+%231.jpg)
The sort of book is that is better bought than borrowed because it deals with Welles' films in such detail you can't remember all the points it refers to - it would be terrific to have around the house to pull out during or after watching one of the films.
Heylin looks at Welles' experience in Hollywood - his attempt is to rectify the myth, or rather stick up for Orson whom Heylin thinks has gotten a bum deal lately. He's not happy with recent biographies, especially Simon Callow's and David Thomson's, both of whom he really gets stuck into.
He can be quite a little bitch, Heylin, which upset me, because I really enjoyed Callow's book. He can also be unnecessarily crude, such as dismissing Robert Wise's body of work by saying things like "The Sound of Music for f...k's sake." Not necessary, but he's probably one of those English journos who get all tough talking about movies - you read them in The Guardian.
OK, having said that I enjoyed most of the book.
This seemed to be well researched (I'm not getting involved in some how-well-researched-is-your-Welles-book catfight) and benefits from picking an approach and sticking to it - namely, looking at the making of the films, especially the Hollywood films. Part of the appeal of Welles is he is the greatest "if only" movie maker in history - starting out with Citizen Kane, the rest of his career were these terrific "if only"s, especially Magnificent Ambersons (if only we had the ending...), It's All True (if only he'd been able to finish the film), Lady from Shanhai (if only it hadn't been recut), Touch of Evil (if only it hadn't been recut). Second rank down would be the uncompleted Other Side of the Wind and Don Quixote (if only he'd been able to finish them) and the never filmed Heart of Darkness (Heydrick makes this sound really exciting). Lesser if only films include Othello and Chimes at Midnight (if only he'd had more money and better distribution). No one seems to get too "if only" about Mr Arakin or Macbeth or The Immortal Story or The Trial. Heylin doesn't mention the uncompleted The Deep but makes a case for how much better The Stranger could have been.
I think Welles was incredibly talented; even when not cut about though, his films were not commercial - Heylin points out around the 1960s Welles kind of went "stuff you" and just got artier and artier. He tried to make thrillers even when he didn't really want to because he thought they would be commercial - but they never really were. Citizen Kane, The Stranger and Touch of Evil all did pretty well eventually, the first and latter more from Welles' reputation than anything else (it was the failure of Ambersons and It's All True that stuffed him). But his films lacked emphathy - deliberately using distancing techniques.
Heylin makes a convincing case that the studios hated Wells - sometimes on Ambersons, Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil especially it seems they were determined to be pricks and I agree their changes never succeeded in making anything more commercial. I think they enjoyed taking the genius down a peg or two... and Welles probably encouraged it in a "me versus them" sort of way. Heylin is probably a little too pro-Welles for his arguments to be totally convincing; surely Welles made some errors, and the studios weren't all evil? After all, they did fund him - and honestly would you risk your own money on a Welles picture? I mean, it's terrific they exist but they did lose cash. And not everyone who cut up his films was evil. A little more objectivity (and less bitchiness towards other Welles books - he snipes like a bitter academic at times) would have made the arguments more convincing
My own "if only" for Welles is this... if only he'd made a horror film or two. I think Dracula directed by Orson Welles (he'd done it for radio) would have been a classic, but his style would have gone with any story. That might have given his career the safety net he needed. I also think he wasn't much of a writer - he was best working with another writer (eg Mankiewicz, Shakespeare) from a source material (eg novel, history). When left to his own devices it isn't too inspiring - Arakadin, The Big Brass Ring. But what a director! And terrific actor, too.
Heylin makes a convincing case that the studios hated Wells - sometimes on Ambersons, Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil especially it seems they were determined to be pricks and I agree their changes never succeeded in making anything more commercial. I think they enjoyed taking the genius down a peg or two... and Welles probably encouraged it in a "me versus them" sort of way. Heylin is probably a little too pro-Welles for his arguments to be totally convincing; surely Welles made some errors, and the studios weren't all evil? After all, they did fund him - and honestly would you risk your own money on a Welles picture? I mean, it's terrific they exist but they did lose cash. And not everyone who cut up his films was evil. A little more objectivity (and less bitchiness towards other Welles books - he snipes like a bitter academic at times) would have made the arguments more convincing
My own "if only" for Welles is this... if only he'd made a horror film or two. I think Dracula directed by Orson Welles (he'd done it for radio) would have been a classic, but his style would have gone with any story. That might have given his career the safety net he needed. I also think he wasn't much of a writer - he was best working with another writer (eg Mankiewicz, Shakespeare) from a source material (eg novel, history). When left to his own devices it isn't too inspiring - Arakadin, The Big Brass Ring. But what a director! And terrific actor, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment