The Silver Screen Oasis

I don't laugh at Lou Terpe (see the Timothy Carey thread).

ChiO wrote:

That reputation for profligacy stuck with him anyway.

That unfounded reputation is perhaps the cruelest myth of all. He directed and wrote TOUCH OF EVIL for free. He was paid only as an actor.

Is it a myth? Welles was such a capricious character that he brought most of the harm on his career upon himself. He rode into town as the golden boy of the WPA Theatre and believed he could do no wrong. He immediately began burning bridges and pissing off a lot of powerful people and then was surprised to eventually find himself on the outskirts of an Industry that he truly began to love. He has admitted this much himself in countless recollections and regretted that he never learned to play the game (like a John Ford did) or least be a bit more tactful.

But I believe talented people are able to create because they are the way they are. If they change their personalities entirely they could lose the vision or edge that gives them the ability to create. Welles continued to produce interesting work, both in front off and behind the camera, for the rest of his career and we should enjoy what he did give us and regrets be damned.

I think you're right. It's those personality traits that make an artist what he is. If he can get along with people, he'll be more successful. But if he changes, he'll be somebody else. Then what?

Then hacks like Michael Powell. Uhmm...er....I mean.....

I take it that you are not a big fan of Mr. Powell?......or is that opening up a can of worms?

I don't think I'm as acquainted with Welles as most fans on this site, most people would be able to describe him as a director better than I could but what tends to draw me to him are his on screen performances, I find he dominates and is allowed to dominate. I watched him today in Compulsion, a thinly veiled account of the Leopold and Loeb case (I looked a wikipedia to refresh my memory) obviously he played the Clarence Darrow part, I felt he was allowed to showcase, not his fault but the director was giving him free reign and allowing him to be a little too laboured with his performance, it seemed to slow down the pace of the film, I don't think it's a bad performance just that it didn't fit smoothly into the film as a whole, not his fault but that of the director, perhaps it was allowed because Darrow himself was as big a name of Welles. It is a minor gripe and wouldn't put me off giving it a second viewing, I really liked Dean Stockwell, little known to me a couple of years ago but being discovered by me as one to watch out for. I found the pace fast in the first half but slowed for the reasons stated above inthe second and the speech a bit too long to be convincing, I'd have spared them the rope after a few sentences, again reading on wikipedia, Darrow's speech is a noted one.

He had the same look here as in A Touch of Evil. Welles afficianado's, did he use some kind of makeup or putty to give him the look or had his features changed so much by 1959?

Another question. Was the Wilkes/Darrow character also the same as Spencer Tracy played in Inherit the Wind. Put simply was it Clarence Darrow in both cases?

And finally. Have Compulsion and then In Cold Blood ever been played back to back as a deterrent/argument against capital punishment?

I pretty much like everything about COMPULSION. The intimacy, the morality, the amorality. The stronger of the two boys simply has no conscience. There's even a small town feel to it. Odd, as the story takes place in Chicago. But it gives off a quiet, "Anywhere, USA" quality. I'm a fan.

The character of Henry Drummond in INHERIT THE WIND is, in fact, inspired by Darrow. Well played by Mr. Tracy. IN COLD BLOOD a companion to the Welles film? Why not throw in the more recent DANCER IN THE DARK? A weird experiment that doesn't work for the most part. But it addresses the issue in a VERY disturbing way.

Oh! I love Compulsion. I would have put this performance as one of Welles best!

I agree with Red, right down the line. Welles' speech at the end is one of the greatest for me. I think of it as quiet, calm, and totally without theatrics. Brilliant to my way of thinking. It gets to me every time. Yes, the movie slows down, but for me it works.

I too find Dean Stockwell simply fascinating in this movie. I'm a big Stockwell fan, whether at age 6 or 60. He's a simple actor, but makes some very complex feelings real in this movie.

I haven't seen Dancer in the Dark, perhaps I should look out for it.

I really liked Compulsion, I just felt it was a film of two halves, I admit I love real life crime programmes or films, perhaps that's why it felt like it had two halves to me. I didn't dislike his performance, I was a little taken aback by the shambling, unkempt character, I think it's because I had in my mind the Tracy character in Inherit the Wind and would a name like Darrow be so unkempt in court? I guess too it's something that has been employed time and again now in crime dramas were the unkempt, shuffling or couldn't care less types that save the day. It is powerful how we are turned around from completely abhoring what has happened and the utter immorality of what the boys have done, it's so abhorent that what can be done? They aren't insane yet the film, as the real trial must have turned on the speech made by Wilkes/Darrow in court which is an argument against the death penalty, especially when the defendants are so young. The arguments are still being raised today, are still as emotive. In In Cold Blood one of the men (the killer) has pyschological problems which weren't explored and the agony of the wait on death row is highlighted, here it's the whether we should kill anyone whatever they've done. It needed a big personality to bring off the character of the lawyer who has to swing the judge and the audience. It's just that in doing this the pacing is different and I felt slightly that Welles was grandstanding a bit but given how Hollywood treated him, I don't blame him. I too like the small town feel of the film, although it was set in Chicago I got the impression that it was a wealthy suburb. I liked Dean Stockwell but thought Bradford Dillman was equally superb as Arty Strauss, completely without any morals or guilty conscience. The theme of superman was nicely handled, enough to make us understand this aspect of their thinking. Finally I really liked Welles final words to Stockwell about the glasses, not only does he have the last word but also the last thought.

RedRiver wrote:Why not throw in the more recent DANCER IN THE DARK? A weird experiment that doesn't work for the most part.

I humbly disagree. For me, Dancer In the Dark works on many levels and is unforgettable. Deneuve and especially Björk are outstanding.

charliechaplinfan wrote:did he use some kind of makeup or putty to give him the look or had his features changed so much by 1959?

Welles did not like the natural shape of his nose, and would sometimes build up the bridge of his nose using some sort of makeup technique. He thought doing so gave him a more mature, serious look. He did this already in the early 1940s for Jane Eyre.

I saw Compulsion recently for the first time. I liked the first half of it, particularly Dean Stockwell. The trial to me was less interesting, even though I watched this film to see Welles. My problem was more with the script, the dialog, than with Welles performance. Not one of his better performances, but the script was so weak and schmaltzy he didn't have much to work with.

Love the line about the glasses! So poetic.

Bjork is really good in "Dancer." Exceptional.

I think we felt the same about the start of Compulsion PT. Thank you for filling me in about Welles use of makeup, I was going to say that I like his nose, if that is the one he normaally wore in his earlier movies. I don't remember him looking any different in Jane Eyre but it has been a long time since I watched it.

It struck me that the first bit of the movie could easily have been more fleshed out, perhaps not this movie but the story itself could have been told in a serial or another film. Compulsion starts with the murder commited. Rope is also based on this crime, only were Compulsion is almost an exact copy of what happened, Rope has many differences. Both are good movies but I think I prefer the way that Fleischer filmed his movie, Rope has never been my favourite Hitchcock movie although I appreicate what he was trying to do.

The comments regarding Patty McCormack in the What Films Have You Seen Lately
thread reminded me of this:

[youtube][/youtube]

Finally got around to watching ME AND ORSON WELLES (Richard Linklater 2008), a wonderful coming-of-age (generally, and in the theatre) story. The narrative is built a around a high school boy landing a part in Welles' Mercury Theater modern-day dress production of Julius Caesar. In doing so, Linklater (and, presumably, the novel that the movie is based on), uses a portion of the Welles myth -- his combination of self-absorption and charm -- to test the young man's character, his commitment to art and people. Quite well done.

And, for what it's worth, Christian McKay's look and acting is a frighteningly real 22-year old Orson Welles. When Mrs. ChiO walked in midstream, she thought it was Orson Welles.