"Henry Jaglom and Paul Mazursky directed by Orson Welles"

[Jeff Wilson]

I suppose it's possible; the footage posted on YouTube had to come from some source transferred from film, after all, and perhaps GG had videotape or other format copies of the footage he shot. Somebody did, at any rate, or it wouldn't be there. Not sure who would have then had access to the material and then wanted to post it; perhaps we'll find out at some point.

[kipling71]

This wouldn't surprise me - but I'm not sure I see how this would be, no offense, an earth-shattering revelation. The legal ownership of all of these things would have still been in question all these years, and it's not like Graver was independently wealthy enough to have finished them on his own.

Also, at the end of the day, the sad reality is that things DO occasionally get lost - especially when someone had as much going on and moved around as often as Welles did.

Re: the YouTube thing, perhaps the idea is to get some kind of viral presence going for "The Other Side of the Wind"? Apart from those who frequent this message board, how many people in the world know what "The Other Side of the Wind" is? Sprinkling the odd tidbit on YouTube would be a low-cost way of generating interest in the thing. Rather clever, actually.

[mido505]

kipling 71 - no offense taken!

It would certainly not be any great revelation if Graver had some odds and ends lying around that are hitting YouTube. But if Graver had nearly complete work prints of Don Quixote, TOSOTW, and The Deep, this would be news indeed. Currently, the negative and the sound for The Deep are believed to be lost, and what remains is incomplete and in rough shape. The standard boilerplate on DQ and TOSOTW is that various sequences edited by Welles exist, but nothing in complete or even near complete form. But there are also numerous references to an almost completely edited work print for DQ that no one can now find, and Graver has said in interviews that the same is true for The Deep and TOSOTW. If this is true, we should be able to see three of Welles' most import hitherto unseen projects in forms close to his original vision. If not, not.

Welles biography is a notorious minefield. Here is a perfect example, from the Larry French/Peter Bogdanovich interview posted on this site:

"LAWRENCE FRENCH: I’ve heard stories that John Huston privately expressed misgivings about the film.

PETER BOGDANOVICH: That is so untrue! John tried to finish the film himself, because he loved his own performance and he thought the film was fascinating. He wanted to cut it with his son, Danny Huston, but Oja wouldn’t let him do it."

And here is a quotation from page 208 of Joseph McBride's Whatever Happened to Orson Welles?:

"After Welles' death, Graver, Kodar, Bogdanovich, and Frank Marshall continued to put in long and dedicated efforts on the film's behalf, screening footage and showing rough cuts to many potential backers, who almost invariably reacted with incomprehension...Kodar showed it to Huston and asked him to complete the film, but he found the challenges too difficult."

Here we have two men who worked closely with Welles on TOSOTW, and who both worked to get the film finished after his death, telling two completely contradictory stories. As the late great Chuck Heston said in Planet of the Apes: "It's a madhouse, a madhouse!!!". With Orson Welles, anything can turn up at anytime.

[Glenn Anders]

Not necessarily "two completely contradictory stories."

To use that popular modern term, perhaps we may "parse" the two accounts:

Oja wanted Huston to do the editing of TOSOTW after Welles' death, and Huston wanted to do it, but his lungs were pretty well shot by that time, and he was in a wheel chair. He suggested that Danny, his son, might do it, with some advice from Dad, as he was able, but Oja wouldn't agree to such an arrangement, and so the whole thing fell through.

And here we are.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Thanks for posting those quotes Mido...

And Glenn brings up a good point, as well. Maybe after Welles died in 1985, Huston felt he wasn't up to it, and offered to supervise the work of his son, Danny, and Oja simply didn't like that plan. But given the problems with the rights issues with the Iranians were still a major problem, and there were no backers, plus Huston was supposedly still owed about $70,000. for appearing it the film, it seems only logical he wouldn't want to go anywhere near the project.

By the way, I seem to recall it was Rick Schmidlin who posted to the old "Touch of Welles" board that after he watched the rough cut of OSOTW he felt it was a big disappointment, and also claimed that Huston privately hoped the film would never be finished. Apparently Schmidlin was also in the David Thomson camp, that feels the film should never be seen. I recall thinking after reading that, maybe he was right and the film wasn't worth trying to finish. Since then I've seen a lot more of the footage, read the script and I now couldn't disagree more!

[LamontCranston]

About the transfer, 50 seconds into the longer of the two clips a big static line runs up the screen, the techies can tell me what the exact name for that is, so this would have been first transfered to video (beta? vhs?) and then later from that put on to a computer...

[Alan Brody]

By the way, I seem to recall it was Rick Schmidlin who posted to the old "Touch of Welles" board that after he watched the rough cut of OSOTW he felt it was a big disappointment, and also claimed that Huston privately hoped the film would never be finished. Apparently Schmidlin was also in the David Thomson camp, that feels the film should never be seen.

Here are some posts from the old Welles board (around May 2000) that might be of interest:

Paul Collins:
A reliable source recently spoke directly with producer Frank Marshall ("The Sixth Sense") and apparently Showtime is about to close a deal that would finally bring Welles' last film, at least to the small screen. Marshall will produce and Peter Bogdanovich and Gary Graver will supervise the edit.
Hurray for Showtime which did such a fabulous job with "The Big Brass Ring."
More later as it develops...
************
Hazel:
A very dear friend of mine, Tonio Selwart, played a cameo in this film in the role of "The Baron". He will be 104 years old next week and I am trying to get any up to date information I can regarding the status of this film. He would very much like any news regarding it. Could anyone with information, please email me at the above address? Thank you!
*************
?:
Welles was doing nothing but cinematic masturbation, I have seen a lot of the footage. If anyone does anything with this material it will be far away from what was intended.
***********
PC:
Cinematic masturbation? I think that's what they first said about Braque and Picasso when they introduced cubism. Why don't you read a few books, moron.
************
Herbert Carter:
Dear F for Fake?:
I believe in a lively exchange of ideas, but how dare you refer to Welles' 'The Other Side of the Wind' as "cinematic masturbation." In its final edited form, if it's anything like the clips that were shown on the televised 1975 AFI Tribute (wake?) for Welles, TOSOTW could at the very least be a fascinating period piece of an already strangely distant era in Hollywood. Welles' directorial failures were more interesting than most other directors' successes, so I'd reserve judgement until we see what the editors come up with (working, I would hope, from notes that Welles left behind).
************
?:
Have you ever read the screenplay to TOSOTW?
Also there are no notes.
Also Welles did not direct some parts.
Wouldn't it be hard to find he was out to lunch on his last film?
It's eay to think that ones hero work is all worthwhile, but there is also a reality.
************
AJS:
I think we'd be more inclined to take your opinion seriously if you'd bother to identify yourself in your header.
OSOTW seems a lot like those Hemingway stories that he never finished writing. They kinda suck, but I wouldn't classify it as masturbation. He just blew his brains out before he could manage a rewrite or even a first edit. Simlar situation with OSOTW.
And can you be more specific about what's wrong with the film?
*************
?:
There are seriuos reasons why I don't use my name, but trust me that in the more then one screening I saw people there were worried more about Orsons legacy if this project happened. Yes Frank and Peter can make a interesting project, but it will not even live up to the boreing version of It's All True. Touch Of Evisl is questionable but at leaste we have the others to fall back on. 

************
Fred:
I find it interesting that that sentiment is exaclty what RKO felt about "Ambersons", what Universal felt about "Touch of Evil," what just about every producer felt before thoughtlessly taking the knife to OW's brilliant works. If what you say is true, then TOSOTW will be astounding and still way ahead of its time.
************
?:
Nope your wrong Fred, this was a dissaster. It is why Lucas, Speilberg and others tried but could not help nor could Jaglom . This film is a myth in all your minds. The day will come when this will be a wake not a re-birth.
My spelling is as sloppy as Welles direction regarding TOSOTW. I just wrote a quick reply. Yes the footage will be intering but I am just scared that this could leave Orson (who I respect) in worse shape then Kubrick had as a final film. High expections and a sudden silence when the lights go up filled with remorse. Do your homework, have you ever read Joe McBides study of TOSOTW in American Film?
***********
AJS:
No, but I've read McBride's book Orson Welles, the revised edition, and the chapter on TOSOTW is probably the most thorough account of the film's making. Judging by all the crap that whole crew went through over the years trying to put it together, I'd say that even if the film is a collosal bore, it's still worth seeing. You learn a lot more from your mistakes than from your successes. And two hours of Welles screwing up is worth more than a lifetime of Jerry Bruckheimer footage. And who the hell cares what effect it will have on Welles' reputation? I'll wage one of the reasons it never got released was because he really didn't give fat rat's fart about what other people though of his work. He did what he wanted to do. That's why I have a lot of respect for the man. Like Dietrich's line, "He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"
As for Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut was pretty boring, but no more so than 2001 or Barry Lyndon. I don't think people think any less of Kubrick because of it. If anything, it puts the rest of his work in a different perspective: in the final analysis, he's a sad little hermit of a director, a voyeur wrapped up in his own tiny little meticulously crafted world.
***********
Anthony:
RE: Anyone editing a Welles film:
PLease everybody- let's remember that Welles's opinion about cinema was that "edting is not an aspect of making movies, it's the aspect of making movies". That's why we will never have his "Quixote" or "Deep" or "Wind"; at the very most, we can have "Bogdanovich's Wind" or "Franco's Quixote"; yes, it's all very post-modern, but perhaps Welles would want his work open and not closed; for the post-modern mind, there are no "finished" works. In "Chahiers" In 1966, Welles said that he had only a series of sequences for "Quixote" and that he didnt know how to turn it into a film; maybe he just never solved that particular problem.
**********
FOTA:
Even if TOSOTW is 'cinematic masturbation' as ? says, I'm still looking forward to it eagerly. Orson Welles' fiascos are more fun to watch then most director's good movies!
**********
?:
And it is importent too as it will explain fully Welles state of mind at the time. My only fear is that it will more others state no then his like "It's All True" was done. The short version was done with Dick Wilson for the AFI and was fine. The longer was drabble. 

**********
MV:
The total of the AFI documentary by Wilson can be seen within the the 'expanded' version.
**************
?:
Yes but the rest of the new version had a war on how to cut and mix it that would have, may have killed Wilson. Ask Jonathan Rosenbaum about the war. Even the producers involved offer disclaimers about how it was done. Nobody was happy with the final result except for the little hype.
**************
One guy on a raft:
almost afraid to ask:
what is it that you object to?
what is your problem with documentary?
what's your point?
**************
?:
what is it that you object to? Distored facts Enquirer Style
: what is your problem with documentary? The same as above, no thought out conclusions
: what's your point? It was not researched well and those importent Welles scholars like McBride,Carringer,Rosenbaum,Naremore were never consulted.
***********
FOTA:
Now I'm confused. The only part of It's All True that I thought seemed a bit overlong was the Four Men On A Raft episode, which was about 45 minutes long, and had the slow pacing of a rough cut (I like to think of it as the embryonic ruins of what might have been a Welles film).
I remember hearing something years before the film was released about a 22 minute version of 'Raft' that was shown at certain festivals. Is this what you guys are referring to? If so, is this version still in existence?
Other then that, I thought the first part of It's All True, which told the story of the film's undoing, was very well done. 

*************
?:
Yes that was Richard Wilsons work and he was Welles producer from the radio days to MacBeth. He loved Orson all his life and understood him. In fact he was the line producer on Kane and Ambersons. He went to Rio with Orson. Anybody who knew him would understand how far the longer version drifted away from his and Orson plan. This is a pity.

***************
Ray Kelly:
"?", could you elaborate on how it drifted away from "his an Orson plan" Do you mean that the documentary is nothing like what was planned in 1942 (which is obvious) or do you mean that Krohn and Meisel made significant changes after Richard Wilson's death.
I talked with some UCLA preservationists at the time who were a little upset that Wilson & co. came in with a specific list of obtaining/preserving specific scenes from It's All True and not more of Bonito.
*************
?:
Wilson was gone by the time the longer version was made. None of the producers got along and there was a lot of non academic work done.
*************
Walter Simeon:
I have been observing this board for some time, and I truly believe that this ? person is deranged. As a production member on IT'S ALL TRUE I can tell you that name dropping with insults is ?'s shield of his ignorance. He cannot even keep his opinions straight. I concur with others that most of his past postings are incorrect also. I write this only so his messages are not taken as fact which they are respected as now.


*************
?:
Then please expalins the problems with Jean-Luc Ormieres and Meisel. And how the best exspert on the film Catherine Benamou was shunned by all. Why the UCLA Rio foootage was not used. And why the terrible folly and music didn't come close, how very sloppy it was. And Bill Krohn who championed the project with Richard Wilson was also frustrated and shunned. All because of Ormierers and Meisels power struggle. And What od Konckier, care to comment on that one.You don't know who I am and how close to these people I have been.The work on this film is a tragic and every Welles scholar knows it. So let's call it what it was, a mess of a production from these people that had to do with money and power.It's is had to watch and was was a childish production. COMMENT?
***************
WS:
In response to your incoherent message, EVERY production is plagued with conflicts of viewpoints and INTERESTS: meaning MONEY. The power struggle was over what was going into the pockets. There was more alliances made between the battling parade of producers under the contracts, they were playing money games that had NOTHING to do with Welles. Krohn and Konckier were not the only people who got their toes stepped on; they MUST have known what they were getting into: Two nameless producers were/are two loud mouth PARASITES without CLASS. Any comment ? And after all that silliness, there came a PRESENTATION of the heroically PRESERVED footage (for me more important than any petty bitterness you are familiar with) that set most of the record straight about Welles and RKO. I also believe that this "childish -- hard to watch" presentation, warts and all, started a Welles renaissance that continues to this day. What in the release REALLY troubles YOU? What is this "Enquirer" journalism you see? How was Wilson silenced in the film? What conclusions would you want this film to make? COMMENTS, DUM KOPF!?!

****************
?: :
Well we know what loud mouths this guys are and that they were not prepaired to do this project. But poor Catherine I feel so sorry for her and all that great Rio footage we may never see.
: And after all that silliness, there came a PRESENTATION of the heroically PRESERVED footage (for me more important than any petty bitterness you are familiar with) that set most of the record straight about Welles and RKO. I also believe that this "childish -- hard to watch" -- presentation, warts and all, started a Welles renaissance
It started with Kane or had you not heard, or maybe the unteen books after McBride or may the BBC Special, but this version that you worked on is boreing.
:What in the release REALLY troubles YOU?
The poor cutting, the lousy music, the really bad folly, loved that sound when they were building the raft ha ha. The unlike Welles editeing. The poor presention trying to make "For Men On A Raft" a Welles film without the intelgance of the master.The sound effects sounded like an Ed Wood movie and so did the editing.
:What is this "Enquirer" journalism you see?
The scandel the so call producers caused by being power hungry children
:How was Wilson silenced in the film?
He was not alive to see this cut and Krohn did not understand what Wilson wanted.
:What conclusions would you want this film to make?
It should have been a documentary- once they got to the raft the produced though they tried to be Welles.BIG MISTAKE
************




[LamontCranston]

It is why Lucas, Speilberg and others tried but could not help

Oliver Stone couldn't have thought it was all that bad since he ripped off the basic technique for JFK & Natural Born Killers

[Roger Ryan]

Thanks for sharing that thread from days gone by as frustrating as it might be. The thought of a 104-year-old Tonio Selwart wondering about the status of TOSOTW is quite tragic!

[kipling71]

The thought of a 104-year-old Tonio Selwart wondering about the status of TOSOTW is quite tragic!

Oh, I dunno. Looking at it another way, I hope I'm capable of worrying about stuff when I'm 104.

[Alan Brody]

Me too, but it's still sad to think about all the people involved in this film who never got a chance to see it. I wonder if Tonio Selwert at least got a chance to see the 1999 Gary Graver workprint cut, and if so, what he thought of it.

Here's another director on working with Welles, courtesy of Harvey Chartrand:

[color=#000000]I recently interviewed director Curtis Harrington for a film magazine. Here are his reflections on acting for Welles in The Other Side of the Wind.
____

I understand you did some acting for Orson Welles in 1970.

CH: I first met Gary Graver, Welles’ favorite cinematographer in his later years, when he worked as an usher at a theatre on Hollywood Boulevard. This is when he was very young, before he became a cameraman. Gary was a film buff and we became friends. I never worked with him until I made Usher. We were friends all those years when Gary was working with Orson Welles. Gary would report to me on the experiences he had with Orson. I found all that very exciting. Through Gary, I finally met Orson. We all had dinner together at Ma Maison one night. Then Orson invited me to play myself in his last unfinished film The Other Side of the Wind. So I am proud to say that I have actually been directed by Orson Welles. God willing, The Other Side of the Wind will be released someday and you’ll be able to judge the quality of my performance.

Did Welles coach you at all?

CH: Yes! I wasn’t playing a part. I was playing myself. There is a scene where a leading character, a film director (subsequently played by John Huston), is at a party of young Hollywood types. He has a chat with various young directors. One of those chaps was me. We did this scene the night before I was to start shooting What’s the Matter with Helen? I remember thinking… my God, I’ll be so tired tomorrow on the first day of shooting, I’ll be a wreck. But I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to be in an Orson Welles film. Orson played the part of John Huston offscreen. The only real acting I’ve done was in Usher, filmed much later. I did not consider myself to be an actor. I was very self-conscious even just playing myself! So Orson relaxed me by plying me with Scotch. And yet the next day went very well, as I recall!

I am also one of the few American directors to cast the great Irish actor Micheal MacLiammoir in a film. He played Iago in Orson Welles’ version of Othello. That evening, it was great to be able to tell Orson that I had engaged his old friend Micheal MacLiammoir to come from Ireland to play the flamboyant elocutionist in What’s the Matter with Helen? So we chatted quite a bit about Micheal. Orson was presumably discovered as an actor by Micheal MacLiammoir in Dublin at the very beginning of his career. Orson was very fond of Micheal. Coincidentally, John Huston had just cast Micheal in The Kremlin Letter.[/color]

[abasak]

Has this clip been on here before? Just found it today. It reminds me of The Orson Welles Show.

Jaglom and Welles.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kTHrBVBSb9o

[Glenn Anders]

Thanks, abasak: I'm not sure if the sequence has been posted here before, but it comes from near the end of Jaglom's SOMEONE TO LOVE, which was filmed in 1985-86, and released in 1987. This performance, shot shortly before his death, is said to be Welles' last in a Hollywood feature film. His dialogue here, which continues to the end of the picture, finishes with his saying, "Cut" -- twice. His speech about the breakdown of the family was probably ad libbed, but is particularly poignant in light of speculation on another part of this board just now that Welles' long suffering wife, the Contessa di Girfalco, Paola Mori, had finally "thrown him out" of their home in Las Vegas in 1985.

I'm also arrested by the cutting, which unlike the "Orson Welles' Show" is supple and rhythmic, better than Henry Jaglom often manages.

Welles' mistress, Oja Kodar, also appeared in the film.

Glenn

[abasak]

Thank you for putting the clip into context.

But I must say that I disagree with you on the cutting, to me it is wonky. The way it cuts to see Jaglom go "uhh" or smile reminds me very much of the cutting in TOS.

Still it's fun to watch.

[ToddBaesen]

The links to just the Jaglom and Mazursky footage, which was up on YouTube for quite awhile, has also now been removed at the request of Oja Kodar's company.