Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDShttp://us.imdb.com/ne - Director used 1938 script.

[R Kadin]

Ah, yes, Max - you do make a good point about Spielberg's past. But who among us has not made a regrettable decision while immersed in the superficial preoccupations of the moment? Furthermore, what do the likes of us truly know about the issues Spielberg felt he had to weigh at the time?

He might also have assumed that an icon and survivor like OW would somehow always be around and that there would, therefore, be future and perhaps better opportunities to come. As errors go, that's one of which we're all likely to have been guilty at some point.

If Spielberg's latest film contains, in some belated way, a modest homage to an artist he unwisely short-changed in his callow youth, then I would prefer to regard it positively, as evidence of a past misjudgment finally acknowledged. After all, what kind of a world would this be if it offered no allowance for old enemies to become new friends?

But, I confess, I do not know the man, personally. Perhaps he has no regrets. Perhaps with him it's all crass commerciality and any apparent regard he attempts to display for Welles is nothing more than a cynical effort to have his latest product seen in a more favourable (and, therefore, saleable) light. I'd be greatly surprised if such were the case; but I'd have few qualms about your assigning him "enemy" status, then, either.

One last point, however: while I wouldn't consider myself a Spielberg fan, per se, I am by no means indifferent to his work and would consider it a loss to the development of any film enthusiast's sensibilities to encourage giving him a pass. Say - rightly - what one might about the overall character of what he has done to date, he has unquestionably devised some of the most remarkable screen moments ever seen by any generation. I quite expect his WOTW to be no exception, in that regard.

[Wilson]

It may well be that I'm somehow shirking my duties as film scholar/enthusiast/whatever by not seeing Spielberg's films, but my time is fairly limited these days, and I try to see things, especially theatrically, that are of interest to me in some way. Current Hollywood product just isn't high on my list. I've only been able to see six theatrical films in 2005; five were Asian, one was a silent film. If I had unlimited time, sure, I'd probably give his current work a look, in the interests of staying up to date on what's happening in American film, but I don't have that kind of time.

[R Kadin]

Point well taken, Jeff. Were I stranded on a desert island with a choice of but three or four films for company, none would be a Spielberg flick, I assure you.

[Harvey Chartrand]

R Kadin notes that "He might also have assumed that an icon and survivor like OW would somehow always be around and that there would, therefore, be future and perhaps better opportunities to come. As errors go, that's one of which we're all likely to have been guilty at some point."

According to Frank Brady, Welles was visibly ill in 1984 and 1985. He even used makeup to add a dash of color to his cheeks. On doctor's orders, Welles went on a strict diet and lost considerable weight, but he still looked unhealthy. I'm sure Spielberg picked up on this, figuring Welles wouldn't be around much longer.

[tony williams]

The real reason was that Spielberg did not want Amy Irving (his wife at the time) to go abroad and work on Welles's film since she was into "tomcatting." I have this information from a reputable Welles scholar. Also, the multi-billionaire left Orson to pick up the restaurant tab since he was too mean even to pay for the meal.

Also Jeff is right. There are far too many important things to read and look at these days than to waste time looking at Spielberg films. He is a mediocre director who follows the path of his chosen mentor Cecil B. DeMille. Like those who attended the AFI Ceremony honoring Welles, he had the chance to fund a major talent but chose not to. For that, he should be damned to hell.

[Harvey Chartrand]

According to Frank Brady, Spielberg resented Welles for telling reporters that the Rosebud sled he had just bought at an auction of KANE artifacts was a fake. Welles made Spielberg look bad in the press and then dared ask him for money. Spielberg saw an opening in which to get his revenge – served cold over dinner at Ma Maison.

And yes, that dinner was paid for by senior citizen Welles, who was then quite broke, I understand, and living in a small furnished apartment. He'd foolishly sold his stake in KANE decades earlier...

[R Kadin]

To Harvey's comment,

I'm sure Spielberg picked up on this, figuring Welles wouldn't be around much longer.

what you're saying, then, is that, for reasons of Welles' evident ill health alone, his project was an even less viable investment. Add that to Welles' (more than) rumoured failures to deliver on other projects when he was in much better shape and perhaps Spielberg's lack of investment enthusiasm at the time was less "damnable" than our luxurious hindsight now makes it out to be.

Spielberg wanting to keep a wandering wife out of temptation's reach? How exactly was that a damnable impulse? Not picking up the tab? Sure, it seems miserly and might well have been so - vengeful, even. I don't know; I wasn't there. Neither was Brady, as best I can tell. Then again, where we males and our egos are involved, all manner of posturing and one-upmanship have been known to intrude on our off-the-cuff judgment or to colour our later recollection of events. And, as far as stiffing restaurant companions goes, someone recount for me, please, Welles' own history in that department.

Look, the fact that - given the same money and the same opportunity - we might have acted very differently is well and good. Bully for us. How that gives us licence to find nothing but fault with someone who, for reasons we don't truly know, opted to do otherwise escapes me.

As for your DeMillian dismissal, tony, I invite you to find the likes of a "Sugarland Express", "Empire of the Sun", "Schindler's List", "Amistad", "Saving Private Ryan" or even "The Terminal" among Cecil B's directorial credits.

As I stated earlier, I am no great fan of Spielberg; but I am even less a fan of judgmentalism or "piling on." Heaven help us should we find ourselves one day subjected to similar treatment.

And here I thought that taking a scythe to the tall poppies was a uniquely Canadian trait....

[Harvey Chartrand]

I've seen pictures of Welles towards the end and he looked ghastly. I remember one photo of the Great One taken in early '85. His face was very wrinkled and spotted and there was fear in his eyes. Or at least the old confidence was gone.
And that voice of God of his was now shot. Just listen to Welles' raspy narration of THE LAST SAILORS – a documentary on fishermen that harkens back to the IT'S ALL TRUE days; it aired on PBS shortly before Welles died. I imagine no producer would take a chance on such an obviously sick man helming a picture. There was talk of assigning a back-up director to THE CRADLE WILL ROCK, just in case Welles died on the set. Then the plug was pulled on CRADLE and that was the end of that..
Around this time, according to Brady, Welles admitted to Burt Reynolds that he was concerned about his sickly appearance. He thought he looked embalmed.
It's sad, but that's life. For death, as it must to all men, came to George Orson Welles.

[tony williams]

This site is devoted to Orson Welles, a far greater figure than Spielberg. Yes, "Sugarland Express" is different. But after its box-office reception, he turned to JAWS, INDIANA JONES, and other adult Disneyfied products. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a conservative film totally suppirting the spurious ideology of "the good war." But was it not Welles who telegraphed Peckinpah to say that CROSS OF IRON was the best anti-war film he had ever seen.

After some interesting silent films (THE SQUAW MAN, THE CHEAT), De Mille became a showman once the conservative 1920s era began. He never fulfilled his early promise. Neither did Spielberg after "Duel" and "Sugarland Express." He took the easy way out. To his credit, Welles did not. Hence the derogatory stories told about him. I'd also suggest reading Andrew Britton's 1986 MOVIE article "Blissing Out: The Politics of Reaganite Entertainment" for a critical take on Spielberg written by a critic who is not admirer of Welles.

AMISTAD drew criticism from Spike Lee and SCHINDLER'S LIST was a dishonest film which suffers in comparison with Welles's anti-Nazi sympathies and his warnings about the possible resurgence of Fascism in THE STRANGER and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI. Welles took this stand at a time it was dangerous and unfashionable to do so. Had he remained in America after 1948, he would surely have been condemned as a "premature anti-Fascist" dueing the blacklist era.

The point is evaluation and comparison of two directors and Spielberg falls far short on all levels. Surely, the man could have supported Welles in some way? Commenta about an "insufferable companion in a resturant" sadly parallels that tale Welles told about his supposed behavior in THE ORSON WELLES STORY (1982) that Joan Didion misprespresented.

The key issue remains that a financially privileged person chose not to help a major creative talent at a time he most needed support. Even a million dollars to complete projects such as THE DREAMERS and THE CRADLE WILL ROCK could have helped. :angry: :angry:

[R Kadin]

So someone with money declined to give some of it to our preferred cause. Evidently and for reasons of his own, he actually had the temerity to hold an opinion of the asker and his request that was adverse to ours. Evidently as well, there were other philanthropic avenues that appealed to him, instead. Such is life. And a very sad and angry one it will be, indeed, if our response will be to cry "enemy" and invoke damnation on those who, even in error, might not see things our way.

I certainly regret and am personally saddened by Spielberg's decision. But I respect his right to call it as he saw it. And, rather than take an axe to the man and his work, I would much prefer to move on - ideally back in a more productive and Wellesian direction.

[Orson&Jazz]

I used to be a Spielberg fan. When I became a Welles admirer, and read the little bit where Spielberg wouldn't help Orson fund a movie, my admiration for the man dropped.


Spielberg spent what, $50 000 or more for a prop sled from Citizen Kane, a Welles movie, but wouldn't give that kind of cash to Welles to help make a movie? A priceless piece of memorablia that would double or even triple in value over time, but wouldn't help a legend finance a film? No wonder Welles blurted out that the sled was a fake. I would too in fit of anger.


So what is Spielberg's intention for remaking a story that has very close ties to Orson? That's what I would like to know.

[R Kadin]

O&J - apparently Spielberg thought that the events of September 11 offered a greater immediacy to Welles' legendary adaptation of a tale wherein a contemporary, vulnerable America comes face to face with the same kind of war-wrought refugee existence that countless other countries (including those of Spielberg's not-so-distant ancestors) have faced in their pasts. The fact that many of those same refugees and their descendents account for much of today's American fabric helps pull that thread even tighter.

Is the film a belated, even an atoning, expression of Wellesian respect on Spielberg's part? Was his auction purchase of the last copy of the Mercury Theater's radio script a move to ensure that a remarkable piece of Welles-driven performance history remained in appreciative hands or was it merely a crass and opportunistic act? Something in between, perhaps or something else, altogether? Clearly there will be many differing opinions on those counts. Speculate as we might, though, only Spielberg knows for sure.

At least he acknowledged for the record his debt to the Welles production. In the event the film is a popular success (rather good odds on that happening, I'd wager), it might make a whole new audience curious about the influences behind it. And sometimes curiosity about Welles leads to a fascination with Welles, a fascination that can, in turn, lead to Wellesnet.

[L French]

What is truly strange about the movie business, is that Spielberg will make at least 20 million on his version of 'War of the Worlds' - yet despite his great wealth and supposed admiration of Welles, a simple phone call to the head of any major studio and he could probably get the four million needed to finish "The Other Side of the Wind." Why he dosen't do that, may best be explained by Oja Kodar...


OJA KODAR: Orson was going to use Amy Irving for a part in THE CRADLE WILL ROCK, and at the time she was married to Steven Spielberg. So Orson had dinner with Spielberg and Amy Irving, they talked about the movie and then they both left. They also left Orson with the bill. Once again, Spielberg had a right to say no, but if you have courage, and you've paid $60,000. for a piece of wood, (the Rosebud sled from CITIZEN KANE), wouldn't you think he might give $60,000 to a great moviemaker? Wouldn't you think he might say, "Mr. Welles, here's $60,000, write me a script," instead of paying for a reproduction of the Rosebud sled. Orson said it was a fake, because the real Rosebud sled had burned up. Even if you don't shoot the script, wouldn't you like to have an original script by Orson Welles? You could put it on your coffee table and boast to your friends that Orson Welles had written an original script for you. You know what it is? These people don't love movies. First they love themselves. Only after that, do they love movies. They always say, "I admire Orson, I was impressed by him, I learned so much from him." But it's just something that sounds wonderful to say. It's like people who look at the Mona Lisa. They stand there and don't see much. You can see the disappointment on their faces. They fly all the way to Paris, go to the Louvre, and stand in front of the Mona Lisa and their faces look like a Cocker Spaniel. Everything is drooping down, because they don't know what they're looking at, but it's a great thing to go back and say, "it was wonderful."

[Glenn Anders]

Larry: I may have read Oja Kodar's take on this controversy in a different form, but she certainly nails it down here.

Steven Spielberg, possibly the most technically talented director in Hollywood, has always been a juvenile. Almost all his pictures illustrate the spirit of a boyish collector. It is the idea of a subject, the surface of life, which appeals to him. SCHINDLER'S LIST, his most renowned serious film, is marred by that mawkish scene of Oskar breaking down when presented with a ring made from the gold teeth of those he saved. Oskar Schindler, like Spielberg, was a man who never grew up, a shallow trickster, who for ambivalent motives performed a commendable act of compassion. The nobility of his act was complicated by many factors, but SCHINDLER'S LIST sentimentalizes him and presents his act at face value.

The merest restraint, the slightest hint of irony, would have saved the film in my eyes. A blubbering Schindler ruined all the magnificent technical work which went before.

So, it is not surprising to me that Spielberg would have valued a balsawood replica of a sled more than a possible new masterpiece from the hands of his supposed hero.

It is a very Hollywood story, as you suggest, a very American story.

Glenn

[R Kadin]

Movies are a business; film is an art. Spielberg embodies the former; Welles lived, in part, for the latter. Oja's comment crystallizes the difference very sharply. Thanks, LF, for focussing the issue.