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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

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.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.