Chuck Workman's new docu on OW - "Magician"

[Wellesnet]

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=10441

[Wellesnet]

First review of the new film:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... son-733675

"The Magician" will also be playing at the Chicago Film Festival in October:

[Ovader]

Cohen Media Group Unveils Welles Docu ‘Magician’

[Ovader]

Trailer

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks Ovader. I saw the film yesterday at the Chicago Film Festival, and found it to be a very entertaining and cleverly done intro to Welles' life and career, that uses an amazing array of clips, interviews, photos and other archival materials, some of which I've never seen before. At only 94 minutes there's not much room to explore topics in too much depth, but the film covers quite a few aspects of Welles, and moves at a real nice pace. At the Q&A afterwards, Workman said he needed to stick to the basics to make it more entertaining and "keep butts in seats", and this he has done most admirably. Several people in the audience expressed how much they liked it. A good crowd nearly filled the theatre and gave the film a well-deserved round of applause at the end. I think Welles fans will enjoy it very much when it comes out in December.

[Wellesnet]

Variety weighs in on the new doc:
http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/fi ... 201334973/

[mido505]

Meanwhile, his slightly embarrassing career as a public bon vivant flourished, represented via clips from “I Love Lucy,” “The Muppet Show,” myriad talkshows and commercials, etc.

Although the Variety review is, for the most part, sober, factual, and respectful, I must admit that I am getting tired of observations like the above, which, although commonplace, are the result of holding Welles to a higher standard than is fair or necessary.

The simple truth of the matter is that Welles's "slightly embarrassing career as a public bon vivant" was hardly unusual; it was, in fact, quite ordinary. Welles was not the only public figure of talent and renown appearing, in the 60's and the 70's, on I LOVE LUCY, THE MUPPET SHOW, and myriad talk shows. Rather the opposite - anyone of consequence was doing the same. Everybody was appearing on the DEAN MARTIN ROASTS; everyone was appearing on Carson, etc. As Gore Vidal once said, "I never turn down the opportunity to have sex or appear on television." Tallulah Bankhead showed up on LUCY; it was considered an honor both for them and for her.

Welles was never buffoonish, nor was he ever asked to appear so. The fat jokes got to be a bit much, but that was also the era; comedy was rough, and often personal. And people forget that the late 60's and 70's were tough on just about everyone from the Old Hollywood era. Great talent like Joan Crawford did TROG; Henry Fonda was in TENTACLES; Ray Milland starred in FROGS; and Shelly Winters appeared in everything. What was important was that these giants kept working, being professional, doing their best, and giving pleasure. There are worse ways to end a life.

Welles started too young and too high, so anything that he did in later life was bound to appear a come down. It certainly was a shame that not much got done in his last decade. But Welles was honored and respected by his public and his peers his entire life, and is posthumously revered. No tipsy wine commercials, YouTube tirades, or mendacious recollections by John Houseman can ever take that away.

[Le Chiffre]

...people forget that the late 60's and 70's were tough on just about everyone from the Old Hollywood era. Great talent like Joan Crawford did TROG; Henry Fonda was in TENTACLES; Ray Milland starred in FROGS; and Shelly Winters appeared in everything. What was important was that these giants kept working, being professional, doing their best, and giving pleasure. There are worse ways to end a life.

Absolutely. Some of them probably even had fun doing the trash flicks. And it was an often effective way to introduce themselves to a younger generation of filmgoers.

Welles was honored and respected by his public and his peers his entire life, and is posthumously revered. No tipsy wine commercials, YouTube tirades, or mendacious recollections by John Houseman can ever take that away.

Again, the Paul Masson outtakes and other Youtube stuff may even make a new generation curious about who Welles was. Then there'll be a better chance of their being exposed to the great stuff.

[Wellesnet]

Chuck Workman answers questions for Wellesnet about the new film:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=11694

Also, Welles gets trashed by Lou Lumenik of the NY Post in his review of Magician ("How Orson Welles’ narcissism sabotaged his career"):
http://nypost.com/2014/12/06/how-orson- ... is-career/

[Roger Ryan]

"When Welles delivered a cut [of TOUCH OF EVIL] that went well beyond what censors would allow, Universal took the picture away from him and recut it..."

Is this idea put forth in MAGICIAN? I don't think censorship had anything to do with the re-editing of TOUCH OF EVIL (apart from dropping the brief line about "mainlining" heroin), just the usual studio concerns over not hitting plot points hard enough and wanting to inject a little more romance.

...The truth is a bit more complicated...

Yes it is, much more so than this New York Post article can possibly address in less than twenty-five sentences.

[cinescot]

"The truth is a bit more complicated: Welles left for South America before the film was edited to shoot “It’s All True,” a semi-documentary that RKO eventually shut down after it, too, ran over budget — Welles’ contract was canceled, and the executive who brought him to the studio was shown the door."

Joseph McBride - in his invaluable book What Ever Happened to Orson Welles - confirms that RKO set the budget for IT'S ALL TRUE at $1.2 million and the total final cost of the production was $832,347. He adds "These figures prove that Welles was correct in asserting in later years that he did not go over budget".

[Le Chiffre]

With “Kane” running significantly over budget..

Was Kane “significantly” over budget? I’ve never heard that before.

“The Stranger” (1946) — Welles’ one and only box-office hit as a filmmaker...

It made a profit, but I don’t whether it was an outright “hit” or not.

“Macbeth” (that Republic Pictures had to redub because Welles insisted on thick Scottish accents)...

It’s not that Republic “had” to redub. They chose to out of panic over some early, misguided reviews that couldn’t handle Welles’s eccentric approach to Shakespeare.

Welles thanked Heston by complaining about his performance for the rest of his life...

I’ve never heard that before either.

Welles also had a talent for alienating the financial backers of the independent films he made in Europe, longtime collaborator Norman Lloyd says in another interview in “Magician.”...

The last time Norman Lloyd worked with Welles was on the stage in 1938. He never worked with him at all in film, so how would he know about Welles’ European investors of the 1950’s and 1960’s? It’s true Welles was sued by Louis Dolivet in the late 50’s over MR. ARKADIN, but Welles appears to have gotten along fine with the Salkinds for THE TRIAL. A few years later he also brought in THE IMMORTAL STORY for French television with little or no problem.

Welles sometimes simply walked away from projects that he lost interest in, leaving his investors holding the bag...

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the only project where Welles’ investors were left holding any kind of bag was THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, and Welles never really “walked away from” that. He kept trying to complete it up until the time of his death.

Of the other unfinished projects, I believe DON QUIXOTE, THE DEEP, THE MAGIC SHOW, and THE MERCHANT OF VENICE were all self-financed, so the only investor left holding the bag was Welles himself. His track record of completing films when given money by others to do so was actually pretty good.

[Wellesnet]

AV Club review, with some interesting comments:
http://www.avclub.com/review/magician-b ... ors-212730

[Wellesnet]

Critical roundup for the New York and Los Angeles opening today:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=11715

Some other quotes:

Showbiz 411:
His other living daughter, Beatrice, I gather lives in Europe and is not happy about “Magician.” (She couldn’t control it. That’s what makes it a documentary.)

Popinsomniacs:
‘MAGICIAN: THE ASTONISHING LIFE AND WORK OF ORSON WELLES’ ONLY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE OF A PERPLEXING CINEMATIC GOD
In many ways, Orson Welles emerges from Magician like the Bo Jackson of cinema, a once in a lifetime talent with a disappointing body of work.

Huffpo:
Movie studios bargained hard to get him, and he drove a hard bargain. "I didn't want money. I wanted authority." …Welles continued making films in Hollywood, but it was a struggle because they treated him like a force to be contained.
Welles stretched the boundaries of what could be done in radio, film, theater and television. Unlike some of the films made about Welles's life... which was truly astonishing... Magician gives us an appreciation of his artistry. Filmmaker Chuck Workman used over 900 outside sources to assemble this remarkable documentary. He had to find the sources, contact many individuals, get prints and permissions.... a hugely time consuming task.

Film Journal:
Workman's Oscar-winning short Precious Images set a high standard for compiling disparate clips into a new narrative structure. Here he does an incredible job of marshaling material from around the world into a coherent story.
Watching Welles in his declining years, as he shilled for Paul Masson wine and joked his way through talk shows, is like seeing Falstaff come to life.

NJ.com:
I think back to an interview I did years ago with Norman Lloyd, who acted for Welles before the director went to Hollywood (and, amazingly, is still fresh and vital at 100).
Welles, he told me, loved the high-stakes chaos of live theater. Loved it most because, right when things seemed darkest, he could swoop in and fix it all. To go right to the brink and then, through sheer confidence and personal vision, be the one man who could pull it all back to safety — that was his special thrill.
But big movies are not stage shows that you quickly steer, like a sports car. They are huge, lumbering ocean liners. And once set in motion, headed for a disaster, they tend to continue, under their own power — and carrying everyone, including the captain, along with them.
And for all the brilliance of Orson Welles, that may be the one thing he never learned.

AV Club:
Most of the footage the director uses can be found elsewhere (like the treasure trove of YouTube), so to a Welles aficionado the doc may seem like well-trod ground. But there’s real power in the way Workman (also the sole credited editor) cuts all the material fleetly and acutely together. (97 comments)

Village Voice:
How could anybody with ears and a brain resist that buttery voice, spinning out clause-laden sentences that take more twists and turns than the streets of Venice but always end, somehow, in a place that's ravishingly articulate?

LA Times:
Entertaining though it often is,…Workman's movie is low on new or lasting insight. It even pads with moments from more recent biopics ("RKO 281," "Me and Orson Welles"), and often leaves interview excerpts — from the living and the long-deceased — feeling too abbreviated. It has highlights, but little insight.
"I think a lot of great filmmakers and great artists who come to Hollywood bend eventually," Workman said. "Orson Welles never went with it. He tried to, but he couldn't do it for some reason. He couldn't conceive his work that way, in a commodity way."
Hollywood, Workman noted, "wants you to do the same thing over and over again. He always wanted to be original. That's the way he thought about work."

NYT:
Welles’s colorful personal life — a rich stew of wives, lovers, feuding daughters and paternity rumors — is skated over as if it were quicksand. What’s left offers little flavor of the mind behind the work, so…If, as he claimed, he aspired to make movies “for something except entertainment,” what that might have been remains anyone’s guess.

NY Daily News:
If this documentary is swift and witty, that’s in part because it relies heavily on clips of Orson Welles talking. And oh, how Welles could talk, that beautiful voice wrapping itself around tall tales and wine commercials with equal grace.
The movie is mostly on Welles’ side: It sees him as a maverick genius fated to butt heads with the suits, no matter what.

Glenn Kenny, RogerEbert.com:
Workman’s film tells a different story from that of showbiz conventional wisdom. That is that the always precocious Welles (“there’s nothing more hateful,” he chucklingly admits, than the kind of prodigy he was at the age of ten) was a wunderkind who peaked with his first commercial film (that’s 1941’s “Citizen Kane,” still a ripping yarn, poignant reflection, and galvanic primer of cinema language) and descended into a career purgatory of his own profligate making shortly thereafter. No, throughout its depiction of what it divides up as four phases of Welles’ life, Workman’s movie never stops depicting Welles as an artist: a restless, searching, often frustrated and sometimes frustrating artist, one who never stopped working but who worked in a fashion completely incomprehensible to the conventional wisdom of the cinema industry.

[Wellesnet]

Chuck Workman on WNYC:
http://www.wnyc.org/story/chuck-workman/