Showing posts with label Orson Welles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orson Welles. Show all posts

Saturday, April 04, 2026

Janet Leigh Top Ten

 1) Psycho (1960) - famous scene but also a genuinely nuanced performance as a frustrated woman who makes a bad decision - Vera Miles doesn't have what Leigh had

2) Touch of Evil (1958) - passive (kidnapped) but she has an inner steel

3) Living It Up (1954) - really fun Martin and Lewis movie and Leigh matches well with Dean 

4) Scaramouche (1952) - honestly her character is a ninny and not in Eleanor Parker's league I just love this flm 

5) Little Women (1949) - the most nothing role in the story but she's ideal - she fitted in well at MGM

6) The Manchurian Candidate (1962) a sex positive woman chasing after Frank, from Leigh's hot streak of classic movies

7) The Fog (1980) - she's fine rather than great I just love the movie

8) The Vikings (1958) - lovely and warm in a movie that needs it

9) Houdini (1953) - perhaps the best film she made with Tony Curtis, very winning

10) Harper (1966) - one of many stars.

Thursday, November 27, 2025

Book review - "The Uncool" by Cameron Crowe (2025)

 Superb memoir. Focuses on Crowe's childhood and career as a rock journo - winds up after he writes Fast Times at Ridgemount High apart from a book end of Almost Famous musical because that incorporates his mother's death. Not a lot of film stuff but plenty of rock stars - Bowie (didn't realise they were such friends), Allman Brothers, Kris Kristofferson etc. Also that random appearance in Other Side of the Wind.

Essential fact check against Almost Famous. Great read. Hope there's a second volume on the films. Why doesn't he do a second autobiographical film, like about him being a more established journo, or going to high school to write a book? 

Monday, April 28, 2025

Movie review - "King of Kings" (1961) ****

 For some reason this film is called a flop when it did very nicely particularly internationally - maybe MGM were expecting Ben Hur Mark Two which it wasn't but it made a strong profit.

Handsomely made. Smart. Hunter does well in a difficult role. The support cast steal the show but they always do in Jesus movies.

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

Movie review - "Is Paris Burning" (1966) **1/2

 I think Paramount were hoping for their own version of The Longest Day, with this all star account of the liberation of Paris. Thing is, most of the stars were French, so the film was a hit in France but not America. Also, don't mean to be rude, but the battle wasn't that important militarility, more politically (hugely so) - and the film doesn't really go into that, the fact that France might've wound up in civil war. To be fair the film does allude to some of this  - there's no colonial troops though. Or British.

Still there are powerful scenes - the last train of prisoners being sent off to the camps, the massacre of young resistance workers, Orson Welles as the Swedish diplomat persuading Gert Forbe not to blow up the city. And many of the cast lived through the events so it has an authenticity that you just can't get now.

Kirk Douglas is Patton, Glenn Ford is Bradley, Anthony Perkins and George Chakiris are soldiers, Robert Stack is a general - but most of the stars are French: Leslie Caron, Jean Paul Belmondo, Simone Signoret, Bruno Cremer (a large role), Alain Delon, Charles Boyer, Michael Piccolo, etc.

Gore Vidal and Francis Coppola worked on the script. Vidal whined about it a lot.

Monday, January 29, 2024

Book review - " Strictly Dynamite The Sensational Life of Lupe Velez" by Eve Golden

 I'm mostly familiar with Velez as a punchline in various Hollywood stories - rooting Gary Cooper, marrying Johnny Weismuller, Mexican Spitfire movies being on a double bill with Magnificent Ambersons, suicide in Kenneth Anger's book. So I'm glad Golden gave her a bio.

She did a good job. There's probably a few too many reviews and recaps but a strong picture does emerge. Velez was lively, fun, nice, with a sex drive... she became a star quite quickly (stage appearance, then picked in The Gaucho) and Golden argues she had potential to do more than she did. I haven't seen enough of her work to comment but she definitely kept employed for her life as a name, which is not be be sneezed at.

Golden admits that Velez maybe wasn't her own best ally - she kept leaping from bad relationship to relationship, was involved in domestic violence situatiosn - but the author makes a good case as to Velez films to check out, which I will. She made a lot of them and not many are well known.

The ending is moving. The suicide seems to have  caused by a number of things - pregnant, getting old, career going downhill.

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Movie review - "Waterloo" (1970) ***

 Expensive, full of detail for the military nerd. The spectacle impresses. I actually felt this might've been better in a longer version - you would've gotten to know the characters more. Mistake I think to start with Napoleon abdicating - better to start with him coming from Elba. 

Rod Steiger hams it up as Napoleon. Hell, why not. Chris Plummer has dry fun as Wellington. They look at each other through glasses. We hear their thoughts - I've never liked that method.

Best bit apart from the spectacular stuff: death of Michael Wilding. That of Jack Hawkins would mean more if we'd gotten to know him. Dan O'Herily yells entertainingly as Ney. Ian Ogilvy gets quite a number of close ups.

Thursday, September 14, 2023

Movie review -"Get to Know Your Rabbit" (1972) **

 I get the logic. Warners go for the protest market. Tom Smothers gets a rep as an anti establishment comic (he is little known in Oz but had a variety show with his brother in the USA). Get a hot director who did a lotw budget hit with Greetings, Brian de Palma.

De Palma and Smothers didn't mesh. It's an anti establishment comedy with Smothers as a businessman who flips out. He still bangs a hot blonde... and another hot girl... and Katherine Ross as a non manic dream girl but still a dream girl.

The plot has him learn how to be a magician by Orson Welles (not a big role). He makes a success and turns into his old sold out success. I mean, yeah, I get it. I guess. I just didn't care.

There's some frantic comedy. Smothers is a bit of a charisma vacuum. John Astin hams it up as Smothers' old boss. You see people like M Emmet Walsh, Allan Garfield.

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Movie review - "Mank" (2021) **

 I didn't like it. Cinematography and art dept are brilliant. They deserved their awards. I did like how its an expensive film that focuses on Upton Sinclair's attempts to be governor. Orson Welles fans got upset but the film isn't about him, really, it's about Mank.

But... it's not great. So much didn't feel real. Ben Hecht and others pitching a film to studio execs. Everyone standing around watching Mank do his speech. The marriage between Mank and his wife. The character of Marion Davies. The relationship between the brothers.  None of it felt real. This was a hard slog.

Sunday, February 14, 2021

Movie review - "The Cat's Meow" (2001) ***1/2

 A reminder how talented Peter Bogdanovich is and how effective his films when he doesn't write the script (Steve Peros did this one). It plays to his strengths: it's about show people, Hollywood, it's a period piece, it's about loss of a loved one, there's an Orson Welles connection via Davies/Hearst. The violence is brief and well done, the acting excellent.

Eddie Izzard's Charlie Chaplin is terrific, ditto Kirsten Dunst's Marion Davies but the film is stolen by the touching monstrosity of Howard Hessmann's Hearst... a man hopelessly in love but also ruthless. All the acting is very good by the way. Love the boat atmosphere.

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Book review - "Preston Sturges: The Last Years of Hollywood's First Writer Director" by Nick Smedley and Tom Sturges

 Sturges' career is very well covered via some solid biographies but this adds a fresh take in focusing on his last decade - the one after his Fox stint, when he made just the one film but was constantly trying to get up projects and failing, before dying relatively young.

Smedley tries to put a positive spin on this era, emphasizing how Sturges found true love with his last wife, never gave up, was always coming up with new ideas. And I'm sure Sturges when on form was marvellous company.

But he does not come across well in this superbly researched, illuminating book. He couldn't stop drinking, he loved his wife but cheated on her and ignored her, he was a lousy father (he didn't see his wife or kids for the last few years of his life), he kept spending money (once the third highest paid person in the country he managed to blow it all via idiotic decisions when all he had to do was buy real estate), he was hard to collaborate with, he whinged, he was fired from some projects and my sympathy was with the producers.

We did miss out artistically from a lack of Sturges projects - Smedley makes a case for the greatness of The Millionairess and I liked his gangster comedy idea - but some sound like terrible ideas.

Famous faces and names pop in and out -Sturges was mates with Orson Welles, he was always trying to work with Alec Guinness and Robert Donat, Errol Flynn almost starred in The French They Are a Funny Race (not sure how Errol would've gone but it would've been better than Flynn's Herbert Wilcox movies).

I think Sturges' problem was that he went from rags to riches so many times in his career, was such a successful gambler, that kept thinking his luck would turn around. And maybe it would have if he's managed to save some money and stay off the booze.

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Movie review - "Trouble in the Glen" (1954) **

 One of the films that helped kill Margaret Lockwood's career.  Is it so hard to rip off The Quiet Man? Republic and Herbert Wilcox got the same writer and Victor McLaglen. And if they couldn't get John Wayne they tried with Forrest Tucker.  

Tucker is no John Wayne - he can act and lumber but doesn't have the same charisma. He isn't helped by the dumb story. He's an outsider (an American who served in the army during the war) and so too are Margaret Lockwood and father Orson Welles. Why have three outsiders? 

Actually you don't need Tucker in the film. The movie should have been about Lockwood and Welles moving to Scotland, being fishes out of water... and she has a romance with Scotsman John McCallum. Tucker is an adjunct and so is that polio riddled girl they shove in and spend far too much screen time on

Also for a Scottish Quiet Man the film is incredibly non Scottish. The Quiet Man had Maureen O'Hara, Barry Fitzgerald and all these Irish actors plus was filmed in Ireland. This feels totally un Scottish. It seems to have been mostly shot on the backlot and has non Scottish actors like John McCallum and Victor McLaglen. Was Finlay Currie not working?

The slackness of this just got to me.


Sunday, October 04, 2020

Movie review - "Casino Royale" (1967) **

 It's not fun but it's like a colourful museum and every Bond fan should see it. And because there is so much happening with so many actors I like I got something out of it.

Where to start:

- Woody Allen has genuinely funny gags with the firing squad

- I liked Peter Sellars as a Bond type

- Orson Welles is a terrific Bond villain

- quite a few women have agency: Ursula Andress as Vesper, Barbara Bouchet as Miss Moneypenny, Joanna Pettet is the hero of her own segment

- Terence Cooper gets a big intro then disappears

- Deborah Kerr really really overacts

- I don't think David Niven was anything like Bond, in the books or movies

- Bouchet and Jackie Bisset should have been real Bond girls they are gorgeous

- there is a lot of genuine cleverness

- there is a lot more laziness

- it piles it on but then many 60s comedies did (The Great Race, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World)

- the music score is great - the theme and "The Look of Love"

- there's genuine emotional moments which could have (don't laugh) been more mined: Andress falling for Sellers, Pettet and dad Niven

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Movie review - "Treasure Island" (1972) **1/2

 Orson Welles started making a version of this story in the 1960s - he'd done it on radio - and I wish he had, he is an ideal Long John Silver. Here is voice is dubbed which seems absurd.

Still, he's got a twinkle in his eye and is full of rogueishness - even without the voice its an endearing performance. He has pleasing by play with Jim Hawkins, who seems very young, but that adds to the drama.

There is a solid sail boat, and occasionally this springs along very well, with some flourishes. It feels like a flawed work but I didn't mind it. It was fun to see Welles in a lead in this stage of his career.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Movie review - "I'll Never Forget What's 'Is Name" (1967) **** (warning: spoilers)

Excellent swinging sixties drama with Oliver Reed as an ad man who hacks up his desk with an axe but boss Orson Welles is convinced he'll come back. With good reason - Reed is juggling a wife (Wendy Craig), a kid, a mistress (Marianne Faithful) and a lover... adding to that he starts work at a magazine and falls for the secretary (Carol White) who is a dream girl, albeit not manic and pixie, but who is lovely with a great smile.

This sort of movie is self indulgent - "I'm making so much money doing ads and I hate it", "all these women want to have sex with me" - but it's very well done. Peter Draper did a good script and Michael Winner was at his directing peak. Orson Welles' presence helps.

Monday, February 03, 2020

Book review - "The Brothers Mankiewicz" by Sydney Stern (2019)

There have been biographies of Joe and Herman but they came out when key people were alive so it's an ideal time to revisit both. Joe inevitably overshadows his brother because he lived longer, did more, and was a director, so more of his work was clearly his, whereas Herman was often rewritten or rewrote... but it was Herman who paved the way, whether establishing himself in journalism, or in Berlin, or Hollywood, while Joe followed.

People seemed to adore Herman with his quick wit and genuine talent - he also got a lot of gigs because people felt sorry for his long suffering wife Sarah (who he seems to have been faithful to). A witty columnist, writer and guest he seemed to struggle to write anything of substance on his own - no truly memorable play or novel for instance. He thrived in the collaborative environment of Hollywood and was promoted to writer-producer, having a long run at Paramount. Actually he kept employed for a long time, turning out Citizen Kane of course (which earned him an Oscar) as well as fun pictures like The Spanish Main.

Joe also thrived in Hollywood, working as a producer at MGM. He must have been very charming - all the top stars wanted to work with him. He was more manipulative and destructive than possibly even he realised - he was constantly having affairs with insecure, self destructive women, and while sending them to psychoanalysis and treating them as smart, and leaving them loving him, in the long run they didn't turn out well: Joan Crawford, Judy Garland, his second wife Rose Strander, Gene Tierney, Linda Darnell.

The book is well written and excellent researched, accessing some private letters and what not. He clearly has tremendous admiration for his subjects but doesn't worship them - Herman's drinking and Joe's gaslighting get appropriate criticism.

It helps that so many of the films the brothers worked on were interesting - for Herman there's Citizen Kane of course but he caused entertaining trouble at Paramount. Some of Joe's films had memorably chaotic productions - The Barefoot Contessa, The Quiet American and of course Cleopatra. Worth a read. 

Wednesday, October 02, 2019

Book review - "In My Father's Shadow: A Daughter Remembers Orson Welles" by Chris Welles Feder (2010)

I've never read a bad book on Orson Welles - he's too interesting a character with such a dramatic life arc. This is by his eldest daughter, to his short lived first marriage... the debutante lady who from this was a piece of work, an upper class gal interesting enough to get Welles and then Charles Lederer who then went off with some British army officer Jack Pringle and turned into a stuffy racist bitch in South Africa.

Welles is described as the sort of father that I would imagine him to be - charming, charismatic, kind, hopeless with money and appointments, full of attention when someone was there, not great other times. A big spoiled baby who whined about being betrayed but really that tended to be his own fault - and his version of betrayal was usually that someone didn't want to be his slave.

The best periods were when Chris lived in Santa Monica - step dad Lederer got along well with Welles and Rita Hayworth was a great step mother. It got harder when Hayworth had a child and then really bad when Chris' mother remarried Pringle. They did reconnect at various times - in Hong Kong during the making of Ferry to Hong Kong - and towards the end of his life, when he stopped being so happy go lucky and was more panicky, had endured more direction.

Considering her upbringing Chris Welles turned out remarkably well adjusted - one divorce, it's true, but even that was kind of interesting, with a guy who went to live in South Korea; no drinking or drug habits; a happy second marriage and a decent career writing educational books; lots of globe trotting.

Her aching for a relationship with her father is intense - but her mother wasn't better. The nicest people raising her were the Hills. She forms a nice relationship with Oja Kodar after Orson's death but is never that close to his other children. I did feel the book maybe could have brought Chris' relationship with her mother and Rita Hayworth up to date. But a very good book.

Monday, December 10, 2018

Movie review - "The Southern Star" (1969) ***

I'd never heard of this film despite it starring a couple of my favourites, Ursula Andress and Orson Welles. It's the sort of movie I'm surprised didn't play on TV more when I was growing up because it's a fun adventure film (presumably there was a rights issue).

It's also one of the very few English language movies to my knowledge that have been made in West Africa - in particular Senegal (which admittedly is a former French colony). The locations are consistently interesting. And the time period - 1912 - is novel.

The story is taken from a little know Jules Verne novel. It's adventure more than sci fi  - a diamond is discovered in Africa, and is stolen. George Segal, an adventurer who is engaged to the daughter (Andress) of the company boss (Harry Andrews) sets out looking for it along with the daughter with Ian Hendry in hot pursuit and Orson Welles as a neighbouring official making life difficult. Johnny Sekka is Segal's black friend who everyone thinks pinched the diamond.

Welles part isn't that big - I'm guessing they couldn't afford him for that long - but he makes an impact. Hendry is good fun.

Sega was a revelation - not so much his acting just seeing him in this sort of movie. He actually fits in well. Andress is great - she actually has a character to play, and goes along on the adventure. She fires guns, and helps save the day a few times. She has a nude swim - we see a bare bum which is a bit racy for what is basically a kids film.

I think the writers made a mistake by having Segal and Andress as a couple from the get go. Would have been better if they'd fallen in love during the course of the movie.

And of course the black African characters are pretty much backgrounded - though Sekka has a decent part.

Still the locations remain fresh, it has a decent tone. I'm surprised this isn't better known. Ideal kids film.

Friday, November 16, 2018

The A to Z of The Other Side of the Wind

(originally written for filmink magazine)

A conventional review doesn’t seem appropriate when reviewing an Orson Welles film, particularly one that’s getting a release more than 40 years after actually being made, so Stephen Vagg thought he’d tackle it A to Z.

A is for AFI Lifetime Achievement Award, which Orson Welles was given in 1975… and used the occasion to tub-thump for money to finish The Other Side of the Wind. To be honest, that story and all it involved and what it meant for Welles (and Hollywood) is more moving than anything in Wind itself – but the film is still fascinating, provoking and a reminder of what a talented man Welles was.

B is for Bogdanovich, Peter, perhaps the most famous acolyte and chronicler of Welles, who plays a character based on himself in the film. Bogdanovich began his career as an actor, as he often takes pains to point out, and has carved out a decent part-time career for himself as a character player. His performance in Wind is not one of the film’s best, but it doesn’t matter because he’s so spectacularly well cast and brings such fascinating baggage to the role. It’s also heartbreaking to see this early ‘70s Bogdanovich be so cocky and confident on screen, and to know what hardships were facing him down the track (several flops, the murder of girlfriend Dorothy Stratten, two declarations of bankruptcy). There’s also a “young dumb blonde girlfriend of the director” character played by Cathy Lucas based on Cybill Shepherd, which understandably annoyed Bogdanvich. Shepherd herself and Bogdanovich’s ex-wife Polly Platt can be glimpsed in the film.

C is for completion, fear of, something which (some) amateur psychologists think Welles suffered from – pointing to all the unfinished films he made in his life along with Wind (Don Quixote, The Dreamers, The Deep, Filming the Trial, It’s All True). Defenders argue Welles would’ve loved to have finished those films if he’d had the money and support – indeed, some get very touchy at any suggestion otherwise. Personally, I think it’s possible to reconcile both the view that he was let down by other people and he contributed to the problem. To me it makes total sense that Welles might put his heart and soul into a film and then get cold feet towards the end, when energy runs low, funds run out, and you fear the finished project isn’t going to be as good as you hoped. And I get the feeling he knew that had Wind been released in his lifetime there’d be a bunch of reviews that would say “another disappointment from the maker of Citizen Kane”… as they did for F For Fake and Chimes of Midnight and for everything else since Citizen Kane. It doesn’t make the fact that he didn’t make more completed movies any less tragic.

D is for The Deep, another unfinished film of Welles’, this one made in the late ‘60s. It was based on the novel which was filmed by Phil Noyce as Dead Calm, and I hope someone like Netflix puts that together too. I have a feeling that with its thriller plot it might be more accessible to non film buffs than Other Side of the Wind.

E is for editing, done by Welles and (after Welles died) Bob Murawski. Murawski did a stunning job of approximating Welles’ style – he imitated the great innovator with supreme skill, and if anyone deserves an Oscar from this film apart from Welles and Gary Graver it’s him.

F is for Ford, John, who I’d argue had as much, if not more, influence on the character of Jake Hannaford than any other figure, including Welles and Ernest Hemmingway. Like Ford, Hannaford was self-consciously macho, Irish, had a clan who would hang around him, had Peter Bogdanovich as an acolyte, John Milius as another acolyte (he inspired the Jack Simon character played by Gregory Sierra) and was possibly gay (read Maureen O’Hara’s memoirs for the dish on that).Of course, there’s a lot of Welles in Hannaford but I would say there’s more Ford.

G is for Gary Graver, the DOP of Wind, and Welles’ right hand man for the last fifteen years of the latter’s life. Their relationship was fascinating and complex – Welles was a father figure and inspiration to Graver, though the relationship was possibly abusive (Graver was rarely paid and at Welles’ beck and call). It’s rich emotional material, more interesting than any of the relationships depicted in Wind, to be brutally honest. It has to be said Graver does a brilliant job of photography on Wind, and one hopes he gets an Oscar nomination.

H is for homosexuality, a theme which interested Welles later his career – such as in his film script for The Big Brass Ring, and The Other Side of the Wind, which hints that Jake Hannaford has a crush on his leading man. Mind you, there’s a lot of straight sex in it, too. A lot. Hey, it was the seventies.

I is for Iran, the country of the film’s co-financier Mehdi Bushehri, the brother-in-law of the Shah. When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, the legal situation of the film became extremely tricky and contributed to its delay in being released. Which is classic Orson Welles – his productions didn’t just have financial troubles, they had troubles that involved revolutions.

J is for John Huston, who plays Hannaford – rather surprisingly since Welles normally nabbed the best roles in all his own productions. Huston’s performance is fine, but you can’t help wishing that Welles had taken the role – he had more of a twinkle in his eye, more humour, more fun. And of course, the scenes with Bogdanovich would have taken on an extra dimension. I do love how Welles and Huston were BFFs in real life though.

K is for Karp, Josh, whose superb book on the making of the film is required reading for anyone interested in it.

L is for legal troubles, which dogged this film even more than other Orson Welles productions. I think any creative person would have adored the chance of working with Orson Welles. I think any lawyer would have been terrified.

M is for McBride, Joseph, a noted film historian, biographer, screenwriter, author and educator, who appears as a character based on himself, and wrote one of the best books on Welles, Whatever Happened to Orson Welles, which did so much to revive appreciation in the considerable achievements of Welles’ later years.

N is for Netflix, famed for their market dominance, the high quality TV shows, and the patchy quality of their movies. The restoration of Wind is one of the best things that the company has ever done, the best “original” movie they’ve ever released, and they should be proud of it.

O is for Oja Kodar, who co-wrote and appears in the film, and was Welles’ creative and romantic partner during the latter years of his life, even while he was married to (and lived with) another woman. You old hound dog, Orson! Kodar spends a lot of Wind’s running time walking around nude – I mean a lot – and is front and centre in what is already the film’s most famous sequence, riding cowgirl on Bob Random in the front seat of a car while her necklace beads slapp against her body and rain splatters outside. Welles’ admiration for Kodar’s body clearly didn’t extend to wanting to hear her talk – she doesn’t say a line in the entire film. She was apparently a leading reason in holding up the release of this film, which is a shame, since she is an arresting presence.

P is for pornography, which Gary Graver used to make to pay the bills while working free for Orson Welles. Orson even famously helped him out once, editing a shower scene in a porno called 3AM. Wind is easily Welles’ most sexy film, with plenty of nudity and copulation and even a dildo in the opening scene. I always thought Welles was a great lost maker of horror films (just look at how creepy the Xanadu scenes were in Citizen Kane) or action flicks (see the house of mirrors shoot out in Lady from Shanghai, or the battle sequences in Chimes at Midnight). After watching Other Side of the Wind, I’m convinced he would have made first rate porn and erotic thrillers too.

Q is for Q and As, which appear a lot in Wind – scenes of people standing around asking questions and replying. Did this happen to Welles in real life? Does it happen in real life? It felt weird to me watching the film but maybe this was how things were in the seventies and/or among famous directors.

R is for Rich Little, a celebrity impressionist originally cast in the role later played by Peter Bogdanovich. Little shot most of his part but then walked out on the film because he had a professional engagement. Welles promptly recast the role and no doubt stewed on the betrayal – which a lot of selfish self-centred people do, which Welles clearly was, despite all his genius.

S is for Susan Strasberg, daughter of Lee and Paula, a one-time wunderkind of Broadway whose career had become reduced to mostly appearing in guest shots on TV dramas when she got the call to appear in Wind. She plays – quite well – a figure based on Pauline Kael, who famously both defended and criticised Welles in print. Welles clearly remembered the latter – her essay Raising Kane – more than the former. The finale of Wind involves Hannaford punching this character in the face for suggesting he might be gay.

T is for They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead, a stunning documentary about the making of Other Side of the Wind, focusing in particular on Welles and his relationships with Bogdanovich, Kodar and Graver. It’s gripping, moving and captivating – a more emotionally affecting movie than Wind itself, though Wind is more innovative technically.

U is for Unknown Actors, which Welles delighted in using in his projects over the years. Sometimes it paid off – but there are some performances in Wind which are simply bad, such as Geoffrey Land as the Robert Evans style studio head, and Cathy Lucas as a Cybil Shepherd type. Gregory Sierra, a good actor, is disastrously miscast as a character that’s meant to be based on John Milius.

V is for vision, Orson Welles’, which is all over this film. A visual feast, full of ideas, erratic, overwhelming, stimulating. I know this is a flawed movie and I’ve been critical in this take, but I should also add it’s full of moments and scenes that have stayed with me, and I’ve seen it three times in a month, and each time gotten new stuff out of it. To counter balance that…

W is for writing, a skill at which Welles was never that good at, at least not compared to his abilities as an actor and director. If he had the help of a skilled collaborator like Herman Mankiewicz (as on Citizen Kane) or was adapting William Shakespeare, he was great, but he struggled more when writing on his own or with Kodar (eg The Big Brass Ring, Mr Arkadin). Wind has a great set up – a party in the last 24 hours of a director’s life – and plenty of ideas for drama: he’s gone bankrupt, his girlfriend is young enough to be his granddaughter, his leading man has quit, he might be in love with his leading man, he has to borrow money off his former protege. But none of these are really developed – the film is more interested in style and philosophical chat. There’s no confrontation with the girlfriend, or the leading man. No real resolutions, except death. And Welles fans will leap to his defence and go “oh that’s the way he intended, he’s subverting the form”. And I’m sure he intended to. But I’d also argue, looking at the whole of his career, that he simply wasn’t a very good screenwriter, and that’s reflected in Wind. And I also think it’s possible to say that, and say that the film is still fascinating and entertaining and well directed.

X is for X rated, which this film flirts with being at times. A dildo in the opening scene! (see pornography)

Y is for young Hollywood vs old Hollywood, which this film exemplifies. Hannaford is, like Welles and John Ford, very much a creature of old Hollywood, surrounded by cronies (played by old pros like Norman Lloyd, Mercedes McCambridge, Cameron Mitchell, Lili Palmer and Edmond O’Brien)… but who was so talented and such a maverick that he was immensely appealing to young Hollywood, as shown in the film (and in real life) by people like Bogdanovich, McBride and Jaglom.

Z is for Zabriskie Point, the 1970 Michelangelo Antonioni film which featured a house that is used in Other Side of the Wind. Welles mocks Antonioni’s film-within-a-film in Wind – lots of arty shots of Oja Kodar walking around naked not saying anything. Welles fans claim this is brilliant satire, which it is, but there’s so much of it. Kodar walks around not saying anything in the “real” section of the film, that you wonder how much he was sending it up, and how much he was simply having fun doing it himself.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Thoughts on Susan Strasberg

Watching Susan Strasberg in The Other Side of the Wind made me waste/spend an hour or so googling her and her career. I always liked her because of her good work in Taste of Fear (1961), The High Bright Sun (1965) and Psych Out (1968) where she specialised in the role of Woman Who Gets Scared By Things (mean step mothers, Cyprus terrorists, hippies).

The daughter of Lee Strasberg, she started her career with a real bang - she is great as Kim Novak's sister in Picnic (1955) and became a Broadway sensation before she was 20 playing the title role in The Diary of Anne Frank. It was thought she was going to be this incredible star but after she was in Stage Struck (1958), a remake of the Katherine Hepburn film Morning Glory, everyone seemed to decide she was crap and she didn't help by doing things like run off to Italy and believe Richard Burton when he said he'd leave his wife for her. 

As she later admitted she also didn't try as hard as she could in part because she was afraid of not living up to the family name. She kept working for most of her life as an actor and later wrote some memoirs. It's a shame she didn't make more better quality stuff but she had an interesting life. And (SPOILERS) no one seems to comment how the climax of Other Side of the Wind involves the John Huston character punching her character in the face for suggesting he might be gay.

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

Movie review - "The Other Side of the Wind" (2018) ****

I saw this twice, on Netflix and in the cinema, to get my film buff points. Random thoughts:
* big screen better than small because there's so much detail and visual/sound stuff to take in that you can appreciate it better on the big screen but...
* on both big and small screens the story problems remain
* the central idea is rich with drama - the last day (or night, really) of a director's life... he's fighting with the head of the studio, he's going bankrupt, his former acolyte is now far more successful than he is and he needs to borrow money off the guy, he's got a girlfriend young enough to be his granddaughter, he's got a bunch of cronies, his leading man has quit the film he's making and the director may be in love with him - all fantastic stuff but...
* Welles was never as good a writer as he was a director - he was okay if he had help from say Shakespeare or Herman Mankiewicz or Booth Tarkington or the life of William Randolph Hearst... but either on his own or with Oja Kodar he struggled... plenty of good ideas and moment but he/they struggled to shape scenes and exploit the drama. Opportunities are missed wholesale - the character of Jake Hannaford's girlfriend is thrown away, the male lead never comes to the party except at the end and he just stands there and it's not resolved or developed in any way. And Welles fans will probably argue "oh he's subverting expectations" but I think it was just beyond his abilities as a writer, and would point to the similarly flawed script for The Big Brass Ring to back this up
* the character of Hannaford is clearly autobiographical but there was also a hell of a lot of John Ford in it, perhaps more than Welles - the group of cronies, the Irish history, the hard drinking, the fact one of his acolytes was a filmmaker as well who seems to have been inspired by John Milius, the fact Bogdanovich wrote books on Ford as well, the guns
* no critic seems to be commenting the climax includes a moment where Hannaford punches a female critic for suggesting he's gay
* interesting to see Susan Strasberg, whose career so did not live up to its early promise, pop up as the Kael type figure - she's not too bad, though I admit I would have loved to have seen Polly Platt doing it (she was originally cast)
* fascinating to see Peter Bogdanovich, so cocky at that stage in his career, doing his annoying impressions, with a handsome yet slightly pudgy face, his acting not really up to the role but it's compensated for the fact he's playing himself and so much of it is based on their relationship - the fact he was a critic turned filmmaker, his very quick success, the deal he has with a Robert Evans type head of studio (similar to the one the Directors Company had at Paramount)
* Cybil Shepherd can be glimpsed super briefly - there's also super quick appearances from people like Curtis Harrington, Henry Jaglom and Dennis Hopper and apparently Cameron Crowe is there too - and Les Moonves!
* I get the film within a film is meant to be a spoof on Antonioni but Welles spends an awful lot of time on it - I mean we see a lot of this film, way after its satirical point has been made, and get the impression it was also there to show off his girlfriend's hot body (she walks around nude a LOT) -also the opening boobs and bums in the sauna seem really not needed
* the blankness of the actors in the film within in a film makes sense but it makes no sense, to me at any rate, that the actor characters played by Kodar and Bob Random, are similar dull blank slates - I think this is a major problem with the film especially as a crucial plot is that Random has betrayed Hannaford by leaving the film, but he's given no character, nothing... and I get the feeling Welles realised these actors simply weren't up to it... I could be wrong, but I don't think I am because...
* there's a fair few actors in the film who aren't up to it - some get away with it because they're cast so beautifully, eg Bogdanovich and Joseph McBride - but Geoffrey Land, the guy who plays the head of the studio isn't up to it (I wish they'd cast someone like Edmond O'Brien or Cameron Mitchell who are in the film but feel under-used... but I guess they were too old and Welles wanted to have someone do Robert Evans, not that the exec is presented unreasonably... Hannafort doesn't attend the screening) - neither is Cathy Lucas who plays the girlfriend
* the old dudes and dudettes like Norman Crane, and Mercedes McCambridge and Lili Palmer are magnificent (though you can sense Palmer was meant to be Marlene Dietrich)
* I love that there was a rival acolyte for Hannaford based on John Milius but Gregory Sierra is super miscast - too skinny and not faux-macho enough
*Technically its stunning - the editors and team at Netflix did a marvellous job - it has a magic about it - I did start to zone out around the two thirds mark
* parts of it felt weird, the people standing around having philosophical chats in front of a big crowd and going off to the drive in at the end.
Had this come out I feel it would've flopped - the story isn't up to it. But I'm so glad it was finally released and I hope Welles, Gary Graver and the editor get Oscar noms.