Orson Welles: Beloved Pariah

Tackling Orson Welles is a daunting prospect. His life and career are not only vast, but it’s difficult to pinpoint specific details. So I will narrow my focus to his formative years. He created a mystique around himself. Some may find that difficult to engage with, but for me it’s refreshing. We are so used to celebrities living every aspect of their lives in the open. As Ricky Gervais once said, “People now get famous by living their life like an open wound.” We want our stars to be relatable today. Well, as relatable as the ultra-wealthy can be. It’s an eternal contradiction. Once someone reaches a level of fame, it is impossible for them to fully relate to the average person. Some make a career out of being on the same wavelength as their fans, but for the most part that is all an act. Welles was a different story. He had a particular autocratic nature that made him stand out from others. There was a self-awareness to his work, a knowledge of being different from the average person, but not shying away from that. He made films with larger-than-life characters who still felt like real people. That said, you will most likely never meet a Charles Foster Kane or Hank Quinlan in your life. Thank God for that.

To dive into Welles’ work, we must begin with his pre-film career. He didn’t just stumble into a studio deal with Citizen Kane, he spent years establishing a unique and compelling voice on radio and on the stage. In 1935, The Federal Theater Project was a part of the New Deal program during the Great Depression. The goal was to fund theater and other entertainment. Welles was invited by his collaborator and producer John Hauseman to join the project. The idea of government funded arts programs creating such a revolutionary company today in America is unheard of. We certainly have arts funds, but they pale in comparison to those in Europe. Their first production in 1936 was an all-black adaptation of Macbeth, set in Haiti. This was known as the Voodoo Macbeth because of the mystical island setting and exchanging Witchcraft for Voodoo. Many today would assume such a progressive and ahead of its time concept would be universally rejected by the public. Surely everybody back then was an evil racist, right? Turns out that was very much not the case. The play was a smash hit and tickets sold out night after night. There were lines around the block to see this incredible take on Shakespeare. Many in the cast had never even seen or read Shakespeare before, but their performances were so authentic and real because they weren’t compromised by years of previous work on the material. The actors brought a rawness to the work that had not been seen before.

            Today there is a tendency to dismiss the importance of artists from the past. They came from a time of prejudice and hatred, so their influence is seen as less important in our jaded and divided world. This perspective is understandable, and to an extent it is justified. However, we must not forget that those in the past paved the way for us today. Our progressive views did not just materialize out of thin air, they were fed by those who came before. We should absolutely acknowledge and critique the issues of art from the past, but saying we should all completely dismiss great work because it doesn’t measure up our modern views is a narrow minded and insecure power play to assert false superiority. A naïve scrimmage to make you feel important.

Many don’t know or even care about Voodoo Macbeth, but it’s impact on the arts is undeniable. Welles and Hauseman would continue their influential work with the adaptation of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus in 1937 and the infamous Socialist musical The Cradle Will Rock by Marc Blitzstein. This proved both timely and potentially disastrous. Violent labor action was spreading across the country. Federal Authorities shut down the production on opening night, fearing the musical’s pro-labor message would further damage the reputation of the WPA, aka Works Progress Administration. Welles tried to overturn the ruling, but he was unsuccessful. With their options dwindling, Welles and Hauseman desperately tried to find an alternative venue while around 600 people were waiting to enter the Federal Theater.

            They finally found an alternative space and marched the cast and audience to the new theater. The Equity actors were not allowed to perform in a non-union theater, so they figured out the next best option. Marc Blitzstein played piano on stage by himself while the actors yelled out their lines and sang from the audience. These confrontational and brilliant tactics triggered a split with the WPA and officially created the Mercury Theater. Their first production on Broadway was an adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar. The show was modernized with visual comparisons to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. A groundbreaking decision that would continue shaping their notoriety. One of the most prominent and later well-known figures in the Welles ensemble, Joseph Cotton played Publius. The Mercury would continue to put on magnificent works across different genres and styles. All maintained their signature style. While they officially dissolved in 1942, the company reunited soon after in 1943 for a morale boosting variety show for U.S Troops called The Mercury Wonder Show. Their time of prominence was brief, but those years were formative for Welles and would lay for foundations for his Hollywood debut.

            There is so much more to Welles’ background I didn’t delve into. Some aspects of his life are difficult to fact check. He claims he got into acting at the Gate Theater in Dublin by swanning in and claiming he was already a Broadway star. They immediately offered him acting roles in their shows. Trying that tactic today would likely result in an incredulous dismissal, but back then it was more difficult to verify that information. Perhaps they were so impressed by his confidence, it didn’t matter whether what he said was true or not. Welles’ has talked multiple times throughout the years about his father Richard Welles being a wonderful inventor. According to him, Richard Welles invented the Picnic basket and one of the early Airplanes. The accuracy of those statements is certainly questionable, but with the incredible life Orson had, nothing would surprise me.

All those accomplishments would be enough for several people’s lifetimes, but now we get to the main event. The film that made, and some would say broke him. Welles himself has credited his infamous War Of The Worlds radio broadcast as the reason he had the opportunity to make Citizen Kane. I won’t linger on War Of The Worlds. His performance of the work is brilliant, but the so-called “panic” it triggered has been massively exaggerated over the years. It certainly caused quite a stir, but historically there were no riots on the streets from frenzied citizens. In reality, the anthology series the performance came from, The Mercury Theater On The Air, had a relatively small listenership compared to many other shows. The panic was primarily remarked on by newspapers at the time referring to the reaction as “Mass Hysteria.” Their sources were often anecdotal and almost impossible to verify.

The broadcast clearly had a profound impact on those in Hollywood. The Mercury Theater was still running, but its lifespan was would soon come to an end. The theatre company technically ended when Welles and his co-producer John Hauseman parted ways in 1941, but the final nail in the coffin would come in 1942 when RKO sacked the entire remaining company. They had already moved to Hollywood by this point, so even though the company was disbanded, Welles would continue to work closely with them. After those starting years in theater and radio, Welles was offered a deal unlike any other at the time.

I came to Citizen Kane very late. It’s one of those films I heard so much about over the years. To the point where I found myself unconsciously pushing it away. When a film gets that much praise, it’s difficult to approach it with a neutral perspective. There was no way for it to live up to that amount of hype. How can anybody’s work live up to being called the best film of all time? It took being stuck inside for months on end during Covid in 2020 for me to take the leap. I was cemented to the couch at that point, why not give Kane a shot? If it doesn’t impress me in the way it does for many others, no worries. Move on and get back to binge watching old episodes of Mash. To my surprise and delight, Kane exceeded my expectations. It absolutely blew me away. Somehow the film was simultaneously of and ahead of its time.

Certain aspects of the film are especially relevant today. When Kane runs for Governor then inevitably loses after the fallout from his affair with Susan Alexander, his Newspaper has two possible headlines. “Kane Elected” and “Fraud at Polls.” Which one do you think they ran with? Welles had complete creative control over the film. That became more common years later, but back then it was incredibly unusual. As freeing as that was for him, I think that was the beginning of Hollywood’s resentment of him. They must have thought: who is this guy? Why does he get to make whatever he wants? What makes him so special? Kane was a remarkable achievement, but it was the eternal albatross around his neck. Every film he made after that was compared to it. If he’d come out the gate with a solid but not groundbreaking film rather than a masterpiece, he likely would have had an easier time in Hollywood.

I’m going to go off on a bit of a rant here because this topic has been on my mind for a while. Many people saw David Fincher’s film Mank and assumed it was an accurate portrayal of how Citizen Kane was written - that Welles was a controlling egomaniac, a superficial showman. When Welles is portrayed in a fictionalized film, it is usually a negative and exaggerated interpretation. The rare exceptions are Vincent D’Onofrio’s brief scene in Ed Wood. D’Onofrio then expanded the role after being dissatisfied with it by making the short film Five Minutes Mister Welles. That fantastic short is better than any other portrayal of him. Tim Robbins made a valiant attempt with his 1999 film The Cradle Will Rock where Angus Macfadyen played the role. Richard Linklater’s film Me and Orson Welles is the most enjoyable feature film personification of the man, but even that succumbs to parody by showing Welles as a shallow and vain showman by the end. It also suffers from putting too much focus on Zac Efron’s bland main character rather than Christian McKay’s captivating performance. He really captured Welles magnetic presence. Orson was a giant personality. When someone has such an enormous public persona, it’s easy to resort to caricature. God knows Welles plays up his own image enough to justify a parody. It’s difficult to guess how much he would have enjoyed these versions of himself on screen. He died before any of them were released.

I honestly don’t understand why Welles was such a pariah in Hollywood. Every film after Kane was fraught with studio tension. Even the films that ended up as classics, like Touch Of Evil were a battle to complete. It’s no wonder he moved to Europe to continue his work. There is a peculiar cultural difference between the U.S and Europe. This is a generalization, but’s it’s consistently proven true. American studios, especially back then, saw film as a kind of assembly line. A way to churn out product for the masses. Sometimes they facilitated the creation of great art, but the general view of audiences and studios in America is that film is a product to fit a market. That mentality is less widespread today than back then, but you still see it with major studios. Every film must fit into their grand marketing plan. They are often well-made and entertaining, but rarely feel like a filmmaker’s vision. The European approach is often more auteur driven. It has been that way for decades. Filmmakers like Truffaut, Bunuel and Bergman were a massive influence on the New Hollywood directors of the 60’s and 70’s. It is no wonder that Welles felt comfortable over there where he was more appreciated.

This is proving very long winded, so let’s finish this detour. There is a reason Welles continues to be portrayed as a glorified charlatan. I don’t fully understand why, but I can hazard a guess. He was an outsider who rarely played the game. He had a strong vision for what he wanted to achieve, and that rarely fell in line with what was popular at the time. You would think that approach would find its place, especially during the New Hollywood filmmaker focused movement of the late 60’s into the 70’s, but that was not the case. The public’s perception of a person in media can be manipulated very easily. Mank was a good film overall, despite my issues with it. However, it was a very dishonest portrayal of Welles and the creation of Kane. It wasn’t even a very accurate portrayal of Herman J. Mankiewicz’s involvement in the writing process. The events in the film were influenced by the critic Pauline Kael’s scathing hit piece Raising Kane. Peter Bogdanovich already dissected its problems in his article The Kane Mutiny. Kael’s article is a worthwhile read, but the damage it left on Welles was permanent. You can see the long-lasting impact evident in Mank. The film’s entire foundation is built on a flimsy public smear campaign. The film portrays the era brilliantly, but it's version of Welles is fundamentally distorted.

            It wouldn’t have taken much for Kael to interview people closely involved in the production of Kane. Welles’ secretary transcribed multiple drafts of the script throughout the production, and she was never contacted. There were many other people involved in the film who could give verified information, but for reasons known only to her, they were not contacted. Perhaps she was unsure of involving these people because of their potential bias. Well, that or she only wanted to talk to people whose views would suit the narrative of the article. There are countless misconceptions about Welles. Some that persist to this day. David Fincher recently criticized him because of a supposed quote where Welles stated you can learn everything you need to know about cinematography on a weekend. Welles never actually said that. That came from him directly quoting the DP Gregg Tolland who told him that during the production of Kane. You would think Fincher would check his facts before making a claim like that. All that does is continue to spread the misinformation and misconceptions that have haunted Welles his whole creative life.

            Let’s get back on track after that rather extended side road. What makes Kane such a brilliant film is how modern it still feels. The way it looks is certainly of its time, but it’s execution and the story resonate just as strongly now as they did back then. We are well acquainted with the concept of an anti-hero today. You don’t need to look far to find characters like Walter White and Don Draper. These people fascinate us because of their dimensions. They aren’t evil or good really, there is an ambiguous nature to them that draws us in. Charles Foster Kane is the beginning of that archetype. Before Kane, film characters tended to be a tad black and white. There was a hero and a villain. That’s not to say Kane was the very first film to have nuanced characters, but it was certainly an early example. The Hollywood machine in those days preferred films to be digestible. There were many great works, but they usually had to fit with what was customary at the time. Characters often had one main identifiable trait. Something that the audience can easily target and think “Ah yes, this is the awkward character. Oh, that is the charming character.” That doesn’t make them bad films, far from it. There was a myriad of fantastic filmmakers around that time and before. Preston Sturges, Frank Capra, Fritz Lang, and Jean Renoir to name a few. Their work had enormous impact, but Kane feels like the first truly modern American film. It set the stage for everything that came after, stylistically and storytelling wise.

            The film immediately drew me in with the newsreel opening scene. Upfront, we are told of who this Kane fellow is and why he was important. We are introduced to his kingdom Xanadu. Sadly, Olivia Newton John is not present. An ELO soundtrack would have done wonders here. The audience knows by implication that we will return here soon. Structuring the film this way, then transitioning to the reporter Jerry Thompson investigating the meaning of his last word “Rosebud” presents a non-linear method to the tale that hooked me from the beginning. The actual result of the Rosebud mystery seems almost inconsequential, yet that is one of the most remembered aspects of the film. Even people who have never seen it know about Rosebud. Despite that, the build up to the reveal is far more interesting than what we are left with. In a way, that is what makes Rosebud such an iconic idea. We follow these people for so long and gain a true understanding of them and their purpose within the framework presented. By the end, the identity of Rosebud doesn’t matter. It could have been anything. It could have been a baked potato. The answer is far less impressive than what the potential answer could be. Welles himself lambasted the focus on Rosebud. He was well aware of its hold on people but didn’t think the reveal was very interesting.

            Charles Foster Kane is not a good man. He is not even a bad man. He is merely a flawed individual like all of us, only his flaws are magnified and enhanced by the empire he built. He is loosely based on William Randolph Hearst and other media moguls such as Joseph Pulitzer, but the comparisons between him and Kane are not 100%. Susan Alexander Kane’s supposed influence was Heart’s partner Marion Davies, except Susan was a mediocre singer and Davies was quite talented. It is not surprising that Hearst allegedly detested Welles and the idea of Kane, though whether he actually saw it is difficult to say for sure. I get why he hated the film, but it’s not like Kane is portrayed as an evil person. Welles is clearly sympathetic to his self-destruction and ruin.  We see a glimpse into his past, but it is a frosted window. His childhood created the foundations of who he ended up being, but it didn’t define him. Framing the narrative as non-linear exploration into who he was gives us a chance to step back from his mystique. This sense of awe about his aura is created brick by brick by the opening newsreel. Before we have any idea who he really is, already we are dealing with a kind of mystical figure to be respected. Well, maybe not respected, but certainly understood to some extent. The film never asks the audience to take Kane’s side. His decisions are often reprehensible, but never out of character. Even when he has his affair with Susan Alexander, the decision makes sense from his perspective.  The relationship with her gives Kane more emotional nuance. Throughout the film I got the impression that he genuinely cared for her in a way that he didn’t for anyone else.

            At first it is difficult to understand why. He has everything when he meets her, a successful career, a wife, and fame. Perhaps she is a reminder of the life he lost. She grounds him and seems to fill a hole he had for many years. This doesn’t last forever. His support of her singing career, while heartfelt, ends up pushing her further away. Many may see this relationship as toxic, which it absolutely is, but in the early stages his feelings toward her are genuine. Pushing Susan into an opera career, while it did give her an audience, also compromised her wellbeing. She knows how people laugh at her and her lack of ability. Pushing herself to go on stage is destroying her, but Kane will hear nothing of it. In his mind, this flower bloomed because of him. It is inconceivable that she wilts. This control he has over Susan temporarily provides the love he felt was denied him. Eventually, their relationship degrades to living in a castle full of filler and no heart. They are in the same space but could not be further apart. This is where the film takes a darker turn. It was never light and fluffy but seeing these people’s lives fall apart as they age is a brutal process. We know exactly how it’s going to end, but we wish it didn’t have to. We keep hoping he will make the right choice and be a better person, but he never does.

            Betrayal is a consistent theme brought up in Welles’ films. Morgan Neville’s documentary They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead delves into this. It seems like an intentional target. When doing my research, the most informative and fascinating book I read was Peter Bogdanovich’s This Is Orson Welles. A wonderful series of interviews conducted with Welles by Bogdanovich that really brings out a side of him people may not be familiar with. Many who think of Welles just imagine him as a perpetual performance. There is certainly a larger-than-life aspect to his way of speaking, but he is more honest and forward in the book. He talks openly about betrayal being the highest treason to him. Considering how much Hollywood has screwed him over, it makes sense that this would be such a dagger in his back. Kane’s best friend Leland’s only betrayal is integrity. He was true to himself and his beliefs. Writing a bad review of Susan Alexander’s opera performance was emotionally crippling for him. Leland knew this would be seen as a horrific offense by Kane, but he can’t betray his true self. Well, he does get really drunk and pass out before it’s finished, but Kane finishes writing the review himself out of spite, so it’s all good.

If Welles hadn’t been messed around by the studios so much, I wonder if his work would have been altered in a positive or negative way. Kane was the only film he made in Hollywood that was true to his vision. Everything else was a constant fight or made in Europe. If he had had more support from studios, would he have gotten complacent? If things had been substantially easier, would he have made another film that garnered the same universal critical adoration that Kane did? There is a misconception that great art can only be made through hardship and struggle. That can certainly inform an artist’s work and enrich it, but one should not have to suffer to make great work. Welles career was a perpetual skirmish against the creaky machinery of Hollywood. What’s especially interesting about Kane from a technical level is how the revolutionary filming methods it used were created out of sheer ignorance, as Welles puts it. He didn’t know any better and his brilliant DP Gregg Tolland helped to facilitate these mad filmmaking ideas Welles had. The only reason he really incorporated them in the film is nobody told him not to. If he had been stuck with a cameraman who was more set in their ways, the film would have turned out far more conventional visually. In an era where anti-heroes are so popular in film and television, Kane holds up as a character study remarkably well. I hope people get past their hesitation to see it as I did. It can be daunting to watch a film labeled the best ever made. Take a chance, watch it with an open mind and you may find yourself as impressed as I was.

Post-Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons was the point of no return for Welles. From here on, things get complicated. Kane was a relatively straightforward shoot, but Ambersons was a minefield of ineptitude and manipulation. A mortal wound that Welles never recovered from. The film itself is a fractured gem. It’s far from being another masterpiece, but it holds a unique place in film history that make it worth experiencing. Even without prior knowledge of the 40+ minutes of cut footage, the film feels incomplete. It presents a portrait of a family and their world in turmoil. Tim Holt as George does what he can with the compromised character he is given, but with so much of the story likely lost forever, he comes across as too unlikeable. It’s perfectly fine to have characters who are less than angelic. If they are written and performed with nuance and credibility, then they will be compelling. George has the potential to be a great central character, the one we root for at the center of the decaying world. Problem is, he is not given room to grow and evolve. The pain he goes through doesn’t allow time to get us into his head. We see the emotional torment he is going through as his mother’s health wanes and the family life that grounds him rots around him.

The film was meant to have a much more somber tone. There are hints of that throughout, but it doesn’t dig deep enough. What we do get though is a very good film that is reaching for greatness. That is the endless frustration I have with Ambersons. I can see a truly extraordinary film, fighting to free itself from the studio mandated confines. It’s true potential is stunted, but we must see the film for what it is rather than what we wish it could have been. I could see it being adapted today as a fantastic miniseries if it stuck close to the book and Welles original vision. I know it’s considered a heinous crime to dare contemplate a new adaptation of a classic, but there is so much material from the book and his original cut that we will likely never see. We know how the film should have turned out and the parts from the book that were not included. I would not be against a great director today making a new adaptation. One that does justice to the material. God knows who would take that on. I can see someone like Paul Thomas Anderson doing a wonderful job. Ah well, one can dream I suppose. Interestingly, the documentary filmmaker Joshua Grossberg along with Turner Classic Movies are making a documentary about the search for the lost Ambersons footage in Brazil. Grossberg seems confident that it still exists somewhere there. I’d love to believe he is right, but I was confident my front door keys were in the fridge, and I still can’t find them.

Why Brazil of all places? God, how much time have you got? That story alone is enough for a whole separate essay. I don’t want to fall down that rabbit hole, but I will shine a light and show a glimpse of that world in all its fallen glory and splendor. Welles was sent there as part of the wartime Good Neighbor Policy, a way to create unity between the U.S and Latin America. He was sent to Brazil to make a series of 3 films, each showing a different aspect of the culture. Those films never came to fruition, as he was fired before their completion. The whole project was scrapped after that. A bit of a waste of time. I would have loved to see what he would have done with the footage. Welles wanted to edit Ambersons from Brazil. When that wasn’t an option, he sent wires with detailed notes on how to best assemble the film. Those were of course, ignored. Over 40 minutes was cut, and a happy ending tacked on. Welles did not have the absolute control he had on Kane. The result is a fragmented movie with hints of brilliance, but not enough substance to fully develop the world and characters.

Ambersons takes place in the last few decades of the 19th Century in a fictionalized Midwestern city. Society is changing around these people. They cling to their old ways as a safety net, a comforting blanket to get them through this arduous process. Joseph Cotton’s character Eugene is attacked by George for his investment in the automobile. To George, the car is a crass instrument and a blight on the landscape. His family is built on traditions of the past and structured around this history. George is a product of his time, a stubborn boulder refusing to budge when confronted with the real possibility of life being completely altered. This tension extends to his dynamic with Lucy. They both clearly love each other but have difficulty expressing those deep feelings. Certain aspects of the film are truncated to the point where enormous emotional arcs are skimmed over. George’s relationship with his mother Isabel could have resonated much strongly if we were given more time with them. We see glimpses of this, but not enough to connect fully to it. When she and her husband Major Amberson die, the impact is felt but it doesn’t tug at the heart in the way Welles was hoping. That’s not to say the effect is lost, their deaths are among the most emotional parts of the film. I just wish there was more build up to them.

The studio drastically altered the film after getting a negative reaction from a test audience. They deemed it too downbeat and depressing. Welles did what he could from afar, but he couldn’t force the studio to listen to him. Even today, studios rely far too much on test audience reactions. Listening to your audience is not an inherently bad idea, but when you completely alter a film because a few people in a room didn’t like it, then you risk jeopardizing the filmmaker’s integrity. The film’s story is certainly somber, but it is not masochistic in its approach to sadness. I wonder if they were more sensitive to a less than happy story during WW2. Perhaps the last thing any audience wanted to see at that time was a realistic and grounded film about the decay of a family and the world around them. That kind of story might have worked better had it been made a few years later, but the timing may have just been off. If Welles hadn’t been sent to Brazil, he could have fought more in person to maintain control of the film. The worst part about this whole situation, other than literally all of it, is how we may never see the real director’s cut. Those who have seen the original cut have claimed it is even better than Kane - a lost masterpiece. Interestingly, Welles told Bogdanovich that he planned to reshoot the ending with the actors who were still alive at that time. Sadly, that never happened.

So how to sum up my thoughts on Ambersons? It’s a tad complicated to summarize. I put so much time into writing about Kane and general ramblings about Welles being mistreated by Hollywood. At a certain point, you start to see a pattern. Repetition is bound to happen when someone’s life and work goes through the same process of creation and rejection. This was not the high point of his career. The failure to make Ambersons in the way he hoped would always sting Welles. It set the stage for all his future endeavors in Hollywood. If he had been allowed to make the film in the way he wanted, the most honest and heartfelt version of the story, would his path forward with future films be any different? Great work is often shunned at the time and only loved in retrospect. Would critics have given the film as much praise as they gave Kane if his director’s cut had seen the light of day? I’d like to hope so, but we can only ponder the possibilities and what could have been.