What do you think?
Rate this book
This Is Orson Welles
The correspondence between Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich reveals Welles's true feelings about films, theater, the radio and television industries, and various Hollywood directors and stars. $25,000 ad/promo.
533 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1992
53 people are currently reading
3097 people want to read
About the author
Orson Welles
222 books208 followersGeorge Orson Welles, best known as Orson Welles, was an American film director, actor, theatre director, screenwriter, and producer, who worked extensively in film, theatre, television and radio. Noted for his innovative dramatic productions as well as his distinctive voice and personality,
Welles is widely acknowledged as one of the most accomplished dramatic artists of the twentieth century, especially for his significant and influential early work—despite his notoriously contentious relationship with Hollywood. His distinctive directorial style featured layered, nonlinear narrative forms, innovative uses of lighting such as chiaroscuro, unique camera angles, sound techniques borrowed from radio, deep focus shots, and long takes.
Welles's long career in film is noted for his struggle for artistic control in the face of pressure from studios. Many of his films were heavily edited and others left unreleased. He has been praised as a major creative force and as "the ultimate auteur."
After directing a number of high-profile theatrical productions in his early twenties, including an innovative adaptation of Macbeth and The Cradle Will Rock, Welles found national and international fame as the director and narrator of a 1938 radio adaptation of H. G. Wells's novel The War of the Worlds performed for the radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air. It was reported to have caused widespread panic when listeners thought that an invasion by extraterrestrial beings was occurring. Although these reports of panic were mostly false and overstated, they rocketed Welles to instant notoriety.
Citizen Kane (1941), his first film with RKO, in which he starred in the role of Charles Foster Kane, is often considered the greatest film ever made. Several of his other films, including The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), The Lady from Shanghai (1947), Touch of Evil (1958), Chimes at Midnight (1965), and F for Fake (1974), are also widely considered to be masterpieces.
In 2002, he was voted the greatest film director of all time in two separate British Film Institute polls among directors and critics, and a wide survey of critical consensus, best-of lists, and historical retrospectives calls him the most acclaimed director of all time. Well known for his baritone voice, Welles was also an extremely well regarded actor and was voted number 16 in AFI's 100 Years... 100 Stars list of the greatest American film actors of all time. He was also a celebrated Shakespearean stage actor and an accomplished magician, starring in troop variety shows in the war years.
Welles is widely acknowledged as one of the most accomplished dramatic artists of the twentieth century, especially for his significant and influential early work—despite his notoriously contentious relationship with Hollywood. His distinctive directorial style featured layered, nonlinear narrative forms, innovative uses of lighting such as chiaroscuro, unique camera angles, sound techniques borrowed from radio, deep focus shots, and long takes.
Welles's long career in film is noted for his struggle for artistic control in the face of pressure from studios. Many of his films were heavily edited and others left unreleased. He has been praised as a major creative force and as "the ultimate auteur."
After directing a number of high-profile theatrical productions in his early twenties, including an innovative adaptation of Macbeth and The Cradle Will Rock, Welles found national and international fame as the director and narrator of a 1938 radio adaptation of H. G. Wells's novel The War of the Worlds performed for the radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air. It was reported to have caused widespread panic when listeners thought that an invasion by extraterrestrial beings was occurring. Although these reports of panic were mostly false and overstated, they rocketed Welles to instant notoriety.
Citizen Kane (1941), his first film with RKO, in which he starred in the role of Charles Foster Kane, is often considered the greatest film ever made. Several of his other films, including The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), The Lady from Shanghai (1947), Touch of Evil (1958), Chimes at Midnight (1965), and F for Fake (1974), are also widely considered to be masterpieces.
In 2002, he was voted the greatest film director of all time in two separate British Film Institute polls among directors and critics, and a wide survey of critical consensus, best-of lists, and historical retrospectives calls him the most acclaimed director of all time. Well known for his baritone voice, Welles was also an extremely well regarded actor and was voted number 16 in AFI's 100 Years... 100 Stars list of the greatest American film actors of all time. He was also a celebrated Shakespearean stage actor and an accomplished magician, starring in troop variety shows in the war years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
December 27, 2025
TOUCH OF GENIUS
John Huston, Orson Welles e Peter Bogdanovich se la godono insieme.
Diversissimi, ma fanno il paio: questo e l’altro libro intervista che ha fatto storia nella storia del cinema, Il cinema secondo Hitchcock di François Truffaut.
Sono molto diversi perché diversi sono gli intervistatori e diversi sono gli intervistati: personalità diverse, diversi approcci al cinema, opere realizzate diverse.
Ma li accomuna amore per la settima arte e genialità profusa nel praticarla.
Orson Welles e Peter Bogdanovich fanno la spesa.
Orson Welles è un vulcano, un caleidoscopio, una montagna più alta dell’Everest di idee progetti realizzazioni. Puro genio. Che nel suo caso si accompagna con perfezione e sapienza alla sregolatezza (la sregolatezza della sua stazza!).
Personalmente, lo reputo responsabile della mia decisione di non farmi restare ‘solo’ spettatore, di voler in qualche modo partecipare al processo creativo: i suoi film sono state le lezioni di cinema più belle e divertenti che io abbia ricevuto.
Per anni ho avuto in casa un poster che lo ritraeva in un gigantesco primo piano in bianco e nero, con luce molto tagliata, molto da cinema espressionista, che io avevo battezzato The Dark Side of the Genius (e così facevo felice anche la mia anima pinkfloydiana).
30 ottobre 1938: Orson Welles alla radio legge “The War of the Worlds", e un’intera nazione ha paura.
Welles e Bogdanovich (altro uomo di cinema nel senso più assoluto, oltre che valente regista con qualche film davvero notevole, uomo di grande cultura cinematografica, nutrito a pane e film, proprio come Truffaut) si incontrano, più e più volte, parlano, raccontano e si raccontano, storie e aneddoti, chiacchiere e fatti, spiegano e chiariscono. Il tutto ha la grazia, la complicità e la convivialità di una chiacchierata tra due amici che pranzano insieme. Ma, certo, il maestro, e il padrone di casa, era l’intervistato, Orson, dal magnifico fantastico smisurato ego.
Sul set di “Citizen Kane – Quarto potere” con il direttore della fotografia Gregg Toland.
Welles è stato l’incarnazione di una leggenda: artista poliedrico, attore regista produttore sceneggiatore, si è dedicato a cinema televisione teatro radio e quant’altro, ha vissuto qui e là, è stato in perenne guerra con l’establishment hollywoodiano, prima cercando di sfruttarlo, poi di piegarlo, infine respingendolo. Mai domo, spesso sconfitto, sempre vincitore. Spiritoso, autoironico, beffardo, gigantesco ben più della sua mole fisica.
Questo è l’unico ruolo che Welles interpretò senza make up: Quinlan.
La prima volta che Bogdanovich e Welles s’incontrarono, il giovane aveva 29 anni (e già da tredici lavorava nel mondo dello spettacolo, sia teatro che cinema che critica, regia recitazione scrittura) e l’adulto era ormai arrivato ai 53. Welles propose a Bogdanovich di scrivere un libro su di lui, Bogdanovich accettò ben volentieri e disse di volerlo fare sotto forma d’intervista. Peter aggiunse che non ci sarebbe voluto molto tempo. Ma quando il risultato è arrivato alle stampe, l’intervistatore aveva 53 anni e l’intervistato era ormai, come si usa dire, passato a miglior vita già da sette anni.
Nel 2015, dopo un primato ininterrotto durato 50 anni, i quasi mille critici raccolti intorno alla rivista “Sight&Sound” hanno detronizzato “Citizen Kane – Quarto potere” da best-movie-ever (la palma è passata a “Vertigo – La donna che visse due volte” di Hitchcok).
Disse Truffaut a proposito di Touch of Evil - L’infernale Quinlan:
È un film che un po’ ci umilia perché racconta di un uomo che pensa molto più in fretta e molto meglio di noi, e che ci getta in faccia un’immagine meravigliosa quando siamo ancora abbagliati da quella precedente.
Orson Welles e Rita Hayworth in “The Lady from Shanghai. I due furono sposati per cinque anni, dal 1943 al 1948. Nel 1944 nacque la figlia Rebecca (morta nel 2004).
Jean Cocteau scrisse:
Orson Welles, è un gigante con la facci da bambino, un albero pieno di uccelli e di ombre, un cane che ha rotto la catena ed è andato a dormire sul prato in mezzo ai fiori. È un attivo perdigiorno, un saggio pazzo, una solitudine circondata di umanità.
John Huston, Orson Welles e Peter Bogdanovich se la godono insieme.
Diversissimi, ma fanno il paio: questo e l’altro libro intervista che ha fatto storia nella storia del cinema, Il cinema secondo Hitchcock di François Truffaut.
Sono molto diversi perché diversi sono gli intervistatori e diversi sono gli intervistati: personalità diverse, diversi approcci al cinema, opere realizzate diverse.
Ma li accomuna amore per la settima arte e genialità profusa nel praticarla.
Orson Welles e Peter Bogdanovich fanno la spesa.
Orson Welles è un vulcano, un caleidoscopio, una montagna più alta dell’Everest di idee progetti realizzazioni. Puro genio. Che nel suo caso si accompagna con perfezione e sapienza alla sregolatezza (la sregolatezza della sua stazza!).
Personalmente, lo reputo responsabile della mia decisione di non farmi restare ‘solo’ spettatore, di voler in qualche modo partecipare al processo creativo: i suoi film sono state le lezioni di cinema più belle e divertenti che io abbia ricevuto.
Per anni ho avuto in casa un poster che lo ritraeva in un gigantesco primo piano in bianco e nero, con luce molto tagliata, molto da cinema espressionista, che io avevo battezzato The Dark Side of the Genius (e così facevo felice anche la mia anima pinkfloydiana).
30 ottobre 1938: Orson Welles alla radio legge “The War of the Worlds", e un’intera nazione ha paura.
Welles e Bogdanovich (altro uomo di cinema nel senso più assoluto, oltre che valente regista con qualche film davvero notevole, uomo di grande cultura cinematografica, nutrito a pane e film, proprio come Truffaut) si incontrano, più e più volte, parlano, raccontano e si raccontano, storie e aneddoti, chiacchiere e fatti, spiegano e chiariscono. Il tutto ha la grazia, la complicità e la convivialità di una chiacchierata tra due amici che pranzano insieme. Ma, certo, il maestro, e il padrone di casa, era l’intervistato, Orson, dal magnifico fantastico smisurato ego.
Sul set di “Citizen Kane – Quarto potere” con il direttore della fotografia Gregg Toland.
Welles è stato l’incarnazione di una leggenda: artista poliedrico, attore regista produttore sceneggiatore, si è dedicato a cinema televisione teatro radio e quant’altro, ha vissuto qui e là, è stato in perenne guerra con l’establishment hollywoodiano, prima cercando di sfruttarlo, poi di piegarlo, infine respingendolo. Mai domo, spesso sconfitto, sempre vincitore. Spiritoso, autoironico, beffardo, gigantesco ben più della sua mole fisica.
Questo è l’unico ruolo che Welles interpretò senza make up: Quinlan.
La prima volta che Bogdanovich e Welles s’incontrarono, il giovane aveva 29 anni (e già da tredici lavorava nel mondo dello spettacolo, sia teatro che cinema che critica, regia recitazione scrittura) e l’adulto era ormai arrivato ai 53. Welles propose a Bogdanovich di scrivere un libro su di lui, Bogdanovich accettò ben volentieri e disse di volerlo fare sotto forma d’intervista. Peter aggiunse che non ci sarebbe voluto molto tempo. Ma quando il risultato è arrivato alle stampe, l’intervistatore aveva 53 anni e l’intervistato era ormai, come si usa dire, passato a miglior vita già da sette anni.
Nel 2015, dopo un primato ininterrotto durato 50 anni, i quasi mille critici raccolti intorno alla rivista “Sight&Sound” hanno detronizzato “Citizen Kane – Quarto potere” da best-movie-ever (la palma è passata a “Vertigo – La donna che visse due volte” di Hitchcok).
Disse Truffaut a proposito di Touch of Evil - L’infernale Quinlan:
È un film che un po’ ci umilia perché racconta di un uomo che pensa molto più in fretta e molto meglio di noi, e che ci getta in faccia un’immagine meravigliosa quando siamo ancora abbagliati da quella precedente.
Orson Welles e Rita Hayworth in “The Lady from Shanghai. I due furono sposati per cinque anni, dal 1943 al 1948. Nel 1944 nacque la figlia Rebecca (morta nel 2004).
Jean Cocteau scrisse:
Orson Welles, è un gigante con la facci da bambino, un albero pieno di uccelli e di ombre, un cane che ha rotto la catena ed è andato a dormire sul prato in mezzo ai fiori. È un attivo perdigiorno, un saggio pazzo, una solitudine circondata di umanità.
August 16, 2021
A collection of conversations between Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich taped over time with a loose intention to turn them into a book. The project was eventually abandoned, but resurfaced following Welles’s death. With its in depth discussions of scenes, techniques, actors , and snippets of fascinating information, it is probably priceless for aficionados of the director. For Welles’s appreciators who are not aficionados, it is a mildly interesting read.
March 6, 2016
Excellent series of interviews with Welles, late in his life, by Welles disciple and fellow director Bogdanovich. Welles is fiercely intelligent, funny, opinionated, testy, and a great storyteller - just a wealth of great insights, ancedotes and arguments here, and should be fascinating to anyone with any interest in film - heck, even if you're not interested in film you are likely to be entertained by Welles' conversation.
As an fanastic bonus, one of the appendixes is a script reconstruction of all the scenes that were cut, against Welles' will, from The Magnificent Ambersons -- allowed me to construct the full intended film in my mind at least, and showed the greater film it could have been if it had remained under Welles' control.
I'll add some of my favorite quotes from the interviews to this review later.
As an fanastic bonus, one of the appendixes is a script reconstruction of all the scenes that were cut, against Welles' will, from The Magnificent Ambersons -- allowed me to construct the full intended film in my mind at least, and showed the greater film it could have been if it had remained under Welles' control.
I'll add some of my favorite quotes from the interviews to this review later.
November 22, 2014
Kind of a messy biography, This Is Orson Welles is either a treasure of first-hand information on the life and works of Welles and a rambling conversation with a pompous liar. I think it's probably both, usually at the same time.
Back in the early 70s, Peter Bogdanovich and Welles hit on the idea of a book of interviews, kind of like Francois Truffaut's book with Alfred Hitchcock. They hung out a bunch, drinks were served and tape rolled. After a while, life started getting in the way: Welles got an offer to write his memoirs, Bogdanovich's career floundered and the tapes ended up in storage. When Welles died in 1985, the project did, too.
After a while, the project sprung back to life thanks to Oja Kodar and Jonathan Rosenbaum. The tapes were found, transcribed and edited into a tidy volume. Finally, Welles fans could read about what Welles thought about his own movies! It's just too bad he had so little to say, though.
Throughout these transcripts, Welles is tricky and obtuse. He tells tall tales about his career, about dashing between radio appearances in a chartered ambulance, befriending gangsters and staying awake for days on end. He talks at length about movies like The Trial while barely touching on Touch of Evil. He recalls events in different ways than other parties (which is where Rosenbaum's notes come in handy) and sometimes claims he can't remember others at all.
It's frustrating reading at times. Welles will say something one moment, only to be contradicted by Bogdanovich reading from his notes. It could be about something Welles said in the past or put in a movie, but Welles has a stubborn contrarian streak and insists on saying he doesn't like to use symbols in his movies; the famous mirror scene in Citizen Kane, for example, is apparently just because Welles liked mirrors or something, I guess.
But of course, Welles fibs his way through this. He downplays himself one moment, then upsells his legend a second later. His stories are hard to take at face value, but it's hard to shake the idea that Welles did himself. He comes off as a guy who likes to fib for his own amusement. It's amusing in small doses, but after a while it grated on me: why bother listen to someone's life story when they don't seem interested in telling it?
At the same time, Welles is a charming conversationalist. As annoying as he can be, it's also not hard to see why Welles and Bogdanovich got along so well: they enjoyed talking to each other. Nearly every time Welles seems annoyed with answering questions, there's another where he starts laughing or makes a joke. As he says, "I can see this is going to be endless - let's get another drink." It's worth noting that Welles only backed out when he got an offer to write his own book and edited early versions of transcripts, too: he was clearly a man who enjoyed creating his mystique.
However, the interview runs maybe two thirds of this book. It's followed by a lengthy list of Welles appearances in everything from talk shows to film appearances and the script to The Magnificent Ambersons. Both are interesting for the fanatic, but also come across as padding, too. Neither really seems especially relevant to the interviews, too.
Back in the early 70s, Peter Bogdanovich and Welles hit on the idea of a book of interviews, kind of like Francois Truffaut's book with Alfred Hitchcock. They hung out a bunch, drinks were served and tape rolled. After a while, life started getting in the way: Welles got an offer to write his memoirs, Bogdanovich's career floundered and the tapes ended up in storage. When Welles died in 1985, the project did, too.
After a while, the project sprung back to life thanks to Oja Kodar and Jonathan Rosenbaum. The tapes were found, transcribed and edited into a tidy volume. Finally, Welles fans could read about what Welles thought about his own movies! It's just too bad he had so little to say, though.
Throughout these transcripts, Welles is tricky and obtuse. He tells tall tales about his career, about dashing between radio appearances in a chartered ambulance, befriending gangsters and staying awake for days on end. He talks at length about movies like The Trial while barely touching on Touch of Evil. He recalls events in different ways than other parties (which is where Rosenbaum's notes come in handy) and sometimes claims he can't remember others at all.
It's frustrating reading at times. Welles will say something one moment, only to be contradicted by Bogdanovich reading from his notes. It could be about something Welles said in the past or put in a movie, but Welles has a stubborn contrarian streak and insists on saying he doesn't like to use symbols in his movies; the famous mirror scene in Citizen Kane, for example, is apparently just because Welles liked mirrors or something, I guess.
But of course, Welles fibs his way through this. He downplays himself one moment, then upsells his legend a second later. His stories are hard to take at face value, but it's hard to shake the idea that Welles did himself. He comes off as a guy who likes to fib for his own amusement. It's amusing in small doses, but after a while it grated on me: why bother listen to someone's life story when they don't seem interested in telling it?
At the same time, Welles is a charming conversationalist. As annoying as he can be, it's also not hard to see why Welles and Bogdanovich got along so well: they enjoyed talking to each other. Nearly every time Welles seems annoyed with answering questions, there's another where he starts laughing or makes a joke. As he says, "I can see this is going to be endless - let's get another drink." It's worth noting that Welles only backed out when he got an offer to write his own book and edited early versions of transcripts, too: he was clearly a man who enjoyed creating his mystique.
However, the interview runs maybe two thirds of this book. It's followed by a lengthy list of Welles appearances in everything from talk shows to film appearances and the script to The Magnificent Ambersons. Both are interesting for the fanatic, but also come across as padding, too. Neither really seems especially relevant to the interviews, too.
April 8, 2020
A series of interviews of Orson Welles by fellow friend and creator/director Peter Bogdanovich; plus a complete record of his works, his screenplays; there are even the 'cut' scenes from The Magnificent Ambersons! Welles, a great orator, provides full revelations on the War of the Worlds debacle and the filming and editing of Citizen Kane. The book, is like a treasure trove, containing over 80 photographs from his life and work. The interviews were made in Welles' later years. 6 out of 12.
August 19, 2008
Bogdanovich is the perfect foil for Welles in this collection of entertaining and enlightening interviews, coaxing details out of the elder director and, when necessary, calling bullshit on some of Welles' broad pronunciamentos (e.g. "I never use symbolism," etc.)
Welles' wit, good humor, and passion for his art make this a really inspiring book, even when the discussion turns to depressing subjects like the routine mutilation of Welles' work at the hands of studio executives.
This is an essential portrait of a great film genius, right up there with Truffaut's interviews with Hitchcock and Cameron Crowe's interviews with Billy Wilder. Each of these is a blast to read, especially if you have a Netflix account.
Welles' wit, good humor, and passion for his art make this a really inspiring book, even when the discussion turns to depressing subjects like the routine mutilation of Welles' work at the hands of studio executives.
This is an essential portrait of a great film genius, right up there with Truffaut's interviews with Hitchcock and Cameron Crowe's interviews with Billy Wilder. Each of these is a blast to read, especially if you have a Netflix account.
February 1, 2021
Набор абсолютно пронзительных зарисовок. Уэллс невероятный рассказчик, и книга разбивает все ожидания, которые могут у вас сформироваться в момент, когда вы узнаёте, что это, мол, "запись бесед между двумя кинорежиссерами".
July 28, 2019
In F for Fake Welles gleefully tells his audience, I told you I will tell you the truth for an hour, well that hour was over twenty minutes ago and since then I have been lying my head off. Knowing the trickster he was, and how he could spin a story, why would you believe a word he says in this his autobiography. The point is it does not matter, and he knows it. The stories are great, and if they arn't true they should be. Here he talks about his career, and his life. Near the end of his life he said he though it was a failure, " a life filled of incomplete and failed projects. What kind of life is that" But it is in these stories and experiences we see a life lived to the full that anyone would envy. For example I am not so convinced he met Hitler like he told Dick Cavett, but nice to think he did. Bogdanavich who Welles lived with with Cybil Shepard....another great story...keeps him in line, calls him out when questioned, and steers the conversation. Presented as a series of interviews over twenty years, a fascinating book on the likes we will defiantly never see again from a bygone era.
December 8, 2015
So far: Welles is clinically mad genius with skewed perspective, Bogdanovich is savant genius without boundaries, and that either qualifies as brilliant dinner guest (that is, if we're doing the "living or dead" dinner party).
The Da Capo Press reprint/scan (isbn-13: 978-0-306-80834-0 or isbn-10: 0-306-80834-x $24.00) has unforgivably poor images/photos/stills. I don't know if all editions have this problem (although one can search the films themselves for certain scenes), but I found this particularly shoddy publishing. I'd recommend searching for an older edition--perhaps better quality. I am truly sorry I requested this readily available edition for purchase from my local library--I feel like I wasted public money.
The Da Capo Press reprint/scan (isbn-13: 978-0-306-80834-0 or isbn-10: 0-306-80834-x $24.00) has unforgivably poor images/photos/stills. I don't know if all editions have this problem (although one can search the films themselves for certain scenes), but I found this particularly shoddy publishing. I'd recommend searching for an older edition--perhaps better quality. I am truly sorry I requested this readily available edition for purchase from my local library--I feel like I wasted public money.
April 14, 2024
I’ve only ever dipped into this before, but it’s fantastic to read it all the way through. To experience – at a step removed – Orson in flow. To witness the intelligence, wit and almost poetry falling from his lips. For example, OW on Fellini: “Fellini is essentially a small-town boy who’s never really come to Rome. He’s still dreaming about it. And we should all be grateful for those dreams.”
As you’d expect from the man who made F FOR FAKE, some of this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I’m particularly suspicious of his Churchill anecdote.
As you’d expect from the man who made F FOR FAKE, some of this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I’m particularly suspicious of his Churchill anecdote.
November 18, 2009
Wish there were about 5000 more pages of Welles interview transcripts to read.
May 12, 2025
This is Orson Welles (sì, è il titolo originale) è un libro che raccoglie una serie di conversazioni tra Bogdanovich e il leggendario Orson Welles avvenute nel corso di svariati anni, dove i due ripercorrono (a volte mal volentieri da parte di Welles) la carriera del regista.
Che Peter Bogdanovich, grazie ai suoi film, sia un cineasta indispensabile, è risaputo. Ma spesso si dimentica che è stato anche un importante divulgatore e storico del Cinema, e questo libro ne è una delle tante prove. Un volume fondamentale che smonta tanti luoghi comuni su Welles, spesso considerato egocentrico, megalomane e reazionario, e lo riporta su un piano umano, reale, emotivo.
Grazie a questo libro molto del Cinema di Welles viene svelato: dalla maledizione di Kane alle lotte infinite per avere l'ultima parola in ogni suo film, dalla vera versione degli Amberson al suo approccio artistico, meno intellettuale e più pratico. Un libro che tutti gli appassionati di Cinema, e soprattutto chi nel Cinema ci lavora, dovrebbero leggere e studiare profondamente come una guida pratica alla produzione artistica di un film. Consiglio la lettura abbinata a "It's all true" (altra raccolta di interviste).
Unica rimostranza sulla "nuova" edizione italiana. In primis: il titolo, troppo derivativo e spersonalizzante (citare Truffaut solo per marketing); poi la ripetizione di alcuni paragrafi, si fatica a comprendere alcuni discorsi; e in ultimo la pessima e vecchia traduzione degli anni '90, che traduce termini come "camera" in "telecamera" e theater (inteso come "sala cinematografica") in "teatro"... per citarne solo alcune.
Pessima edizione italiana.
Che Peter Bogdanovich, grazie ai suoi film, sia un cineasta indispensabile, è risaputo. Ma spesso si dimentica che è stato anche un importante divulgatore e storico del Cinema, e questo libro ne è una delle tante prove. Un volume fondamentale che smonta tanti luoghi comuni su Welles, spesso considerato egocentrico, megalomane e reazionario, e lo riporta su un piano umano, reale, emotivo.
Grazie a questo libro molto del Cinema di Welles viene svelato: dalla maledizione di Kane alle lotte infinite per avere l'ultima parola in ogni suo film, dalla vera versione degli Amberson al suo approccio artistico, meno intellettuale e più pratico. Un libro che tutti gli appassionati di Cinema, e soprattutto chi nel Cinema ci lavora, dovrebbero leggere e studiare profondamente come una guida pratica alla produzione artistica di un film. Consiglio la lettura abbinata a "It's all true" (altra raccolta di interviste).
Unica rimostranza sulla "nuova" edizione italiana. In primis: il titolo, troppo derivativo e spersonalizzante (citare Truffaut solo per marketing); poi la ripetizione di alcuni paragrafi, si fatica a comprendere alcuni discorsi; e in ultimo la pessima e vecchia traduzione degli anni '90, che traduce termini come "camera" in "telecamera" e theater (inteso come "sala cinematografica") in "teatro"... per citarne solo alcune.
Pessima edizione italiana.
January 19, 2019
3.5 stars. There are certain Orson Welles films that I greatly admire. First and foremost among these is Citizen Kane, then Touch of Evil, The Lady from Shanghai, Macbeth , and even F for Fake. On a tier just below these, for me, are films like Chimes at Midnight, The Trial, and The Magnificent Ambersons. And then of course there is the brilliant War of the Worlds broadcast and his wonderful performances in films like The Third Man and Compulsion.
This book of interviews was first conceived when Welles was working with Peter Bogdanovich (director of films like Targets and The Last Picture Show) on The Other Side of the Wind, ultimately Welles' final film (unfinished at the time of his death in 1985). Recently, the unfinished film was released on Netflix (with some additional footage and with black screens and title cards indicating missing or unfinished segments), around the time that I started reading this book.
A fan of Welles (as evinced by my first paragraph), as well as of actor/director John Huston, who stars in The Other Side of the Wind, and of Bogdanovich, I was eager to watch the film when it was released. But despite some merits, I found it messy and onanistic (not unlike other projects of the later Welles, including F for Fake; though the latter had enough redeeming qualities to allow me to overlook its flaws). I was very disappointed in the final product and felt I had wasted more than two hours of my life in watching it.
While Welles felt that Kane was inferior to his later works, I wholeheartedly disagree, and think sometimes artists are not the best judge of their own work (Woody Allen case in point -- when asked to name his six best works he listed Match Point, Bullets Over Broadway, Zelig, Husbands and Wives, Purple Rose of Cairo and Vicky Cristina Barcelona; while I love all of those films, not including Annie Hall, Manhattan or Crimes and Misdemeanors, just one of them, is a shame). While not as messy as The Other Side of the Wind, I felt this book was not as insightful as it could have been.
In the pages of this book, Welles comes across at times as bitter (and he had a right to be, the way Hollywood treated him), and at times as a poor critic of the works of contemporary filmmakers, who he looks upon with disdain. The book, which Welles approached Bogdanovich to work on with him (as he was fond of a similar book that Bogdanovich did on director and Welles hero John Ford), was intended to "set the record straight" on certain aspects of Welles' career, namely his reputation as a director who couldn't get things done, focusing more than anything else on the troubles surrounding his second major film, The Magnificent Ambersons. But where the record is cleared in some areas, in other places it feels as though the work -- Bogdanovich and Welles both seemingly equally responsible for this -- just reinforces the legend of Welles. I couldn't help but agree with Richard Wilson's statement (printed in this book):
Books and articles about Welles, published mainly in England, France and Italy, abound in misinformation. One of the chief fonts of inaccuracy, I recognize, has been Orson himself. . . .
But one can't help but wonder if this isn't intentional. At the end of F for Fake, after all, Welles (the man responsible for the War of the Worlds broadcast) says, addressing the audience: "At the very beginning, I - of all this, I did make you a promise. Remember? I did promise that for one hour, I'd tell you only the truth. That hour, ladies and gentlemen, is over. For the past 17 minutes, I've been lying my head off. The truth, and please forgive us for it, is that we've been forging an art story. . ." Often contradictory (for Welles, like Walt Whitman, is a man of contradictions) Whitman's words "Very well then I contradict myself; (I am large, I contain multitudes)" could just as well apply to Welles as to America's great poet. A Renaissance man, an intellectual, an entertainer, a liar, a magician, a man, a myth. Orson Welles was all of these. And perhaps its for the best that this book isn't too pellucid. To quote from John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
This book of interviews was first conceived when Welles was working with Peter Bogdanovich (director of films like Targets and The Last Picture Show) on The Other Side of the Wind, ultimately Welles' final film (unfinished at the time of his death in 1985). Recently, the unfinished film was released on Netflix (with some additional footage and with black screens and title cards indicating missing or unfinished segments), around the time that I started reading this book.
A fan of Welles (as evinced by my first paragraph), as well as of actor/director John Huston, who stars in The Other Side of the Wind, and of Bogdanovich, I was eager to watch the film when it was released. But despite some merits, I found it messy and onanistic (not unlike other projects of the later Welles, including F for Fake; though the latter had enough redeeming qualities to allow me to overlook its flaws). I was very disappointed in the final product and felt I had wasted more than two hours of my life in watching it.
While Welles felt that Kane was inferior to his later works, I wholeheartedly disagree, and think sometimes artists are not the best judge of their own work (Woody Allen case in point -- when asked to name his six best works he listed Match Point, Bullets Over Broadway, Zelig, Husbands and Wives, Purple Rose of Cairo and Vicky Cristina Barcelona; while I love all of those films, not including Annie Hall, Manhattan or Crimes and Misdemeanors, just one of them, is a shame). While not as messy as The Other Side of the Wind, I felt this book was not as insightful as it could have been.
In the pages of this book, Welles comes across at times as bitter (and he had a right to be, the way Hollywood treated him), and at times as a poor critic of the works of contemporary filmmakers, who he looks upon with disdain. The book, which Welles approached Bogdanovich to work on with him (as he was fond of a similar book that Bogdanovich did on director and Welles hero John Ford), was intended to "set the record straight" on certain aspects of Welles' career, namely his reputation as a director who couldn't get things done, focusing more than anything else on the troubles surrounding his second major film, The Magnificent Ambersons. But where the record is cleared in some areas, in other places it feels as though the work -- Bogdanovich and Welles both seemingly equally responsible for this -- just reinforces the legend of Welles. I couldn't help but agree with Richard Wilson's statement (printed in this book):
Books and articles about Welles, published mainly in England, France and Italy, abound in misinformation. One of the chief fonts of inaccuracy, I recognize, has been Orson himself. . . .
But one can't help but wonder if this isn't intentional. At the end of F for Fake, after all, Welles (the man responsible for the War of the Worlds broadcast) says, addressing the audience: "At the very beginning, I - of all this, I did make you a promise. Remember? I did promise that for one hour, I'd tell you only the truth. That hour, ladies and gentlemen, is over. For the past 17 minutes, I've been lying my head off. The truth, and please forgive us for it, is that we've been forging an art story. . ." Often contradictory (for Welles, like Walt Whitman, is a man of contradictions) Whitman's words "Very well then I contradict myself; (I am large, I contain multitudes)" could just as well apply to Welles as to America's great poet. A Renaissance man, an intellectual, an entertainer, a liar, a magician, a man, a myth. Orson Welles was all of these. And perhaps its for the best that this book isn't too pellucid. To quote from John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
April 20, 2021
Intriguing read.
May 2, 2019
Enjoyed reading the conversations between Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich. Welles does NOT want to talk about certain subjects, like his old movies, or other directors and other movies, and Bogdanovich sort of tries to circle around and get his opinions anyway. And there is a complete chronology and notes and the whole thing is just wonderful.
May 16, 2023
L'indipendenza del talento
Artista istrionico e indipendente, ha pagato il prezzo delle sue idee poco convenzionali e allo stesso tempo rivoluzionarie.
Probabilmente più amato da chi il cinema lo fa che da chi lo guarda, ma resta invariata la sua importanza nella settima arte e dintorni.
Artista istrionico e indipendente, ha pagato il prezzo delle sue idee poco convenzionali e allo stesso tempo rivoluzionarie.
Probabilmente più amato da chi il cinema lo fa che da chi lo guarda, ma resta invariata la sua importanza nella settima arte e dintorni.
January 31, 2023
Peter Bogdanovich interviewed Orson Welles on numerous occasions over the period from 1969-1972, recording the interviews on reel-to-reel tape and intending them for a book project, which alas took 20 years to get from planning stage to eventual publication, 7 years after the death of it's subject. It was worth the wait. Welles covers in his expansive, mostly generous and ebullient way his childhood, early creative years in the theater and on radio, and nearly the whole of his career as a director and some of his work as actor. There are personal anecdotes, reminiscences of other great filmmakers, jokes, and of course, sadness and regret at the way in which his career was often marginalized or trivialized, and especially at the ruination of most of his films by producers uninterested in "genius".
Bogdanovich and editor Jonathan Rosenbaum did a brilliant job in putting a shape to the book; it was wise I think that they edited it into a chronological form following Welles' life, rather than in the order that the interviews took place. There is much great material here about obscure and unfinished works like DON QUIXOTE and THE DEEP; politics; some of Welles' predecessors of note, like the similarly tragic Erich von Stroheim; and many of those who have succeeded him with the enfant terrible title, like Jean-Luc Godard. It's nice that editor Rosenbaum was able to keep some of the director's less politically-correct language intact; Welles was a liberal, a progressive and a humanist his whole life - but he was also born over a hundred years ago, and we can't expect him to always fit our 2009 norms of behavior.
The last 200 pages of this lengthy book are taken up by a nearly day-by-day chronology of Welles' career, a reconstruction of the missing scenes of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, extensive end-notes, and a detailed index. My copy is the 1992 first edition; the 1998 edition adds an updated introduction by Peter Bogdanovich and excerpts from Welles' memo cocerning the editing of TOUCH OF EVIL - which can also be found on the newest DVD release of that film. Whatever edition you get, if you're a fan of the director at all, you owe it to yourself to have this book. Welles never got around to writing an autobiography - despite being a "one hit wonder" in the eyes of a lot of ignorant people who really ought to have known better, he was still working on what he loved - making films - right up until his death. In the absence of such a book, this will have to do, and will do, very nicely.
Bogdanovich and editor Jonathan Rosenbaum did a brilliant job in putting a shape to the book; it was wise I think that they edited it into a chronological form following Welles' life, rather than in the order that the interviews took place. There is much great material here about obscure and unfinished works like DON QUIXOTE and THE DEEP; politics; some of Welles' predecessors of note, like the similarly tragic Erich von Stroheim; and many of those who have succeeded him with the enfant terrible title, like Jean-Luc Godard. It's nice that editor Rosenbaum was able to keep some of the director's less politically-correct language intact; Welles was a liberal, a progressive and a humanist his whole life - but he was also born over a hundred years ago, and we can't expect him to always fit our 2009 norms of behavior.
The last 200 pages of this lengthy book are taken up by a nearly day-by-day chronology of Welles' career, a reconstruction of the missing scenes of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, extensive end-notes, and a detailed index. My copy is the 1992 first edition; the 1998 edition adds an updated introduction by Peter Bogdanovich and excerpts from Welles' memo cocerning the editing of TOUCH OF EVIL - which can also be found on the newest DVD release of that film. Whatever edition you get, if you're a fan of the director at all, you owe it to yourself to have this book. Welles never got around to writing an autobiography - despite being a "one hit wonder" in the eyes of a lot of ignorant people who really ought to have known better, he was still working on what he loved - making films - right up until his death. In the absence of such a book, this will have to do, and will do, very nicely.
August 19, 2011
I'm enjoying this immensely. Great lessons in film-making and flim-flamming. What a polyglot. What a talker. "He was some kind of a man."
Example (from page 239 of the paperback ed. To appreciate this quote, know that Welles and Bogdanovich have been engaging in verbal jousting throughout the interviews. Welles dodges and pooh-poohs many questions of the "what is art?" variety, but is usually blunt in his self-assessments, not to mention ironic):
PB: When you wrote the novel of Mr. Arkadin—
OW: Peter, I didn't write one word of that novel. Nor have I ever read it.
PB: How could they publish it with your name on it?
OW: Somebody [Maurice Bessy] wrote it in French to be published...to promote the picture. I don't know how it got under hardcovers, or who got paid for that.
PB: In a couple of books about you, they talk about the "bautiful" style of your writing in that novel.
OW: Maybe I did write it, at that.
Example (from page 239 of the paperback ed. To appreciate this quote, know that Welles and Bogdanovich have been engaging in verbal jousting throughout the interviews. Welles dodges and pooh-poohs many questions of the "what is art?" variety, but is usually blunt in his self-assessments, not to mention ironic):
PB: When you wrote the novel of Mr. Arkadin—
OW: Peter, I didn't write one word of that novel. Nor have I ever read it.
PB: How could they publish it with your name on it?
OW: Somebody [Maurice Bessy] wrote it in French to be published...to promote the picture. I don't know how it got under hardcovers, or who got paid for that.
PB: In a couple of books about you, they talk about the "bautiful" style of your writing in that novel.
OW: Maybe I did write it, at that.
January 7, 2022
This is the essential Welles book. I will love when another comes along to change that opinion, but so far I ain't budging. Jonathan Rosenbaum's chronology of Welles' life is a wonder to behold, and entertains a much different picture of Welles than the standard biographies. Welles himself, of course, is a fluent but flighty, if not abruptly evasive interviewee -- make that, raconteur. A fact that will surprise no one who loves his movies. Or Bogdanovich, who'll go there with him. And while this does not amount to a critical "take" on the movies, it will become that take's ultimate resource. I use it constantly.
July 4, 2008
Orson Welles never was a man to talk truthfully and clearly about himself or his work. I suspect his pampering as a child genius made him immune to the polite culture and questioning adults were thought of as dolts at an early age. Much later in life he opened up to interviews with Bogdonavich and subjected himself to questioning on everything from his theater days all the way up to his struggle to get Don Quixote committed to the screen. It was his only such opening up (not unlike Hitchcock to Truffaut) and provides a complete overview and analysis of his life's work.
October 18, 2013
Anything with the two words "Orson & Welles" is usually a fascinating ride into 20th Century film culture. He's both a man of great talent and perhaps terrible luck -but lucky with respect to living well.
His genius was living his life. But his great taste was in the movies. This is a super fun book full of the Welles charm. Also it is fascinating how he deals with his past.
His genius was living his life. But his great taste was in the movies. This is a super fun book full of the Welles charm. Also it is fascinating how he deals with his past.
October 14, 2018
#96 of 120 books pledged to read during 2018
September 20, 2020
I found this endlessly more rewarding and revealing than I expected, though I’d recommend reading at least one biography of Welles beforehand, so you can spot the bullshit. Orson is captivating when talking about his own work, extraordinarily insightful on the subject of film theory, and inaccurate though amusing on Hollywood, though his compulsive need to fictionalise his past is very strange. Isn’t being the greatest film director who ever lived achievement enough?
Like Citizen Kane, this book tells a life story in an experimental, fragmented way – eight discursive chats in eight different locations – and just as Welles inserted Kane into history through the March of Time sequence, so he repeatedly inserts himself and his family into improbable scenarios: he was a bullfighter, he was friends with Roosevelt, his dad knew Lincoln; any evidence of these things tends to have been burned up in a house fire. This pathological need to lie about his own past, to invent friendships with historical figures, is psychologically fascinating but rather sad, less an invigorating work of living fiction than the sight of a precocious little boy who lost his parents far too young and never quite grew up. There’s a revealing section too in the introduction in which Welles tells Bogdanovich that he was pretending not to like The Trial so that Bogdanovich would like him, a passage that illuminates not just one man’s pathological insecurity, but the other’s inability to read social signals.
After the interviews, which offer untold gems amongst the whoppers, there’s a comprehensive list of Welles’ credits, a summary of his original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons and a lengthy excerpt from his famous 58-page Touch of Evil memo. Though all these elements are interesting, time has rather caught up with the book: sections of the interviews have since been debunked, Robert Carringer’s impeccable Reconstruction of Ambersons has usurped this briefer treatment, and a 1998 re-edit of Welles’ gloriously scuzzy noir has implemented the changes demanded in the memo (though that remains a remarkable read). The credits list may also be irrelevant in the age of the internet, though it is impressively detailed (aside from a few amusing errors: Micheál Mac Liammóir is listed as a gang leader in Touch of Evil, the script girl on Don Quixote is called Maurizio, and the stage manager of Othello was apparently William Shakespeare).
The Welles who emerges from this book is far more likeable and generous than the one depicted by Simon Callow in his multi-volume biography. Absent too is the vague sage of countless interviews, who speaks in counter-intuitive aphorisms that on closer inspection mean nothing. Here he is fantastically astute and specific on the subject of cinema, shorn of pretension, and often forcing you to look at the form in a completely new way. That you have to sit through him pretending that he used to fight bulls is a concession I was ultimately happy to make.
Like Citizen Kane, this book tells a life story in an experimental, fragmented way – eight discursive chats in eight different locations – and just as Welles inserted Kane into history through the March of Time sequence, so he repeatedly inserts himself and his family into improbable scenarios: he was a bullfighter, he was friends with Roosevelt, his dad knew Lincoln; any evidence of these things tends to have been burned up in a house fire. This pathological need to lie about his own past, to invent friendships with historical figures, is psychologically fascinating but rather sad, less an invigorating work of living fiction than the sight of a precocious little boy who lost his parents far too young and never quite grew up. There’s a revealing section too in the introduction in which Welles tells Bogdanovich that he was pretending not to like The Trial so that Bogdanovich would like him, a passage that illuminates not just one man’s pathological insecurity, but the other’s inability to read social signals.
After the interviews, which offer untold gems amongst the whoppers, there’s a comprehensive list of Welles’ credits, a summary of his original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons and a lengthy excerpt from his famous 58-page Touch of Evil memo. Though all these elements are interesting, time has rather caught up with the book: sections of the interviews have since been debunked, Robert Carringer’s impeccable Reconstruction of Ambersons has usurped this briefer treatment, and a 1998 re-edit of Welles’ gloriously scuzzy noir has implemented the changes demanded in the memo (though that remains a remarkable read). The credits list may also be irrelevant in the age of the internet, though it is impressively detailed (aside from a few amusing errors: Micheál Mac Liammóir is listed as a gang leader in Touch of Evil, the script girl on Don Quixote is called Maurizio, and the stage manager of Othello was apparently William Shakespeare).
The Welles who emerges from this book is far more likeable and generous than the one depicted by Simon Callow in his multi-volume biography. Absent too is the vague sage of countless interviews, who speaks in counter-intuitive aphorisms that on closer inspection mean nothing. Here he is fantastically astute and specific on the subject of cinema, shorn of pretension, and often forcing you to look at the form in a completely new way. That you have to sit through him pretending that he used to fight bulls is a concession I was ultimately happy to make.
February 23, 2026
Its more an entire book devoted to Orson Welles saying and showing how much he DOES NOT want a book to be written about him. He is constantly at odds with the interviewer and says multiple times that his answers to questions cannot be trusted as being honest. It seems like this would be a much more interesting book for an Orson Welles fan or a beginning director or a someone learning about directing. He has a lot of tips and opinions in the field that seem very relevant to that stage in a persons career.
The questions are...benal. Swapping between polite inquiry and generally heaping praise upon the subject. Which is to be expected honestly since they are friends and this was written as a 'set the record straight' in a lot of ways. Sometimes Welles talks and I nod along, even rethink a notion that I had or form a new opinion on something I hadn't put much stock into. Grips, producers and directors themselves. Other times it feels like he is saying things just to say them. Every person he worked with was either fantastic, wonderful, great or outstanding in their field. Any bad film he talks about it purely the work of the studio and the cutting they did etc etc. I believe him when he says a lot of this but there is a point where the author says Welles asked him to delete all the negative things he said in his book to spare the feelings of the people he spoke about. Even if a lot of them are/were dead at the time. I hardly think it would be stirring the pot to hear real opinions.
Bogdonavich also stays well within the rails of a fluff piece. He doesn't really delve into the different styles. Comedy gets some praise from Orson, Horror not so much, romance brushed away as a genre. Monster Movies, Noir movies. Seemingly condemning and accepting different parts of the film world based on how he woke up that day. Any praise must be taken with a grain of salt because any detraction is prefaced heavily and undercut. I haven't seen a single Orson Welles film but I'll tell you...I have absolutely no desire to see them now. Most that are mentioned are immediately disowned by Orson or flagged for not being as good as they could be. Wonderful, I don't want to watch something that the creator doesn't even like. Maybe I'll watch Citizen Kane? One day? Known for cinematography that by the level of today is bog standard.
He was ahead of his time 80 years ago. Positively modern 40 years ago. Not much has changed unfortunately. Its a fine book when it wants to be. I will say it was 322 pages of interviews and then 210 pages of bibliography and a retelling of one film that I've never seen and therefore cannot even begin to understand the retelling that takes up a good portion of the book.
The questions are...benal. Swapping between polite inquiry and generally heaping praise upon the subject. Which is to be expected honestly since they are friends and this was written as a 'set the record straight' in a lot of ways. Sometimes Welles talks and I nod along, even rethink a notion that I had or form a new opinion on something I hadn't put much stock into. Grips, producers and directors themselves. Other times it feels like he is saying things just to say them. Every person he worked with was either fantastic, wonderful, great or outstanding in their field. Any bad film he talks about it purely the work of the studio and the cutting they did etc etc. I believe him when he says a lot of this but there is a point where the author says Welles asked him to delete all the negative things he said in his book to spare the feelings of the people he spoke about. Even if a lot of them are/were dead at the time. I hardly think it would be stirring the pot to hear real opinions.
Bogdonavich also stays well within the rails of a fluff piece. He doesn't really delve into the different styles. Comedy gets some praise from Orson, Horror not so much, romance brushed away as a genre. Monster Movies, Noir movies. Seemingly condemning and accepting different parts of the film world based on how he woke up that day. Any praise must be taken with a grain of salt because any detraction is prefaced heavily and undercut. I haven't seen a single Orson Welles film but I'll tell you...I have absolutely no desire to see them now. Most that are mentioned are immediately disowned by Orson or flagged for not being as good as they could be. Wonderful, I don't want to watch something that the creator doesn't even like. Maybe I'll watch Citizen Kane? One day? Known for cinematography that by the level of today is bog standard.
He was ahead of his time 80 years ago. Positively modern 40 years ago. Not much has changed unfortunately. Its a fine book when it wants to be. I will say it was 322 pages of interviews and then 210 pages of bibliography and a retelling of one film that I've never seen and therefore cannot even begin to understand the retelling that takes up a good portion of the book.
June 19, 2019
Much has been written about Orson Welles extraordinary career, and about as much about his failures. I'm of the opinion tis' always a good idea to go to the source, and so that's just what Peter Bogdanovich did over several decades of friendship with Welles, recording their conversations with the express purpose of crafting a book—which Bogdanovich and editor Jonathan Rosenbaum did after Welles' death in 1985.
This is a true film nerd tome, and I don't think I'd recommend it to non-cineastes whose interest in either film or Welles could be described in any way as "passive." The homework by Bogdanovich and Rosenbaum is extensive, and their footnotes and annotations on the text are thorough.
Gene Siskel used to say of a film: "Would this be more interesting with the actors having coffee?" So here is a decades-long conversation between Welles and Bogdanovich on the business, the old Studio System, and how Welles functioned, or didn't, inside it all. Some passages are better than others, such as the disastrous production of "Touch of Evil" and Welles' long-hoped-for finishing of his final film "The Other Side of the Wind" (Bogdanovich supervised the final editing of the latter, and it opened on Netflix this year, 34 years after Welles died.)
Welles was an extraordinary writer, and his ability with words in all their permutations comes through in the pieces of scripts, radio plays and essays excerpted—a voice unique in the 20th century firmament of America.
As mentioned, this is really a book for film scholars, and what is here is fascinating, and thanks to Bogdanovich and Rosenbaum, a more complete story of one of the greatest yet least understood of filmmakers can now be told.
And if you're REALLY into the minutiae of it all, the endnotes and bits of script from "The Magnificent Ambersons" that were excised from the film (unseen by me) are included as well.
This is a true film nerd tome, and I don't think I'd recommend it to non-cineastes whose interest in either film or Welles could be described in any way as "passive." The homework by Bogdanovich and Rosenbaum is extensive, and their footnotes and annotations on the text are thorough.
Gene Siskel used to say of a film: "Would this be more interesting with the actors having coffee?" So here is a decades-long conversation between Welles and Bogdanovich on the business, the old Studio System, and how Welles functioned, or didn't, inside it all. Some passages are better than others, such as the disastrous production of "Touch of Evil" and Welles' long-hoped-for finishing of his final film "The Other Side of the Wind" (Bogdanovich supervised the final editing of the latter, and it opened on Netflix this year, 34 years after Welles died.)
Welles was an extraordinary writer, and his ability with words in all their permutations comes through in the pieces of scripts, radio plays and essays excerpted—a voice unique in the 20th century firmament of America.
As mentioned, this is really a book for film scholars, and what is here is fascinating, and thanks to Bogdanovich and Rosenbaum, a more complete story of one of the greatest yet least understood of filmmakers can now be told.
And if you're REALLY into the minutiae of it all, the endnotes and bits of script from "The Magnificent Ambersons" that were excised from the film (unseen by me) are included as well.
Read
April 24, 2021He leído la versión fantástica de Capitán Swing, una reedición oportuna y precisa. Welles es todo un personaje y al contrario que el mito construido por Kael (y Thomson), es un personaje tan carismático como humilde: niega los múltiples rumores de que "dirigió" algunos de sus papeles secundarios más estelares (no solamente el de Harry Lime sino el de Clarence Darrow en Impulso Criminal), observa con una inteligencia punzante los esnobismos parroquiales de su entrevistador, Peter Bogdanovich, y se muestra un militante de las historias (En radio, en teatro, en televisión inclusive) con una perspicacia y cultura inusual.
Las dos primeras secciones giran alrededor de su truncada carrera - Ciudadano Kane, It's all True, The magnificent Ambersons y The Stranger - mientras que la última combinan sus esfuerzos actorales, sus proyectos fallidos, su glosa de Shakespeare y deliberadamente dispersas quedan sus obras maestras de madurez como Campanadas a medianoche o Mr Arkadin. Las notas de Jonathan Rosenbaum son eruditas, oportunas y muy bien documentadas. Y si prestamos atención a Karina Longworth, el libro de Bogdanovich fue reescrito y editado por Polly Platt, entonces compañera y cómplice intelectual del cineasta, además de escritora, diseñadora de producción y futura productora. ¡Hay que leerlo!
Las dos primeras secciones giran alrededor de su truncada carrera - Ciudadano Kane, It's all True, The magnificent Ambersons y The Stranger - mientras que la última combinan sus esfuerzos actorales, sus proyectos fallidos, su glosa de Shakespeare y deliberadamente dispersas quedan sus obras maestras de madurez como Campanadas a medianoche o Mr Arkadin. Las notas de Jonathan Rosenbaum son eruditas, oportunas y muy bien documentadas. Y si prestamos atención a Karina Longworth, el libro de Bogdanovich fue reescrito y editado por Polly Platt, entonces compañera y cómplice intelectual del cineasta, además de escritora, diseñadora de producción y futura productora. ¡Hay que leerlo!
October 8, 2022
Este libro reune las entrevistas que Bogdanovich le hizo a Welles a través de toda la década de 1970. Es casi una biografía parabólica. La edición es muy juiciosa y puede ser útil para especialistas, si los hay; pero para un público general hay tal vez demasiados detalles técnicos y documentales. Por supuesto, a uno tienen que gustarle mucho las películas de Welles (y debe recordarlas bien) para disfrutar realmente el libro. Aunque ese es mi caso, me costó ajustarme al estilo erudito y pasivo agresivo de la conversación de Bogdanovich. La verdad es que ambos empiezan a ponerse insoportables cuando compiten por tener la razón y hacer caer al otro en contradicciones. Quizá habría preferido una edición más corta que nos ahorrara esas miserias. Eso sí, aquí y allá se encuentran datos, anécdotas e ideas muy valiosas. La atmósfera final es la de una arqueología del cine como un arte del pasado, un mundo perdido. Cuando Bogdanovich se lamenta de lo corta que fue la edad dorada del cine, Welles le contesta: "¿Y qué esperabas? El Renacimiento sólo duró sesenta años".
December 24, 2023
"It'd be great if I were Howard Hughes, with all his money. Let them tell all the Howard Hughes stories they want to. But I have to hustle for the dough..."
a musician by inclination, a magician by devotion, an inventor by inheritance, an actor by necessity, a filmmaker by happenstance, an egotistical diva by ill-fitting reputation. too hip for old Hollywood, and too old for New Hollywood. one of the last of the tin-crown aristocrat actors, that mythic classic of socialite schmoozer that has faded into non-existence. a fascinating, deeply insecure, overgrown wunderkind prematurely put out to pasture by the very town he helped lend artistic integrity to. it's a shame he didn't find more shelter in the auteur-centric New Hollywood outside of Petey.
pleasantly surprised that bogdanovich was not as sycophantic as i expected him to be.
"Judge not, lest ye bore the audience."
a musician by inclination, a magician by devotion, an inventor by inheritance, an actor by necessity, a filmmaker by happenstance, an egotistical diva by ill-fitting reputation. too hip for old Hollywood, and too old for New Hollywood. one of the last of the tin-crown aristocrat actors, that mythic classic of socialite schmoozer that has faded into non-existence. a fascinating, deeply insecure, overgrown wunderkind prematurely put out to pasture by the very town he helped lend artistic integrity to. it's a shame he didn't find more shelter in the auteur-centric New Hollywood outside of Petey.
pleasantly surprised that bogdanovich was not as sycophantic as i expected him to be.
"Judge not, lest ye bore the audience."
February 3, 2026
De cierta manera, Orson Welles encarna el mismo espíritu de Hemingway. Las respuestas que Orson daba a las preguntas de Bogdanovich siempre parecían sacadas de novelas como Fiesta. Welles no solo emula la prosa ingeniosa y directa de Hemingway, sino también la identidad del exilio. A lo largo de su vida, Welles fue un exiliado en todo lo que hizo: nunca fue plenamente aceptado en el cine, pero tampoco en el teatro; tampoco pudo volver nunca a la radio, uno de sus viejos amores; y a pesar de ser estadounidense, tuvo que vivir en diferentes partes del mundo ---especialmente en Europa--- para poder realizar su arte. Allí, en ese espíritu del exilio, es quizá donde se puede encontrar al verdadero Orson Welles.
January 10, 2018
(Más información en www.carlosbattaglini.es)
Ciudadano Welles consiste básicamente en una entrevista recopilatoria realizada por Peter Bodganovich a Orson Welles en diferentes momentos de su carrera. Bodganovich le pregunta a Welles toda una serie de cuestiones relacionadas con las películas donde éste intervino: desde detalles técnicos, hasta anécdotas, circunstancias o peculiaridades que se escondían detrás de cada proyecto cinematográfico o artístico.
Estas entrevistas son especialmente interesantes para saber mejor cómo piensa un genio artístico, cómo razona, cómo elabora sus proyectos, qué es lo que había detrás de cada gesto, de cada rayo de luz, de cada expresión en sus obras. Se trata de manifestaciones que tienen un valor incalculable para el espectador interesado en el cine, para aquellos con intereses artísticos o más bien para cualquiera con un mínimo de sensibilidad.
Por otro lado, es también un buen libro para acercarnos un poco a la personalidad de Welles: un artista que da la impresión de combinar una gran seguridad con una fuerte auto infravaloración, de mezclar la soberbia con la humildad, la alegría con la tristeza. Y es que el camino de Welles después de hacer Ciudadano Kane, fue una auténtica senda de baches, vacíos y brillantez. Pero antes de Ciudadano Kane, (película que hizo con 26 años) Welles ya había tenido una extensa y precoz carrera en el mundo del teatro y de la radio. Sí, antes de que la RKO le diese carta blanca para rodar Ciudadano Kane, Welles ya era un consolidado experto en el mundo de la radio (Su programa La guerra de los mundos fue un auténtico boom) y el teatro (ya había fundado la compañía Mercury y recorrido toda Irlanda representando).
Y es que Orson, si nos ceñimos a su cronología, nunca paró de trabajar, de moverse, de avanzar a toda costa. Ya fuese en la radio, en el cine, en el teatro o en el mundo de la televisión. Y eso es realmente admirable y explicativo de su éxito. Siempre tenía proyectos en la cabeza, siempre estaba trabajando en algo, ya fuese en Europa (donde desarrolló una importante parte de su obra) en EEUU e incluso Asia. En resumen: era un ser incombustible, inyectado por el virus de la curiosidad y la innovación.
También era el rey de la improvisación y del arreglárselas como podía a pesar de las circunstancias. Es algo que también me llamó mucho la atención, Welles siempre seguía para adelante: a pesar de que su proyecto original se quedase en un simple esbozo, él buscaba la manera de enmendar los imprevistos.
Me gustó el libro también porque refleja a la perfección lo que hay detrás de cada película o proyecto artístico. Las luchas por la autoría de los guiones, la selección de los actores, las putadas e imposiciones de los productores, la búsqueda de presupuesto, el trajín de buscar localizaciones, la ardua tarea de reunir al mismo tiempo a todos los artistas etcétera.
Eso es sin duda, la mejor parte del libro: las entrevistas. Y casi me atrevería a decir que es la única. Y es que la propia irregularidad de la estructura narrativa y organizativa que se da en las entrevistas provocadas por un exceso de espontaneidad (algo que por lo visto quería hacer el propio Welles) sería perdonada si el libro sólo contuviese eso, las entrevistas. Pero no, además de las declaraciones de Welles, hay un apartado final compuesto por una cronología y un apéndice con partes del guión del El Cuarto Mandamiento, más unas explicaciones y desmentidos del editor estadounidense.
Esta parte es la que asesina el libro. La cronología es sencillamente insoportable, imposible de tragar. El guión, bueno, tiene su cosa, por aquello del interés artístico, pero no se sabe de dónde viene eso y por qué. Más surrealista es el escrito del editor estadounidense, que se embarca en una serie de explicaciones engorrosas que parece que están dirigidas a 3 o 4 personas del mundillo de Hollywood.
Y repito que la entrevista en sí, tampoco es “perfecta”. Hay partes muy mal organizadas, colocadas con precipitación, asimetría y desprecio del contexto. Eso frena la narración y el disfrute. Pero podía haber “pasado” si el libro se hubiera terminado ahí.
En cuanto a la precipitación por cierto, para mí refleja otra característica de la carrera de Welles: un tal vez exceso de prisas que afectó a la calidad de bastante de sus obras, aunque, muchas veces eran las circunstancias impuestas las que provocaban estas imprecisiones, además de que en otras ocasiones se le ataban las manos para que no interviniese más en algún proyecto donde él había sido claramente protagonista.
Volviendo a la cronología, ésta si se quería incluir, tendría que haberse hecho de una manera mucho más amena, al igual que el guión del Cuarto Mandamiento y las explicaciones del editor estadounidense: se podían por ejemplo haber publicado en un manual aparte dirigido a un público más técnico.
La traducción de Joaquín Adsuar, es generalmente buena, aunque comete algunos errores típicos del habla madrileño, caracterizado por un laísmo antiestético.
Otra cosa que quería señalar, es que este libro es claramente una lanza que se rompe a favor de Welles. Es pro-Welles total. Sin embargo, al final, se publican una serie de manifestaciones que atacan al director norteamericano que dan que pensar. Uno empieza a preguntarse sobre la verdadera personalidad de Welles: si era no sólo un genio, sino también un ego caprichoso y destructivo que echaba por la borda una importante cantidad de proyectos. Y es que este libro sólo nos da algunas pistas sobre la verdadera personalidad de Orson.
Más información en www.carlosbattaglini.es
Ciudadano Welles consiste básicamente en una entrevista recopilatoria realizada por Peter Bodganovich a Orson Welles en diferentes momentos de su carrera. Bodganovich le pregunta a Welles toda una serie de cuestiones relacionadas con las películas donde éste intervino: desde detalles técnicos, hasta anécdotas, circunstancias o peculiaridades que se escondían detrás de cada proyecto cinematográfico o artístico.
Estas entrevistas son especialmente interesantes para saber mejor cómo piensa un genio artístico, cómo razona, cómo elabora sus proyectos, qué es lo que había detrás de cada gesto, de cada rayo de luz, de cada expresión en sus obras. Se trata de manifestaciones que tienen un valor incalculable para el espectador interesado en el cine, para aquellos con intereses artísticos o más bien para cualquiera con un mínimo de sensibilidad.
Por otro lado, es también un buen libro para acercarnos un poco a la personalidad de Welles: un artista que da la impresión de combinar una gran seguridad con una fuerte auto infravaloración, de mezclar la soberbia con la humildad, la alegría con la tristeza. Y es que el camino de Welles después de hacer Ciudadano Kane, fue una auténtica senda de baches, vacíos y brillantez. Pero antes de Ciudadano Kane, (película que hizo con 26 años) Welles ya había tenido una extensa y precoz carrera en el mundo del teatro y de la radio. Sí, antes de que la RKO le diese carta blanca para rodar Ciudadano Kane, Welles ya era un consolidado experto en el mundo de la radio (Su programa La guerra de los mundos fue un auténtico boom) y el teatro (ya había fundado la compañía Mercury y recorrido toda Irlanda representando).
Y es que Orson, si nos ceñimos a su cronología, nunca paró de trabajar, de moverse, de avanzar a toda costa. Ya fuese en la radio, en el cine, en el teatro o en el mundo de la televisión. Y eso es realmente admirable y explicativo de su éxito. Siempre tenía proyectos en la cabeza, siempre estaba trabajando en algo, ya fuese en Europa (donde desarrolló una importante parte de su obra) en EEUU e incluso Asia. En resumen: era un ser incombustible, inyectado por el virus de la curiosidad y la innovación.
También era el rey de la improvisación y del arreglárselas como podía a pesar de las circunstancias. Es algo que también me llamó mucho la atención, Welles siempre seguía para adelante: a pesar de que su proyecto original se quedase en un simple esbozo, él buscaba la manera de enmendar los imprevistos.
Me gustó el libro también porque refleja a la perfección lo que hay detrás de cada película o proyecto artístico. Las luchas por la autoría de los guiones, la selección de los actores, las putadas e imposiciones de los productores, la búsqueda de presupuesto, el trajín de buscar localizaciones, la ardua tarea de reunir al mismo tiempo a todos los artistas etcétera.
Eso es sin duda, la mejor parte del libro: las entrevistas. Y casi me atrevería a decir que es la única. Y es que la propia irregularidad de la estructura narrativa y organizativa que se da en las entrevistas provocadas por un exceso de espontaneidad (algo que por lo visto quería hacer el propio Welles) sería perdonada si el libro sólo contuviese eso, las entrevistas. Pero no, además de las declaraciones de Welles, hay un apartado final compuesto por una cronología y un apéndice con partes del guión del El Cuarto Mandamiento, más unas explicaciones y desmentidos del editor estadounidense.
Esta parte es la que asesina el libro. La cronología es sencillamente insoportable, imposible de tragar. El guión, bueno, tiene su cosa, por aquello del interés artístico, pero no se sabe de dónde viene eso y por qué. Más surrealista es el escrito del editor estadounidense, que se embarca en una serie de explicaciones engorrosas que parece que están dirigidas a 3 o 4 personas del mundillo de Hollywood.
Y repito que la entrevista en sí, tampoco es “perfecta”. Hay partes muy mal organizadas, colocadas con precipitación, asimetría y desprecio del contexto. Eso frena la narración y el disfrute. Pero podía haber “pasado” si el libro se hubiera terminado ahí.
En cuanto a la precipitación por cierto, para mí refleja otra característica de la carrera de Welles: un tal vez exceso de prisas que afectó a la calidad de bastante de sus obras, aunque, muchas veces eran las circunstancias impuestas las que provocaban estas imprecisiones, además de que en otras ocasiones se le ataban las manos para que no interviniese más en algún proyecto donde él había sido claramente protagonista.
Volviendo a la cronología, ésta si se quería incluir, tendría que haberse hecho de una manera mucho más amena, al igual que el guión del Cuarto Mandamiento y las explicaciones del editor estadounidense: se podían por ejemplo haber publicado en un manual aparte dirigido a un público más técnico.
La traducción de Joaquín Adsuar, es generalmente buena, aunque comete algunos errores típicos del habla madrileño, caracterizado por un laísmo antiestético.
Otra cosa que quería señalar, es que este libro es claramente una lanza que se rompe a favor de Welles. Es pro-Welles total. Sin embargo, al final, se publican una serie de manifestaciones que atacan al director norteamericano que dan que pensar. Uno empieza a preguntarse sobre la verdadera personalidad de Welles: si era no sólo un genio, sino también un ego caprichoso y destructivo que echaba por la borda una importante cantidad de proyectos. Y es que este libro sólo nos da algunas pistas sobre la verdadera personalidad de Orson.
Más información en www.carlosbattaglini.es
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews