Spielberg - His Generation's Orson Welles?

[R Kadin]

Reading anecdotes like andrej's you can't help but wonder just how bad must have been "the book" on Welles at that time - by which I mean the unwritten word on him, the clandestine and unshakeable industry label that circulated within the insider community.

Evidently it was dangerous enough to get young-ish film schooled director types and unabashed Welles admirers to treat him like he was radioactive if ever he strayed from his typecast role as raconteur/legend and veered anywhere near the topic of new projects. Might it have been something far worse than, "kiss your money goodbye" (a prospect that some of the young and affluently successful might have been willing to chance) and more like, "kiss your career goodbye"?

Brash young actors famed for their supposedly anti-establishment personas wouldn't commit to his Big Brass Ring and upstart producer/directors flush with youth, success and cash somehow had room enough only to host or be hosted by him. What was up with all that?

Al Pacino told of how he once showed insufficent respect for the Hollywood "Star Chamber" clique and found himself a near exile for a decade - an exile that only ended once he had tired of all the cr*p work (not to mention the nose candy excesses) and he actively lobbied them to give him a chance to prove that he had learned his lesson. In no time thereafter "Scent of a Woman" got taken away from someone else, was handed to Pacino who rode it all the way to the Oscars - and he was back in the game. The prodigal son returned and feasted on the fatted calf, offering high-profile confirmation of the wisdom of doing things the clique's way.

I'll venture that, if there is a Wellesian parallel to Pacino's experience, the maverick Welles' sin in the Star Chamber's eyes might have been as profound as his contrition and deference were nonexistent. Thereafter, in order for the clique to provide an iron clad object lesson on the consequences of defiance, Welles' name went and stayed on its whispered - and perenially potent - blacklist.

I realize how conspiratorial the above might seem; but what else explains how youthful admirers, virtually to a man, would go from fawningly receptive one day to virtually unreachable the next?

I realize that rampant superficiality and self-absorbtion (i.e., the Oja Koda theory) could be the simple answers that account for some of it. But I find it hard to believe that a wall made from such weaknesses could have worked so perfectly when it came to shutting Our Man out despite his persistent hunt for so much as the tiniest way in. And not just "out", but out even beyond the margins. To be successfully sentenced to that kind of a limbo, a person of Welles' character would have to be up against a rampart of almost God-like strength, the kind of imperiousness to which lesser sorts inevitably bend the knee, however much they later profess their regrets.

[jaime marzol]

i don't want to down talk our guy, orson, but my take on it is, and i back it up with some facts, in the frank brady book he lists about 40 offers that welles got when he returned to america in the mid-50s. offers were popping everywhere, even from tv, none materialized.

in the andrew yule book on bogdanovich, in the 70s they list offers that welles got, offers bogdanovich courted for welles, and none materialized and some due directly to welles' suspicious nature.

welles was suspicious, unbendable, paranoid, lacking in people skills. producers are not the bravest bunch in the world, if they lose the nut, they are out of business. no producer wants to make a citizen kane that earns it's money back in 20 years.

and welles didn't have a houseman to keep these money people way from welles except in social situations. had it been houseman discussing the business and welles just being social he would have fared much better.

coppola is a big, short tempered screaming italian. how far do you think he and welles would have gotten?

welles needed an institution that was not expecting a return on their money, to write the checks. it would have furthered the cinema, and all colleges teaching film would have gained, but there would have been no box office bonanza, except for guys like me that would line up even in snowstorms to see orson's latest offering. i dare say there might be 200 guys like me in each city.

in the yule book bogdanovich says welles in all situations was always looking for, and expecting a knife in his back. probably made him difficult to work with, and no doubt this was brought on by his experiences his first time around with the movie boys.

[etimh]

R Kadin: man, I really enjoy reading your posts--very interesting and evocative thoughts on this topic, as usual.

And jaime: of course, thanks for the "reality check"--you're often the perfect antidote to the Welles-worship headspins I fear we all succumb to, now and then.

Reading this last exchange has made my day--cheers to both of you.

Tim

[Orson&Jazz]

It still stings when I read how Welles was treated.

And I do agree with the fact that Welles was difficult to get along with at times, so it could have scared away the fishes. He was stubborn and hard-headed. Also, who wouldn't be a bit intimidated by a large man with a quick wit and booming voice? Or the fact that they think the only great movie he's ever made was Kane, and so he just had to be out of great ideas. They probably thought he never had it in him to top it. (not that this was really true of course!) So, they were worried about wasting their cash. It had became the staple that critical acclaim came from box-office revenues. Which is a warped kind of logic.

But, I also see from Welles point of view. He had been scorned many times. I can see why he'd be skeptical. Once he made a film, he didn't want to turn his back on it in the event there would be a shadow lurking in dark corners waiting with a pair of scissors. You can not blame the man.

But what I find apalling is that Orson bared his soul to potential finanaciers. He was begging for money like a bum on the street. He wanted to make films, the urge was there. He was desperate. I feel guilty when I borrow 10 bucks from a friend, yet Welles was trying to finance a film that needed a vast amount of cash, which he was trying to borrow from people he rarely knew. Imagine how hard it would have been for Welles to ask for help? A proud man like Welles setting up dinner dates to try and reel in a bit of cash to continue filming TOSOTW, or other projects. I see it as desperation on Welles part, and yet out of the pool of filthy rich hollywood big-shots, the cash rarely or never flowed. They were tighter than the bolts on a submarine. I am sure they had seen Welles' desperation. And to leave him with false promises or the tab for the meal was cruel.

I really can not blame Welles at all for being suspicious or jaded.



(sorry for the Welles-Worship headspin!)

[Orson&Jazz]

Speilberg will never be better than Orson Welles.


No amount of the sappy drivel he dishes out will ever make him better than Orson either.


My emotions were moved more by watching a simple scene of a sled burning in a fire, than seeing a robot child unable to become a real boy.

[Roger Ryan]

As a bit of a defense for Mr. Coppola, it might be appropriate to point out that Zoetrope Studios and Coppola himself were in disarray post-"Apocalype Now". He had spent alot of money and sanity trying to get that project completed. When he hedged his bets on the follow-up, "One From The Heart", it bankrupted him. During this same period, he was trying to assist the careers of Carrol Ballard, Wim Wenders and Kurosawa. Coppola was completely burned out. In fact, artistically he has never really recovered. His few high-profile efforts over the last decade or so ("Dracula", "The Godfather III") have been disappointments. In some ways, Coppola's career is the kind Welles might have had if he had agreed to keep directing movies like "The Stranger". So I wouldn't blame Coppola too much for letting a Welles project slip through circa 1980.

[Chirpy_Sabz]

hmmm they are way too different.

anyways I prefer Orson

[catbuglah]

For this generation's Welles, as far as film directing goes, I'd pick probably David Lynch, I see a similar sensibility there...

[jaime marzol]

ah, i pick scorsese as the closest to welles that is living. i like tyhe way marty's camera is always moving.

[catbuglah]

I can see Marty fitting the bill as well - I just watched the TV Ambersons thing, which didn't quite work, I opine, but I'm thinking Scorcese à la Age of Innocence could have made that script into a great contemporary film. Really, I think if you're gonna film a Welles script, it would take guys on the level of Lynch or Scorcese to really pull it off, otherwise I prefer to just read the script.

Cheers,

Mark

[etimh]

marzol and catbuglah:

I think both of you are correct in your comparisons. Scorsese perhaps more in terms of the conventional aesthetic sensibilities; Lynch for that perhaps undefinable aesthetic rebelliousness and defiance of the Hollywood system. Still, Lynch gets projects like Mulholland Dr. done within the confines of the mainstream industry, so go figure.

Maybe a better comparison in this respect would be Jim Jarmusch? Although Jarmusch started from outside the mainstream Hollywood system and never really had the insider track like Welles did with RKO, he still struggles to this day with funding for his projects. Sound familiar?

Tim

[etimh]

Now that I think about it, didn't primary funding for Mulholland Dr. come from Canal+, a Euro company? Still, a major global media player and distributed by Universal here in the states.

Tim

[jaime marzol]

regardless of what his faults were, my welles-worship is intact.

i think the man is still to this day unsurpassed in stage, radio, and in cinema.

in films he revolutionized sound. he invented a cinematic language. in framing, and character choreography nobody can hold a candle to him. in the editing room, forget it, still to this day, even with digital editing no one comes close to him. a study of the editing in touch of evil (1959!) will tell you that.

once you see STORIES FROM A LIFE IN FILM, WITH ORSON WELLES, he charms you into taking his side, even if he maliciously threw flaming dishwarmers at houseman's face.

i enjoy discussing all facets of the man. i enjoy his faults as much as his genius. today since we no longer have him around we can openly discuss his faults because we will not be hurting his chances at getting money to make films. had kael and higham waited till he wasn't around anymore before they kicked him around, we might have had a couple of more welles films to study.

[catbuglah]

Maybe a better comparison in this respect would be Jim Jarmusch? Although Jarmusch started from outside the mainstream Hollywood system and never really had the insider track like Welles did with RKO, he still struggles to this day with funding for his projects. Sound familiar?

A movie every three years? That's about Welles' average. Have to see Dead Man - the preview I saw was compelling.

Coincidently, both Welles and Scorcese have a new release in the stores delaing with Howard Huges.

For Lynch I feel he works in a tragic, oniric, psychological, labirynthic, baroque mode with grotesque overtones that makes me wonder how much he was influenced by Welles (Plus they both have training in painting) (Mulholland financed by Canal+ as a movie because originally intended as a TV pilot but later rejected, methinks)

Cordially,

Mark

[Roger Ryan]

The Lynch connection is not that far off, really. "Lady From Shanghai" and "Touch Of Evil" seem highly influential on Lynch's work, the only films I can think of off-hand prior to "Blue Velvet" or "Wild At Heart" that capture that dizzying blend of nightmare tension and grotesque humor. Compare Glenn Anders performance as George Grisby in "Shanghai" to any number of Lynch characters and you'll see what I mean.