THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND Thread - 2015-2017

[jbrooks]

That should be "clear chain of title" not "clear change of title." EW should hire some better editors.

[Wellesnet]

Craig Weinstein on Wellesnet Facebook wrote:

Raising even $300k for any part of a small film's budget, let alone $1M+ is a challenge.

There are still many unanswered questions and probably some of those questions would be legally difficult for parties involved to go into in public.

But this has to be cleared up soon. The amount of time and effort to go through all of that footage and figure out how to put it together correctly is going to be enough on its own.

And few key people involved are young any longer.

Time is the one thing that can't be bought by any amount of money concerning Wind...

At least the dailies are immortal.

Regarding that, there is some contention in that thread page about how the 16mm and 8mm footage (which is intended) will look against the 35mm footage.

There will be a marked difference but with some of the better blow up techniques we have today which did NOT exist in the 70's/80's when Welles shot this, it's possible to get much better quality than I think some people may realize. The 8mm/Super8 will be the grainiest but... that was intended by Welles.

There's also the question of just how clean to make the 16mm and 8mm footage given what we can do now. If the object was a contrast of looks according to what could be done with optical blowup technology of the time, that's an important one to cover.

[jtarvainen]

When the 20 minutes of previously unseen footage appeared on Henry Jaglom's YouTube channel in November 2012, there was a lot of publicity.

I've love to see this footage, since none of it is included in the 35 minutes of TOSOTW footage I have come across. If anybody can help me out, please PM me. Thanks!

[Wellesnet]

TOSOTW remains on Christmas wish list:
http://www.wellesnet.com/the-other-side ... wish-list/

After 40-years, the unedited negative remains locked away in a film laboratory outside Paris. The film is owned by Kodar and producer Filip Jan Rymsza. The latter purchased the shares once held by Les Films de l'Astrophore and the late Mehdi Boushehri, the major investors in the film.

From Wellesnet Facebook:

Michael Keonig: "Joseph McBride spoke about the situation at his recent appearance in San Rafael. The problem is that the longer that Sasha waits, the more likely it is that the whole deal falls apart, since some of the funding sources are contingent on clear agreements with all interested parties by a certain date. There's also the danger of other parties becoming dissatisfied with their deals when they see the Kodars negotiating for more. Hopefully it all gets worked out soon; this seems to be the best chance we'll have to see the film in the foreseeable future."

Rui Resende: "I contributed a month's worth salary of mine to the crowdfunding. I am expecting like everybody else, but i suppose it is ironic that near its completion, again this Welles' film will not come out."

Pete Fernbaugh: "I contributed, fully aware of the film's history of incompletion. I'm not a gambler, but I knew at the time that donating anything was a win-or-lose proposition, and I would quite possibly never see anything come of it and the whereabouts of my contribution would be as murky and muddled as the movie's history. But the chance to be a part of that history, the chance to help finish Welles' last film, that gamble proved irresistible, even if I knew it was more than likely a pipe dream..."

[jbrooks]

If those running the crowd-funding operation did not in fact have all of the rights secured (as they represented they did), then all the crowd-funding donations (including mine) were procured by fraud.

If Oja is in breach a contractual obligation to provide access to the negative, then the producers should sue her for breach.

[RayKelly]

I think it is too soon to pronounce the project dead. Both sides are in the midst of active negotiations. As for who is guilty of breach, none of us have seen the contract and are in a legal position to judge.
During the crowdfunding campaign, these were the rules under the Indiegogo terms of service:

All Contributions are non-refundable by Indiegogo and are made in your sole discretion and at your sole risk based on your sole determination and evaluation of the Campaign...

Indiegogo does not represent, warrant or guarantee:
• Perks will be delivered;
• Perks will be satisfactory to you; or
• The use of any Contributions or the outcome of any Campaign.
It is up to you, as the Contributor, to ask such questions and undertake such due diligence as you deem necessary before you make a Contribution. Indiegogo may, in its sole discretion and judgment but is under no obligation to, seek the refund of Contributions.

[Le Chiffre]

Fair enough, Ray, but I seem to recall that, along with my digital download of the film, they had also promised to send regular reports on the film's progress. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have not received one progress report since the Indiegogo campaign ended back in July. We've been getting some nice progress reports from you, thank you, but nothing from them. That's the least they can do for those that contributed, to at least let people know it wasn't all a big con job.

Thank God I only contributed $30. I considered contributing more; glad I didn't now.

[RayKelly]

I seem to recall that, along with my digital download of the film, they had also promised to send regular reports on the film's progress.

Mike, You are 100 percent right. Nobody likes silence. I respect that negotiations have to be kept quiet, but once they used crowdfunding they gained "investors," who want to be kept in the loop.

[Wellesnet]

Joseph McBride, arguably the finest Welles scholar today and a co-star in The Other Side of the Wind, posted the following on his Facebook page:

It's time for the producers to gear up for the inevitable lawsuit against Oja Kodar and Sasha Welles for obstructing the release of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. Oja has been doing that for seventeen years now, and the much-ballyhooed announcement a year ago has been for naught. The question of why she has blocked the film will be left for future historians, and her legacy and that of her allies, including some supposed Welles admirers, will not come off well in those assessments. The discovery process should be illuminating. Hopefully the court will award the Sasha-Oja share of the rights to the producers.

[jbrooks]

That Indiegogo has disclaimers on its site is not particularly relevant. It is the producers (not indiegogo) who raised the money and who made representations that they had secured the rights to the film. If they made those statements without in fact having secured the rights, then that was a fraudulent misrepresentation. Lying to people to induce those people to give you money is both morally wrong and an actionable tort. I, for one, do not appreciate my money having been taken on (possibly) false pretenses. If the producers did not misrepresent anything and had in fact secured the rights, then they should have clarified that point months ago. The fact that there has been radio silence from the producers for many months now does not inspire confidence. But for Frank Marshall's involvement, I would now suspect that the entire operation was a scam. Because of his involvement, I'm sure it's not a scam.

But I fully agree with Ray --

Nobody likes silence. I respect that negotiations have to be kept quiet, but once they used crowdfunding they gained "investors," who want to be kept in the loop.

[tonyw]

Ray is right. The sad thing about this whole farce is that wellesnet.com. went out on a limb to support this venture. Now, "Enough is enough." There can be no further excuse for this delay.

[RayKelly]

If the producers did not misrepresent anything and had in fact secured the rights, then they should have clarified that point months ago. The fact that there has been radio silence from the producers for many months now does not inspire confidence. But for Frank Marshall's involvement, I would now suspect that the entire operation was a scam. Because of his involvement, I'm sure it's not a scam.

Like you, I don't believe for a single moment that there was a scam. The producers counted on landing a major distributor early on who would fund the completion. The potential distributors wanted to see footage edited from the unseen negative, which Oja Kodar was unwilling to release because she had not been paid yet (because they had not landed a distributor). Filip Jan Rymsza then began lining up investors to pay Oja, while launching a crowdfunding drive to edit the negative. By the time he had gotten the money to pay Oja, she had soured on them and wanted a new deal.
Filip has been busting his ass on this, and nobody has gotten rich on an Orson Welles movie. (If Oja signs the $1.4M contract, she would be the exception).
I would hope that -- blessed with 20/20I hindsight -- the producers would have done things differently.

[I=Eye]

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

[jbrooks]

It simply isn't credible that Frank Marshall would have trouble raising a few million dollars for a movie -- any movie. He has dozens of people in his rolodex (or Outlook contacts) who would wire him $3 million sight unseen and with no strings attached.

[Le Chiffre]

Yep. Like the Catch-22 described by Ray above, it's just one of many things in this whole pathetic saga that makes very little sense. A 10-15 minute demo reel from the original negative to lure investors and distributors should've been a no-brainer to both camps.

But the disappointing showing of the indiegogo campaign in general seems to speak volumes about Hollywood's attitude towards the film. Very few big hitters stepped forward to help out. Maybe they knew something that we don't. In any event, I doubt that we'll be seeing any other Welles-related indiegogo campaigns in the near future.