‘The Other Side of the Wind’ being finished in Los Angeles for Netflix

[RayKelly]

I must admit, I am a little curious as to whether it was Bob Murawski's decision to eliminate Mavis/Otterlake as a couple or if Peter Bogdanovich lobbied for the cut because he was unhappy that it made Mavis a stand-in for his then-girlfriend Cybill Shepherd, as some of the crew, including Joseph McBride, have suggested.

[nickleschichoney]

I must admit, I am a little curious as to whether it was Bob Murawski's decision to eliminate Mavis/Otterlake as a couple or if Peter Bogdanovich lobbied for the cut because he was unhappy that it made Mavis a stand-in for his then-girlfriend Cybill Shepherd, as some of the crew, including Joseph McBride, have suggested.

In their defense, there are some additional scenes Welles scripted in April 1975 that seem to remove any implication that Mavis is Otterlake's girlfriend. One of the scraps assigns the line "Not his, Skipper -- She's mine" from Otterlake to John Carroll's character Lou Martin. This does not show that Mavis is Lou's girlfriend, as the scenes of Lou Martin retained in the movie show that he doesn't mind Jake moving in on her. Instead, this line change shows that he and Jake are both moving in on the poor girl like sharks.

Another scrap labeled "SECOND CORRIDOR" (after one of the guests asks about the drive-in, a line that ALSO was never shot) has Lou say, "The drive-in--? That's a good idea. I'll go see about it. Cute-pants, you get us some drinks. For me and Mr. Hannaford--two big ones---"

CITATION: Orson Welles - Oja Kodar Papers (1910-2000, bulk 1965-1985), Other Side of the Wind (1970-1976): Draft pages "Los Angeles Pages Complete" (annotated typescript and carbon), April 3, 1975-April 18, 1975 (4.0 folders). University of Michigan Library (Special Collections Research Center), Ann Arbor.

[JMcBride]

Good scholarship. It's possible Peter lobbied Welles
for the change at the script stage. When I was on set watching Jake
enter with Mavis, he was clearly shown as taking her
away from Otterlake. We don't get a sense in
the finished film of who she is or why she is at
the party.

[nickleschichoney]

Good scholarship.

Thank you! Bogdanovich might have requested the change, but Welles made it, and I think it helps the film.

I wonder if Mavis’s being Otterlake’s partner might have worked better with Rich Little in the role. From what I saw in the Neville doc, his Otterlake seemed crueler than Bogdanovich’s, as if everything he said was drenched in smarm and dishonesty. (Bogdanovich’s Otterlake, by comparison, seems much more human, complex, and sympathetic.) This and Little’s convincing voice impressions may have been the reason behind the ending where Otterlake poses as Dale, effectively driving Jake to suicide. As someone who was there, do you think this take on Little’s portrayal is accurate, Prof. McBride?

[Tony]

Nic: I'm curious as to why you think the change regarding Mavis helps the film.

[Jay]

Ray, any chance you can work your magic and get an update from Filip on the blu-rays the original project backers were promised? It's been quite some time with no updates.

[RayKelly]

Ray, any chance you can work your magic and get an update from Filip on the blu-rays the original project backers were promised? It's been quite some time with no updates.

Happy to ask. I will let you know if/when I hear back.

[nickleschichoney]

Nic: I'm curious as to why you think the change regarding Mavis helps the film.

We see how much peer pressure influences Hannaford’s behavior. By removing Mavis from Otterlake and making her a target of every male at the party, we can see how much Hannaford’s disturbing behavior towards women is a product of the Hollywood culture he’s in — rather than just a measure of his relationship with Otterlake. The hanger-on friend of Jake’s, Lou Martin, expresses interest in Mavis, but also approves of Jake’s “conquest”. So we see how engrained it is in his generation to prey on the innocent. Moreover, by having younger men go after Mavis too, we understand how much this behavior has rubbed off on the younger generation.

[Le Chiffre]

In their defense, there are some additional scenes Welles scripted in April 1975 that seem to remove any implication that Mavis is Otterlake's girlfriend. One of the scraps assigns the line "Not his, Skipper -- She's mine" from Otterlake to John Carroll's character Lou Martin.

Good scholarship. It's possible Peter lobbied Welles for the change at the script stage. When I was on set watching Jake enter with Mavis, he was clearly shown as taking her away from Otterlake. We don't get a sense in the finished film of who she is or why she is at the party.

Interesting. Then it's also possible that Welles created the Lou Martin character as a favor to Bogdanovich for bailing him out of the jam created by Rich Little's departure.

I wonder if Mavis’s being Otterlake’s partner might have worked better with Rich Little in the role.

I wonder that too. In the finished film we do see a glimpse of that previous incarnation when Rich Little calls Mavis "dum-dum", which suggests they at least know each other. Is it possible that a second version of the film could be made with Little as Otterlake and Bogdanovich as Higgam? The Neville Morgan docu seems to imply that Little was almost finished filming his part when he left. I doubt if Netflix would be interested, even if it is possible. Might be a significantly different film, though. Sure would be nice to see Bogdanovich's complete performance as Higgam.

[JMcBride]

I enjoyed meeting and working with Rich Little. I did
some scenes with him. In one I am "interviewing" him
while holding the Oscar Welles won for CITIZEN KANE as a fake
microphone. I asked Welles where it had been
all those years, and he told me he had given it to the
Museum of Modern Art but had borrowed it back. His mockery
of the Oscar was in keeping with his contempt for that
institution and the way they treated him at the 1942 ceremony.

I think the conceit of Little playing
the Otterlake part as a series of impressions of lines
from various movie stars would not have worked
well but would have become labored very quickly, and though he is a fine impressionist, he is not much of an actor, unlike Bogdanovich, who is excellent and three-dimensional as Otterlake. Peter's scenes as Higgam
were confined to the first day of shooting with me (some
can be seen in THEY'LL LOVE ME WHEN I'M DEAD) and
at the airport a little later, while he was en route to
Texas to make THE LAST PICTURE SHOW (also see the
documentary; Peter talked with me about that
project when we met). Peter was very broad as Higgam. He
is subtle as Otterlake.

[nickleschichoney]

I think the conceit of Little playing
the Otterlake part as a series of impressions of lines
from various movie stars would not have worked
well but would have become labored very quickly, and though he is a fine impressionist, he is not much of an actor, unlike Bogdanovich, who is excellent and three-dimensional as Otterlake.

But that might have been the idea: Welles might have wanted to portray Otterlake, at least at that stage in the filming, as someone without much depth, someone who was capable of doing impressions of anybody at will but had no character or substance of his own. Someone who was not truly a friend to Hannaford but acted as though he was.

Take the "throne" scene. In the film, Bogdanovich's Otterlake carefully sits in it, as if he's feeling the weight of inheriting Jake's legacy. In the outtakes from THEY'LL LOVE ME WHEN I'M DEAD, Little's Otterlake gleefully grabs onto Jake's forefathers' chair. He wants it. He can't wait to inherit it. He wants Hannaford to die.

In other words, Little was playing Otterlake as a cold, cruel human being, someone who acts like Hannaford's best friend only to have his own interests at heart. Little's Otterlake would have been more of a leech towards Hannaford than Bogdanovich's more complex take on the character.

Several drafts of the script for the 1974 shoot end with Hannaford encountering Otterlake in character as John Dale. Otterlake-as-Dale rejects Hannaford, effectively driving the old director to suicide. This would have fit Rich Little's portrayal more than Bogdanovich's. When Bogdanovich took over the role, the character was taken in a different, more sympathetic, and more complex direction. So, the ending was changed to have Hannaford encounter the real John Dale.

This is why I wondered if it would have made more sense for Mavis to be the girlfriend of Little's Otterlake than Bogdanovich's. It's incredibly sleazy for someone Otterlake's age to have a girlfriend so naive and so much younger than he is. This makes sense for the one-dimensional "evil" Otterlake whom Little played, more than the three-dimensional "good" Otterlake as Bogdanovich played him.

[Wich2]

I think the conceit of Little playing the Otterlake part as a series of impressions of lines from various movie stars would not have worked well but would have become labored very quickly, and though he is a fine impressionist, he is not much of an actor, unlike Bogdanovich, who is excellent and three-dimensional as Otterlake.

^This.

Gimmick casting of non-actors, brilliant as it sounds, is a one-trick pony move that almost never works in a substantial role. To paraphrase something a wise acting teacher taught me long ago:

No matter the characteristics of a person, they don't translate in performance w/o performance ability. In other words, a shallow, or hilarious, or brilliant, or foolish person rarely reads as that, when placed in a dramatic piece.

Little is sketch performer. Sketch performance is not the kind of acting required in a drama such as TOSOTW. It does not sustain as needed there; in fact, over time, it tires.

- Craig

[nickleschichoney]

But again, the tiredness of Little’s impression shtick might have helped cement Otterlake as an unsympathetic, shallow character. Little’s Otterlake would be all imitation and no soul.

[Wich2]

With respect, I think you're missing my point:

Being built by external exaggeration with the goal of one-note comic effect, a surface Sketch character can never really establish any dimensional personal trait in an actual Drama.

(Try watching some of Dan Ackroyd's early attempts at "real" acting, and you'll see what I mean. Painful.)

I'd bet that Orson "got" that, and that it's exactly why the change was made?

- Craig

[RayKelly]

Looking at the completed film, I wonder if Welles would have considered Rich Little walking out on the production and Peter Bogdanovich stepping forward to fill in as Otterlake to be one of those divine accidents that improved a movie.