved.

As for my Taschen WELLES book, mentioned above? The little chapbook that appeared as part of their ICON series in 2007 is NOT the 20,000 word study I wrote in 2002. I am revising that manuscript to greater length and should be bringing it out within the next year or so.

[F.X. Feeney]

An error in my proofreading! I meant above to say Cela's subterranean bond with Blake and Kim, Orson and OJA. I wrote "Cela" instead and didn't catch the slip! Ah, well.

[ToddBaesen]

F. X: Thanks for setting the record straight about your Taschen book. I thought it was quite ridiculous it came out in such a form, and I was terribly disappointed when I first saw it... and I mistakenly thought it was your fault!

Then I found out from Stefan Drossler, Taschen had cut your text to ribbons, as well as the size of the book. Why they would do that is a complete and total mystery to me and everyone else who considers Welles a great director. In fact, I should think Mr. Taschen would want to put out a book on Welles equal to his masterful $200. books on Kubrick and Bergman. But instead Taschen gives us a cheap little chapbook on Welles. I guess Welles get's screwed over even by book publishers!