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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

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…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …