Talk:Orson Welles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orson Welles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Portal:Radio
 Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

Contents

[edit] Intro

I revert some needless additions to the introductory paragraphs. I have noticed that often, the introductory paragraphs are being made to do the work of the body of the article. It makes for a cluttered entry.

Also, what was written was factually inaccurate. It wasn't that Hearst thought he was being portrayed in Kane—he was being spoofed in the picture: Everyone knew it. But it wasn't he who scuttled the picture commercially—it was RKO, which distributed it half-heartedly.

Hearst is a paper tiger—in fact, by 1940, his power was clearly on the wane. And anyway, this sort of argument is not for the introductory paragraph of a long article about Welles. --TallulahBelle 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Great -- I almost reverted them myself yesterday, too. The current introduction does seem to be wanting, though; Welles is certainly more generally known to the general public as an actor (which is not currently mentioned), and I really think that the public perception that he was a failure after Kane should be touched upon. --Ogdred 13:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I corrected some statements about Todd School for Boys's headmaster Roger Hill (who did not become headmaster until the year Welles graduated) and clarified that Welles's father died the summer after Orson graduated. In other words, I corrected two errors of fact.

Winfrankmcnet 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After spending the last ten minutes correcting some serious syntactical errors in the first paragraph of the section marked "Early career", I think this entire article needs a clean-up to remove grammatical errors and sentences which exhibit a biased POV. As it stands this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards of professionalism. Richardbooth 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt to tidy up the first identifying paragraph removing extraneous informaton which was, as you note, clotted in syntax. I tried also to add some specificity to why the "War of the Worlds" and "Kane" were important. There is more work to be done of courseMeb53 22:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

NPOV

Great as Welles may have been, descriptive terms like "glorious," "masterful," etc. have no place in a wikipedia article. They smack of a big giant POV. --- His one line in The Muppet Movie, where he played Hollywood producer Lew Lord, IIRC, was "Write up the standard 'rich and famous' contract for Mr. Frog and his friends." Trivial as that is, it seems symbolic of the frustrations Welles must have felt during the latter part of his career. (Not sure what to do with that thought, so I put it here.)

Please see naming conventions. Remember, titles of movies are often the titles of other things; e.g., The Trial is a novel first and foremost; Macbeth is a play first and foremost.

But perhaps it's quite interesting for people to enter the main page first and after reading general information, they can click on a separate link. It is easier this way unless we want to repeat ourselves all the time (there are about two dozen Macbeth films and each one has roughly the same storyline. If you write that on the Macbeth main page and list differences on the specific film's page, it makes more sense and is easier to maintain). I'll add a demo, please tell me what you think

a snippet to do something with, as a quote, or whatever...some leads to expand on perhaps

I too had political ambitions, particularly back in the FDR days. I used to help him with speeches and and I like to think I was useful to him. I know he thought I should have a serious go at politics some day. Well, some day came. They wanted me to run for the Senate in my home state of Wisconsin, against Joe McCarthy. Then I let them—another "them"—convince me that I could never win because I was an actor—hence frivolous. And divorced—hence immoral. And now Ronnie Reagan, who is both, is president. [recounted by Gore Vidal United States (1993) p1199]

The main Welles page could certainly do with expanding, with regards to Welles' achievments as a "radio columnist" and political campaigner (an underlooked area). I'll do that later on, if no-one else does first (hint, hint). --Chips Critic 23:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True. An interesting, although unfortunately unsorced place to start might be this epinions review. --Samuel Wantman 23:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't have anything on 1942's It's All True. -- Tarquin 17:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, GREAT idea putting his signature there. Now anyone who wants to can forge his checks! Have you no consideration for Welles' considerable postmortem assets??

Was his father's name really Richard Head Welles, or is that some kind of joke?

I found lots of internet hits with the same info. Apparently, his father WAS a Dick Head. --Samuel Wantman 08:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journey Into Fear

This article contains contradictory info on Journey Into Fear. In the middle of the article it states that Welles denied directing it, however later in the artice it says he was a co-director uncredited with Norman Foster (director). It was always a rumor that he worked on Journey Into Fear... never really a fact.

[edit] Discussion of films

Though both The Trial and The Immortal Story are listed in the filmography, I cannot find any mentions of them in the text of the article. So if nobody minds, I'm gonna work on that, unless somebody else really wants to do it. Also I want to add Peter Cowie's book to the "further reading" list, because it contains competent discussions of the overarching themes of many of his films, as well as many interesting quotes and biographical tidbits. Shakantala 00:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture on Front Page

Can we get a better picture here? He looks like...an adult baby in the one there now. Karatloz 21:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

He did look like an adult baby! It's not the picture.--Chowbok 01:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

UTC)

There is an inaccurate link in the Unfinished Projects section. There are two very different authors named Charles Williams. The one who wrote Dead Calm (the foundation for THE DEEP) was born in Texas and wrote pulp noir novels. Unfortunately the Charles Williams link connects to the British born Charles Williams who was friends with C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. Who fixes that sort of thing?

How about this one? Image:Orson Welles.jpg

See below. —Chowbok ☠ 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prowse rumor

I'm new here, and I don't mean to seem overly critical, but is the line about David Prowse supposedly holding a grudge against George Lucas for overdubbing his voice in Star Wars really necessary in a piece about Orson Welles? A Runyon 01:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Shadow

I removed the trivia about The Shadow. While Welles did voice The Shadow for a while, he was not the first or longest or, likely, the most remembered for it, nor did he create the character or have any particualr creative control. He was simply an actor. As such, it would be like referencing Indiana Jones parodies on Harrison Ford's entry. -- Bitt 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the parody in The Spirit was of Welles himself, not of the Shadow. Not sure why they said it was The Shadow. Still, it seems a bit trivial to put in the article. --Chowbok 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Things needing attention in this article

A few suggestions for editors:

  • Welles had one of America's most famous and recognizable voices -- this should be mentioned in the introduction. At the time of his death, relatively few Americans understood Welles's artistic importance; he was the fat guy with the famous voice who told stories on the Tonight Show. During his lifetime, he was more famous for his voice than for being a director or actor.
  • As the article makes clear, few of Welles's films were unmutilated by Hollywood, and only restored later. This is worthy of mention in the intro as well.
  • Speaking of film restoration, the statement that certain films were "restored to Welles's original vision" is a marketing claim that should not be repeated without qualification. Restorers have attempted to restore the films to Welles's vision; whether or not they have achieved that goal is a point of view. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with K Myers's criticism regarding the "restored to Welles's vision" description. In the case of Touch of Evil, for example, the changes were made some 20 years after Welles's death, and it's not clear that he left detailed notes about the changes he may have wanted. As far as I know, the only documented example of Welles leaving detailed instructions on editing for others was when he left the editing of Ambersons to go start filming It's All True. Also, when footage is lost, you don't know that it's lost forever unless the negative and all prints were destroyed. Just "lost" or "believed lost" is sufficient.Jonathan Versen 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So you'd take the view that the 58-page memo by Welles upon which the 1998 version was based doesn't count as "detailed instructions on editing for others"? --Chips Critic 01:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sadly it doesn't, as Welles himself made clear in the memo. Andrew Hanos 203.0.237.32 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Did Welles narrate the 60's film "King of Kings" starring Jeffrey Hunter as Christ? Did Roman Catholicism influence his film production? Frank Adamick 12:35 19 October 2006

[edit] Welles patriotic radio broadcasts during World War II

Right now I'm listening to Orson Welles radio preformance "Between Americans" and I heard one that was alot like this where he's just talking about New York but I can't remember the title. was it "Manhattan" or "New York New York" or "The City" or "The Big Apple" or something like that ... ???

Anyway this article doesn't say anything about Welles involvement in the war effort, and I think it ought to. --   NERD42    EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I found it! Columbia Presents Corwin New York: A Tapestry for Radio. --   NERD42    EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inaccuracies and Infelicities

This is a much better article now than it was the last time I worked on it, but there are a number of inaccuracies.

"Chimes at Midnight was filmed on-and-off for years; and F for Fake was pieced together from a previous 50-minute documentary."

Both these statements are incorrect. Chimes at Midnight was shot relatively continuously during 1964/65, and F for Fake is around 90 minutes long: you can't "piece together" a 90-minute film from a 50-minute one. F for Fake certainly incorporates footage shot by Francois Reichenbach, but this is part of its form: to suggest that Welles incorporated that footage because he couldn't afford to shoot anything new is absurd, as a viewing of the film will indicate. The reference to the circumstances of the production of The Trial notes not its budget or the technical facilities utilised, but the fact that Welles made it as the result of having been given a list of public-domain literary properties to choose from.

Additionally, almost every picture caption contains an inaccuracy, and ocassionally one so obvious as to indicate deliberate vandalism: "Orson Welles (right) as Harry Lime in The Third Man, giving his infamous 'cuckoo clock' speech to Joseph Cotten." - it's a publicity photo from an earlier moment in the scene which ends with the cuckoo clock speech, as anyone who's seen the film could tell you;

"The corrupt Capt. Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles, left) faces off against honest Mexican cop Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston) in the legendary 17-minute single-take from Touch of Evil." - Then as now, a 17-minute take is impossible in film. This take is in fact (if memory serves) around six minutes long.

Quite possible, actually. Russian Ark (2002) used only one take for the entire 90-minute film, and Snake Eyes (1998) started off with a very long take, from memory about 10 minutes. JackofOz 08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't possible. Russian Ark was shot on digital video, not film. Ten minutes is the maximum possible length for a take in film, and several films (including Welles' Macbeth) have included takes of this length. But no longer, unless they were shot on digital video. --Chips Critic 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've obviously been reading too much imprecisely-worded movie hype (and, what's worse, believing it). Cheers JackofOz 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of use. I hope I didn't seem too snappy. --Chips Critic 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. JackofOz 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, it was a bit crass of me to simply assert what I asserted. I'm no expert in such matters, so it would have been better to ask a question. JackofOz 06:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Welles performing his radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds." - This wording suggests it was a one-man-show. It would be less misleading to say that he performed in that adaptation.

As these are all fairly transparent errors, I'm going to remove them. You can always tell me off if you don't agree.

Less serious, but no less annoying, are the lapses of tone that frequently crop up. Too much of the text at present reads like someone's idea of film journalism. I really don't think "infamous" when used as meaning "very famous" is encyclopedic language. Phrases like "belies the usual view that Welles had lost his touch" and "The film was left to rot" also seem inappropriate, but the nadir is probably the description of Welles as "brazenly chastising" the producers of a commercial he was working on. No encyclopedia would include such sentences, and no-one talks like that anyway, so I can't see any excuse for the inclusion of the phrase. I'm going to remove all of these examples. --Chips Critic 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has numerous statements that are bizarre/inaccurate, I'm just going to list them and if no one can verify them I'll remove/change them.

First of all, talking about "Touch of Evil" there is the statement that the movie contains "...what is obviously a precursor to Hitchcock's Psycho..." Having seen both movies many times I have no idea what they're talking about, unless they're referring to Dennis Weaver's character in the motel, in which case that line should be deleted because while there are some superficial similarities, neurotic guy in a motel, there is no connection whatsoever between these movies. And if it's something else, it's certainly not obvious.

I deleted a quote attributed to Rita Hayworth: "...a most brilliant auteur and lover. I just wish he hadn't become so fat. It affected his performance in movies and the bedroom." This is clearly fabricated, though mildly amusing. Rita Hayworth isn't going to be calling anyone an auteur 20 years before Truffaut wrote "A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema", and if she said it in the 50's or 60's to be mean it has no bearing on their relationship in the 40's.

"The Monty Python troupe, who won the Jury's Prize in the Cannes Film Festival for The Meaning of Life in 1982, remarked that Orson Welles, who was on the Cannes jury panel, looked remarkably like the Mr. Creosote character from the film." This should really be deleted. Or moved to the Monty Python entry.

Also, it says that an hour was removed from "Lady From Shanghai" and I believe it was only about twenty minutes. Also, the article says "Welles' notes for the film suggest that these portions would have aided audiences' comprehension of the story." But I think this is just wishful thinking, he certainly doesn't say that in the Bogdonavich interview book, he just complains that the 'funhouse' scene was cut down and they kept in the carriage scene at the beginning he wanted to take out. The film is just confusing.

Also, the article says "Welles' marriage to Hayworth—already troubled during filming—ended shortly after the production wrapped." Yet they were divorced prior to the filming of the movie. I'll double check the dates and update this.

Just a general comment, I think it would be a good idea to expand all the information on the films. There is a lot more to say about what happened on "Magnificent Ambersons" and "It's All True". Also, the overall structure of his film career could be improved from the "Hollywood" / "After Hollywood" sections it's in now. I propose organizing it "The RKO years" and add something about his contract with RKO and the films he made with them culminating in the "It's All True" fiasco. Then something about his other projects in Hollywood on which he was given much more limited control, and then his European films. And maybe "Touch of Evil" could be thrown into the Hollywood category.

--Arkadin 17:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, more detail is needed. I'll come back and try to add things in the next few days. In the meantime, I must say I'm embarassed that I didn't see through that Hayworth quote. It seemed odd, and certainly irrelevant, but it didn't occur to me that it was actually a hoax, although now I look at it, even the worst ghost-writer wouldn't come up with something that crass.
I think The Lady From Shanghai lost a lot more than twenty minutes, but I'll look it up. --Chips Critic 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I've reworked some extremely...idiosyncratic passages such as "also requiring the then-vacant use and sight of ceilings in a Hollywood studio system" (which uses the word "vacant" in a sense with which I'm not familiar) as well as the two paragraphs beginning "Looking back on the masterpiece of Citizen Kane and "Welles' second film for RKO", which were, to my mind, truly bizarre, being full of editorialising which seemed to have been translated from another language. The paragraph on Ambersons was particularly odd as much of what it contains is an unneeded repetition of events which are covered later in the article. I've moved the thing about the colour of his eyes to the "Trivia" section.
The Batman rumour should probably go to another article, though I'm not sure which. I'll do a bit more later. --Chips Critic 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought Orson Welles provided the voice of Robin Masters for Magnum PI for at least 1 episode. I remember it well. All you saw was his hand pour a glass of wine while dictating his new book. There was no mistaking that voice. [Chris]

I don't understand how Orson Welles could have worked on The Dreamers (2003). Might this be a disambiguation problem? --208.201.160.2 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is! Be Bold! --Roponor 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early death

Is it fair to say Welles died early, considering he was seventy when he died?

It depends on one's benchmark for early/late death. Great artists always die too early, no matter how old they are. JackofOz 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Died 1987 or 1985?

The beginning of the article says Welles died on Oct. 10, 1987 but later says he died on the same day in 1985 at the age of seventy. Which was it?

TJSwoboda 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

He died in 1985, the revised date was vandalism. Philip Cross 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You called it vandalism, but you left the rest of the statement stand: "Orson Welles died in 1987,his ashes were scattered on the estate belonging to his long time friend the great bullfighter Antonio Ordóñez." If the date was vandalism, the entire sentence is suspect, ¿sí? Wahkeenah 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently es verdad, according to findagrave. Never mind. :) P.S. They also say 1985. Wahkeenah 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity about the date of Welles' death. It was 1985. --Chips Critic 02:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. The point was that someone posted the wrong year along with some slightly weird sounding info about where his ashes were scattered. Since the latter is apparently true, the wrong date could simply be a mistake, not deliberate vandalism. Not that it matters, since it has been corrected. Also, I'm guessing there were plenty of ashes to go around. Wahkeenah 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another voice over

Welles did the VO work in the classic cartoon film "Rikki Tikki Tavi"

[edit] fights with Hollywood

Perhaps someone might add more info on Welles' feuds with Hollywood. The article mentions that Hollywood frequently re-edited his films against his wishes, but some documentation of how Welles was given trouble even after the beginning of the era of directors would be interesting and relavant.

Havardj, 15:40 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need this much detail?

I appreciate the effort, but this page is now absolutely bloated. Does every production need to be covered? I thought the page from a few days ago was about the right length/amount of detail. Anyone else for a revert/major re-edit? --Ogdred 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe could drop mention of things where Welles was only actor, but should keep things he directed. The previous version had few details. I prefer the expanded version. It's a pretty good read. I vote to keep it. --Store Hadji 15 August 2006

[edit] Reorganization and simplicity

I was thinking about not only simplifying some parts of the article, but also reorganizing it. There were three main parts of Welles' career: Film, Radio, and Theater. However, they all seemed to run concurrently. How about his professional bio being divided into those three parts. Anyone have an objection? Just wanted to ask before I take the time to do it and someone comes along and reverts all the edits because they don't like it. Nygoodliving 18:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Film, radio and theater did run throughout Welles' life and often connected with each other (like Arkadin beginning on radio and ending with film, or Falstaff starting with two stage productions and ending with film.) I see no way to do it but chronologically and object to any other method, but I agree the entry needs simplification. A lot of the detail could be bumped into pages on the individual film and radio shows, and the less-notable stuff like films Welles only acted in could be dropped. I've been hoping someone else would do it. No Way This Time, This Day, This Time Zone

Wikipedia is too simplified already! Keep the complexity. Or dumb it down to "dead fat guy who sold wine on tv."


It isn't that it's too long, it's that it lacks stylistic coherence, nuance and just some rhythm that corresponds to the peaks and troughs of the subject's life. I'd lavish it with motherish love and effusive grandiosities, but my time online is limited here in the penetentiary. I hasten to add that this need not be gospel, or even necessarily spotlessly accurate, but like any good story needs to be just that to at least attempt justice to this subject.

Likewise, you (in general) don't understand the NPOV concept when you turn Welles's hard won and long established artistic reputation into a bland litany of often unconnected facts about the most prodigious career in the 20th century. Encyclopedic entries have style and weigh the inclusion of facts constantly. Andrew Hanos203.0.237.32 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert the opening par back to its bland and simplistic version. This not vandalism and your attempt to brand it so is highly suspicious. This now sums up in an interesting way the major points of Welles career that touch on the major themes of his life and work. That's what an intro should be! Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 06:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about the latest edit to the intro paragraph. Sure, it probably shouldn't have been marked vandalism, but regardless, it was wrong and I support who took it out. To say that Citizen Kane was Welles's only work that he had complete control over isn't looking at his other work. Sure, Kane is the most famous - but both "F For Fake" and "The Trial" were made without any major studio interruption and Welles's artistic vision intact. ClassicBri 15:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)--

Uh, I find the intro sycophantic and scatter-brained now. Online encyclopediae which anyone can edit just aren't a good idea. The hate-mongerers rewrite the sycophants who rewrote the spartans who condensed the long-winded. A never ending parade of flaming trolls. I'll be much more interested in seeing the Welles entry in Citizendium, the online encyclopedia which not just anyone can edit. 4.158.210.64 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you both for your comments.

1. The statement is that is was the only Hollywood Studio film that Welles was allowed to finish his way. This is incontrovertible, so please don't question it. Welles made Othello, Chimes at Midnight, The Trial, Immortal Story and F for Fake his way. They are European or his own independent productions.

2. As for you who find me scatter-brained and sycophantic, all I can say as a professional writer is, you're welcome to your opinion. And if you don't like wikipedia don't visit and take up my time with dyslexic gibberish. The opening par does now act as a sounding bell for the arc of Welles's life and career, which I state again is what openings should aim at, especially for a long and over-detailed entry like this. Someone has obviously played around with the spellings and reverted to earlier syntax corrections to be childish. Choose a lesser subject for this puerile behaviour. Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 05:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization & simplicity pt. 2

(section break because it was starting to get a little long there) Just thought I'd chime in and say I prefer the reorganized and simplified intro immensely, although, as a newcomer to this article, I am a little aghast with how uncited the info is (listing fifty biographical works at the end really doesn't count), but whatever. A few things:

  • 4.158.210.64, if you are so uncomfortable with the aims of the Wiki Project, perhaps Citizendium is a more compatible fit for you, although I hope you will decide otherwise. It's worth pointing out that, on a practical level, Citizendium is basically the exact same thing as Wikipedia, since the articles that its ~200 part-time or hobbyist experts aren't tinkering with at the time (which must be a very major percentage of its 1,000,000+ articles) are automatically updated from their clones in Wikipedia anyway.
  • ClassicBri, er, Andrew Hanos beat me to it, but yeah, those productions were all Euro or private.
  • Andrew Hanos, while I agree with your sentiments (and your edits), I hope you will bear in mind Wikipedia:Civility when disagreeing with editors over what become contentious changes. Not to wiki-condescend or anything, but defending your edits with an ad-hominem "professional writer" and calling other editors' contributions "dyslexic gibberish" are not great debate tactics, and tend to lead to unnecessary edit wars. Thanks. Ford MF 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point(s) but I am a professional writer and being called sycophantic and scatter-brained is hardly "nice" either. So I responded. I couldn't understand our wiki critic's entry: "The hate-mongerers rewrite the sycophants who rewrote the spartans who condensed the long-winded. A never ending parade of flaming trolls." I am not trying to start a range war, just vigorously sticking up for my edit with a coherent rationale. To correct you I refer to this comment only as dyslexic, and after having read the bulk of the other comments carefully in the Welles discussion I believe I am redressing a number of earlier criticisms regarding the entry. Welles is a highly complex individual and artist. His peculiarly American facility to move from huckster and self-confessed charlatan in his magic tricks to commercial tout, serious social critic and political activist, and back always to high art makes him a difficult proposition for some to interpret. But that is the nature of the beast and we need to state it up front rather than just list these disparate activities incoherently in the body of the piece. In any case please accept my assurance that anyone who treats the subject with respect and is polite will be treated likewise in return. Andrew Hanos203.173.41.134 07:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is rude to keep inserting false and crudely inaccurate statements repeatedly even when these mistakes and others have been clearly highlighted in this talk section. Especially without adding any comment in dission to cover these reintroduced errors.

1. Welles did not first gain fame and wide recognition for his journalism, but for his New York theatre work in the Thirties, his "War of the Worlds" broadcast, and "Citizen Kane". The journalism came nearly ten years later.

2. Likewise, Welles's battles with the Hollywood system are now not only legendary, exhaustively documented (see Clinton Heylin's "Despite the System), but more or less universally accepted. Commercial crassness was one of the main reasons for sabotaging his films. They actually spoiled their commercial possibilities too, either through timidity and buckling under political and commercial pressure, as in "Kane", or deliberate white-anting because of internal power struggles in the case of "The Magnificent Ambersons". Some of this was just simple lack of taste and inability to conceive of film as art, and to respect an artist's moral rights. Some of it was political, because Welles was radical. This is not a personal point of view now but apparent in all serious and informed studies of Welles. It thus needs to be clearly announced in the Welles summary at the start of the entry as a central theme that returns repeatedly, and makes sense of his struggles, efforts and career.

Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)==Reverting edits== Hi there. Please leave some explanation in the edit summary or talk page if you revert edits. I have returned to a previous version of the intro which was reverted without explanation. I would be glad to discuss my edits if you have comments. Thanks. Wachholder0 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because I believe the expostion I devised is stronger. Surely the main statement about Welles, his growing stature as dramatic artist in the 20 century, needs to be up front. Why else read about him in an encyclopedic entry if you downplay this achievement. The rest of the first pars is sufficiently similar to not worry me too much but its style is a little too polite to studios, because Welles is still truly very controversial to today. Witness the 3 latest major bigraphical studies to appear on him in the last 12 months alone, 22 years after his death. Welles is very much alive and kicking as an artist whose later and rich work has yet to permeate the wider cultural scene and so needs to be treated with continuing verve and imagination. There is no need to be overly bland in this entry. I have been making these statements consistently, see above. Cheers Andrew Hanos. 203.0.237.32 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American English

Welles was an American which means that the spellings in this article should be in American English as opposed to British English. Due to the length of this article I have not gone through it and changed the spellings, however it needs doing. --87.254.71.248 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Welles is international! A lot of his best work, and most of what he was allowed to keep in his own original form was done in Europe. Let's not be parochial about this. There is no universal version of English so the King or Queen's English is fine, for such a lordly maverick. Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ALL HAIL HIS MIGHTY WELLESIENESS!!!! A MAN OF GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS DESERVES HIGHER THAN KING'S ENGLISH and yes he was international. The British English is lovely as is. Parable1991 06:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genealogy

If someone would add this link, it shows some primary documents about his family tree. Wjhonson 08:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WTF

"Although never a suspect in the original investigation, Welles has been suggested by some as having been involved in the infamous Black Dahlia murder."

Wikipedia strikes again!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.151.192.164 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 February 2007.

That's true, though. Maybe only by kooks but check out Black Dhalia and Mary Pacios' website. Doctor Sunshine 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is truly scurrilous and does not belong in wikipedia. Andrew Hanos. 203.0.237.32 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph!!

I found a great picture of Orson Welles; maybe we should use it! Image:Orson Welles.jpg

Thanks, but that photo is copyrighted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so we can't use it. The one on the page now is public domain. Also, can you please sign your posts? Simply add ~~~~ at the end of your comment. —Chowbok ☠ 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/s/Talk%7EOrson_Welles_dfff.html"