Movie review - "Room with a View" (1985) *****

 Merchant-Ivory had been plugging away since the 1960s before everything clicked for them with this movie. It simply works from the opening of Dame Kiri singing Puccini - glorious song always loved it - then cutting to the new discovery beauty of Helena Bonham Carter and the exquisite comic timing of Maggie Smith, followed up by the dash of Julian Sands and the genius of Denholm Elliot. Rupert Everett auditioned for Sands' role and while Sands isn't amazing it was the right choice - I think Everett would've sent it up slightly.

Carter and Sands weren't the best actors then but they have the perfect look. Rupert Friend also stole the show as Freddy. Daniel Day Lewis is next level with his performance.

The oldies give it heart though - Maggie Smith's uptight nature, lying in bed alone at the end, Denholm Elliot's decency and awkwardness. Full of warmth like Sands giving his dad a kiss.

Very homoerotic gaze with its nude men running around and men wrestling and subtext about the importance of being rogered by young bucks in Italy.

The whole movie does work.  

 

Book review - "Being Wagner" by Simon Callow

I'm not a big Wagner fan and even after having read the book aren't that interested in his life but I do like Callow's writing and it is marvellously written.

Callow has a soft spot for geniuses who were also performing hams - Orson Welles, Charles Dickens - so he goes for Wagner, who lived, felt and composed with almost comical intensity, the archetypcal arts wanker. Callow has enthusiasm and love for his subject matter and its music and you get swept up in his use of words, even if Wagner himself comes across as someone best to keep away from.

Book review - "Orson Welles: One Man Band" by Simon Callow (2016)

The third of Callow's books on Welles - I think he intended to go all the way until his death but old Orson was so prolific and all over the shop that he only makes it until Chimes at Midnight.

There is heaps until then, though - the making of Black Magic and The Third Man, the torturous shoot of Othello, the stage production of Othello with Peter Finch, the triumph of his Las Vegas magic show and Moby Dick Rehearsed, the disappointment of King Lear, Harry Lime on radio, the various cameos, Mr Akardian, Touch of Evil, the TV shows, directing Laurence Oliver in Rhinoceros, The Trial.

There were some astonishing achievements in there, especially for someone who never equalled Citizen Kane - Othello, Touch of Evil and especially Chimes at Midnight are all striking films, Moby Dick Rehearsed a terrific play, The Fountain of Youth a remarkable piece of TV. Welles would be consistently dogged by bad luck but also good luck would periodically drop out of the sky eg Charlton Heston pushing for him on Touch of Evil, money just magically appearing for The Trial. He appeared in many terrible films as an actor but just enough good ones to keep him in demand (The Third Man, Compulsion).

Welles could never get it together - Hollywood seemed to welcome him back with A Touch of Evil but post production was so traumatic it seemed to turn the studios off him (he disappeared during the editing yet again); artistic triumphs like Moby Dick Rehearsed were not commercial successes; when given complete artistic freedom and support he resulted in The Trial; he'd make fantastic TV but not given the chance to follow it up; commercial successes like Rhinoceros were hurt by the fact Laurence Olivier effectively banned him from rehearsals; Chimes at Midnight was a masterpiece with no distribution. Again and again one keeps thinking "if only"... "if only" he'd been able to make a second film for Zugsmith at Universal, if only he'd been able to schmooze executives as well as cast and crew, if only a major studio had distributed Chimes. But still, so much of the work survives to thrill us.

After reading Patrick McGilligan's biography on Welles' early years, Callow's nuts and bolts biography work (dates, places etc) suffers in comparison. But he is a wonderful writer and is particularly superb and insightful on Welles' acting, and his theatre work. A fantastic read.

Book review - "Young Orson" by Patrick McGilligan (2015)

Another biography on Orson Welles? One that focuses on his life before Citizen Kane, just like Simon Callow's? I mainly gave this a go because it was written by Patrick McGilligan whose books are always worth reading and it was worth it. It's a fantastic book - most of the books I've read on Welles have been great.

It plays to McGilligan's strengths - he's done sturdy work on Welles' family tree, as per usual. He also spends a lot of time de-bunking myths about Welles, proving a counter balance (just as he did in his books on Hitchcock and Clint Eastwood): his supposedly distant parents, the role of John Houseman, the paternity of Michael Lindsay Hogg, his supposed womanising (there seems to have been a lot of it but much was seemingly emotional), his supposed nothing marriage to Virginia Welles, the enigma of his elder brother, the mystery of Dadda Bernstein, the personal touches in Kane.

The book got a little less special as it went on, mainly because the ground it covered was more familiar. McGilligan isn't as good on theatre as Simon Callow but is more thorough when it comes to facts. It was always worth reading though. The epilogue on Welles' last day was really moving.

I felt McGilligan was a bit harsh on Houseman at times - so he blew his own trumpet, that's not a massive crime, and I think having to deal with the legend of Welles would be hard.

Book review - "Charles Dickens" by Simon Callow

Not a spectacular achievement like some other Callow books but still a highly entertaining look at the famous writer, with the gimmick that it focuses on Dickens' love for theatre. Dickens was stage crazy throughout his life, acted as often as he could, put on plays and tried to write them - not particularly memorably, as far as we can tell, though it would have helped with his novels and lectures.

Radio review - BBC - "Romeo and Juliet" (1992) ***

Ken Branagh's Renaissance Company takes on the famous romance, with guess who a little too old in the male lead opposite Sophie Ward; superb support from Judi Dench (nurse), Richard Briers (Juliet's dad), John Gielgud (priest), Derek Jacobi (if a little old as Mercutio), Ian Holm (chorus). Simon Callow is in it too, as Benvolio. I'm always surprised how much recap is in this play, and cruelty (Juliet's father is a prick to her and she is very mean faking her death), and there's one or two times where the directors (one of whom was Branagh) allows the actors (including himself) to cry too much - but it's a cracking yarn.

Radio review – CP#34 - “The Magnificent Ambersons” (1939) ***

Every fan of the film of this should check out Orson Welles’ radio version. It’s clear Welles was a massive fan of the novel (he gushed about it ad nauseum the previous week and in the introduction) and it helps give you an idea of what a non-mutilated version of the film might be like.

This is a decent enough adaptation – I don’t agree with the Vanity Fair article which describes it as “brilliant” but think it’s better than Simon Callow does in his book on Welles. Welles’ performance as George is awful – whiny, high pitched, etc - and is a major flaw (and to his credit Welles seemed to recognise this when he cast Tim Holt for the film version). There is no Aunt Fanny character but Walter Huston is on hand to play Eugene.

NB. A random thought how the Ambersons could have been a popular film - cast Welles as George but reconfigure the part to better fit Welle’s image. Make George like the popular impression of Welles at the time – charming, brilliant, smooth, egotistical, bratty, surrounded by people who either humour him or long for his come-uppance. And have him do something genuinely nice at the end rather than just realising he's bad.

Radio review – CP#5 – “Counsellor at Law” (1939) **1/1

Orson Welles gets a real chance to flex his acting muscles playing a successful lawyer who is threatened by an event from his past. It’s the same role played by John Barrymore on screen, entirely appropriate since the two men were mates and had a similar hammy charisma (I’m not sure if they played the same role many times; I think Welles played Hamlet on radio, and both were up for the lead in The Man Who Came to Dinner.)

Welles isn’t very convincing as a son of an immigrant mother who speaks with an accent (played here by Gertrude Berg), but he is well cast as a lawyer who is successful but feels as though he is a charlatan. He has to have something of a nervous breakdown, something we’re not used to seeing – sorry, hearing – from Welles, who is best known for acting with charming aplomb. He doesn’t quite hit it out of the park – he tries, it’s not bad, but for me there is something in Welles’ acting which stops him from reaching the top rank. I think he was a great star, a tremendous personality – but agree with Simon Callow that something happened in his development as an actor to stop him going all the way. Aline McMahon reprises her screen role as the ever-loving secretary.

Book review – “Red Carpets and Banana Skins” by Rupert Everett

Shakespeare in Love is a wonderful movie but it’s never really believable that Joe Fiennes is a writer – he plays Shakespeare like an actor, all hot pants and running around like an idiot. However Rupert Everett’s Marlowe in the same movie did seem like a real writer – watchful, disdainful, smart. But it still comes as a surprise that Everett’s memoirs would be so well written – not that an actor can’t be a brilliant writer (Simon Callow leaps to mind) but Everett’s not been known for his writings til now.

It’s a marvellous book, written in a style consistent with Everett’s on screen persona: lush, educated, decadent, witty, brilliant. (Everett complains that his homosexuality saw him not cast in About a Boy, but he would have been wrong in that part – the lead in About a Boy is essentially a hopeless person, and Everett is too strong, too confident to convey hopelessness).

He luxuriates in words, as he seems to have done in life: affairs with Ian McKellan, but also Paula Yates (his portrait of Yates and Bob Geldorf is a classic), Susan Sarandon and Beatrice Dalle; he also has spent lots of time in Miami and Europe rather than London, has had an erratic but long career. He really should have been in better movies, had at least Jude Law’s career (maybe he was too metrosexual too soon) but he still did pretty well; anyway as he himself admits he was a prat. Great writer, though.

Book review - "Hello Americas" by Simon Callow

Part two of the Orson Welles story by Callow following his superb Road to Xanadu goes from the immediate period following Citizen Kane to Welles leaving America at the end of the decade. I thought at first it was an odd choice but it works brilliantly. 

We go through the making of The Magnificent Ambersons then the debacle of It's All True (the one-two punch that knocked him out in Hollywood, which Kane did not) - this section of the book is a bit sluggish to be honest; Callow is a highly skilled writer, but this is stuff that has been well covered before. 

Where it really picks up is what happens next: Welles basically turns his back on movies (apart from the odd acting gig) and returns to radio, also writing columns; much of his work has a political slant and Welles becomes interested in political causes, particularly of the Popular Front variety. 

 

Callow was clearly fascinated by this aspect to Welles (which I confess I knew little apart from assuming he had the regulation liberal views), quoting extensively from his speeches (I'm with the book reviewer of the New York Times who suggested a book of Welles writings would be a great addition to Wellesology - while Welles never had the long term impact as a politician or public speaker as he did as a filmmaker, it was an important part of his life at the time and deserves due consideration).

He also found time to woo and marry Rita Hayworth, take his magic tour on the road, then re-enter the theatre with a production of Around the World in Eighty Days (Callow is brilliant on theatre and this chapter is the highlight of the book for me; I wish he'd made a film in this sort of genre). Ratings and readership figures declined - Welles never seemed to have found the popularity on stage and radio he enjoyed in the late 30s -and he had to go back to films to make money (one of the strengths of Callow's books is he retrieves Welles from the POV that he was only interested in making movies, that was the centre of his life). 

 

Compromised films followed: The Stranger, Lady from Shanghai and MacBeth. Callow argues Welles probably had little chance with the first two but should have had his way with the last, but by then had gotten jack and was off in Europe making Black Magic.

This isn't as good as Road to Xanadu, mostly because the material is less compelling - there is less theatre, less radio, more politics and cinema, ares which Callow is less strong. But still highly enjoyable. Welles did have a hard time but reading this one can't help acknowledging he was given plenty of chances (in the mid 40s especially the studios were gagging for him to star in movies for them). But still gripping. Orson Welles the story was often more interesting than his films.

Book review - "Despite the System: Orson Welles vs the Hollywood Studios" (2005) by Clinton Heylin

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.