Skip to main content

It is the greatest movie never released, you know.

They'll Love Me When I'm Dead
(2018)

(SPOILERS) They'll Love Me When I'm Dead, Morgan Neville's documentary on the making of Orson Welles' long-gestating The Other Side of the Wind, is much more interesting than the finally finished article itself, but to be fair to Welles, he foresaw as much as a possibility. Welles' semi-improvised faux-doc approach may not seem nearly as innovative nearly fifty years on – indeed, in the intervening period there's a slew of baggage of boundary-blurring works, mockumentaries and the whole found footage genre – but he was striving for something different, even if that "different" was a reaction to the hole he'd dug himself in terms of bankability. On the evidence of the completed film, he never quite found the necessary rhythm or mode, but the struggle to achieve it, as told here, is fascinating.


Neville was perhaps conscious of the irony that what he was putting together had more of a hook than the film under scrutiny, since at the end of They'll Love Me he offers footage of Welles seemingly quite open to turning his project on its head: "Supposing, during the course of the picture, that it turns out that it's more interesting hearing the actors and myself talk about it than making the picture. That will be the picture". That, give or take, is what we get from Neville, and if we can imagine the additional flourish Welles might have provided – Neville is clearly inspired by F for Fake in terms of playful style, and quotes from it repeatedly in footage used – this bearer of the torch is no slouch.


Welles' initial inspiration is covered, and how he was oft quoted as saying his definition of a filmmaker is "the man who presides over happy accidents"; his plan for Wind was "You know, we’re going to go fishing for accidents. Which I think can be very exciting". But the problem with this is trying to create lightning in a bottle; if you go looking for it expressly, it can prove elusive. And if you spend all your time on the icing, you inevitably won't pay enough attention to the cake itself. It's noted that the director was "permanently traumatised" by the response to A Touch of Evil, and that he needed a box office hit if he was going to garner any financing for his projects. But Wind was never going to be a vehicle friendly to such suitors; indeed, one can see it having the opposite effect.


Welles objected to the idea that Huston's Hannaford was a thinly veiled version of himself (even though he was actively considering playing him), although by the time he was touting for funding at the AFI in the mid-'80s he was no longer hiding the parallels. Bogdanovich commented "He hated that. He didn’t want to be analysed through his films". Yet the plot engine had started with his relationship with Bogdanovich and the idea of the betrayal of friendship between an older and younger director; as is noted, when the idea was first mooted, the wunderkind director was merely an awestruck kid. By the time he replaced Rich Little as Brooks Otterlake, he was at the top of a meteoric rise to success. The Bogdanovich relationship is one of two immensely significant ones to the doc, charting how it bloomed and inevitably petered out as Welles blew through his ardent supporter's goodwill, although it's implied Bogdanovich fulfilled Welles' request to ensure the film was completed if anything happened to him. 


It's noted that while Welles could be a charm machine, hence getting so many devotees to do so many things for him, he also thrived on friction and could be quite cruel, in particular to Bodganovich, who was ostensibly doing so much for him. There's Wind's Cathy Lucas character, "a dreadful actress like Cybill" Shepherd, whom Bogdanovich had made a star and was seeing at the time. Shepherd recounts how Wells was supposed to stay at Bogdanovich's Beverly Hills house for two to three weeks but he stayed on and off for three years ("It was a very large house and he ate a lot"); the doc comes back round to Bogdanovich's feeling of betrayal at the end, with illustrative clips of Burt Reynolds and Welles mocking the director and the sense that Orson allowed Wind to become a self-fulfilling prophecy; "Orson Welles did everything he could to alienate as many people as possible". The picture may have been a "satire of excessive masculinity", but Welles was not immune from being a practitioner in his own way. He was certainly the alpha male in the relationship.


Then there's cinematographer Gary Graver, devoted to the director for a decade and a half, such that when he died he didn’t know what to do with himself. During his extended service, he'd survive by taking jobs directing porn (he was cited as being the only cinematographer who worked for both Ed Wood and Orson), and was hospitalised several times due to exhaustion, but always returned for more. 


Other anecdotes include the influence of Oja Kodar, Welles' girlfriend and pulchritudinous focus of the movie within movie. It’s noted that Welles considered explicit sexuality distracting from the art and the narrative. "He called himself prudish. And he didn't think films needed nudity" says Bogdanovich, while Kodar comments "I think the thing I contributed to his creativity was the eroticism". Another interviewee suggests that "The film is an exploration of Orson's desire"; Welles insisted the movie within movie wasn't him stylistically or in terms of content (Kodar wrote it) any more than the surrounding "doc" was his style, but Kodar clearly had a profound effect on his attitudes.


Rich Little: I'm not sure he knew where his movie was going and, um, I'm not sure anybody did actually.

Danny Huston's there to recount his father’s relationship with Welles ("They were brothers") but John Huston had no idea what the movie was about ("It's about a miserable prick" he was told). Famous friends that they were, Orson's line was that Huston was willing to sell out (with his one for them, one for me approach). Yet for all Orson’s veneer of superiority, it was Huston who disappeared during filming to make a late-period masterpiece in The Man Who Would Be King.


And then there are the torturous financing issues, telling of Welles sneaking onto studio backlots to steal footage, Andres Gomez (allegedly) disappearing with funds, and the Iranian financing that turned out to be a millstone when the revolution happened and the film reels ended up locked in a vault by decree of the French court. When it came time for his AFI achievement award, it's noted "He was practically begging for money" but "nobody gave him any". 


Various voices all rigorously deny the idea that Welles didn't want The Other Side of the Wind finished, and it does seem rather a stretch that he'd lie under oath to try to resecure it if he preferred it incomplete. How long he would have spent honing it if he had got back is another matter, though. To return to the development mooted by Welles in the second paragraph, at one point he said "Maybe it isn't even the picture. Maybe it's just talking about making the picture". Neville's film suggests that maybe it is just that.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.