ORSON WELLES
THE MAN WHO WAS MAGIC
by
Bart Whaley
I discovered at the age of six that almost everything in this world was phony, worked with mirrors. Since then, I’ve always wanted to be a magician.
— Orson Welles For too many years, the film industry has been ruled by fear… In this rotten game of chess, Orson was only a pawn, but he played like a knight. No one knew which direction he would jump. So he made himself unpopular.
— Maurice Seiderman The final decision may well be that Welles is a superb bravura director, a fair bravura actor, and a limited bravura writer; but an incomparable bravura personality.
— Kenneth Tynan FRONTISPIECE: Orson without makeup with his executive producer and friend, Alessandro Tasca di Cutò. They are on location for Chimes at Midnight in the ruined Gothic Church of San Vicente in Cardona, 50 miles northwest of Barcelona, Spain. It was chilly fall day in the mountains that October 1964. Photo by Nicolas Tikhomiroff, seen looming above his clients, courtesy of Prince Tasca.
Copyrights
Copyright © 2005 Bart Whaley
Editor Susan Aykroyd
Published by Lybrary.com – http://www.lybrary.com All rights reserved.
Allowed Usage
This ebook is for personal and home use only. Renting or public viewing of this ebook is strictly prohibited. Any other use of this ebook — including reproduction for purposes other than those noted above, modification, distribution, or republication — without the prior written permission of Lybrary.com is strictly prohibited. We have a special arrangement for libraries. Please contact us for details.
Disclaimer
Lybrary.com used its best efforts in preparing this ebook. However, Lybrary.com makes no representation or warranties (express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title, non-infringement, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose) with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of the contents of this ebook. The information contained in this ebook is strictly for educational purposes. Therefore, if you wish to apply ideas contained in this ebook, you are taking full responsibility for your actions.
Crime Watch
Please help us to identify criminals. At the end of the day illegal copying will increase ebook prices for you or make such products impossible altogether. If you encounter suspicious activities, please contact us at [email protected] or any of our other email and mailing addresses. We reward any tips and information, which lead to the conviction of illegal copying activity with 50% of the punitive damages placed to our credit.
Feedback
Please send error corrections to [email protected]. We appreciate if you let us know about any typos, errors, or any other comments you would like to make.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR BART WHALEY
Born in San Francisco, 1928. Ph.D. in Political Science from M.I.T., 1969. Military-political deception theorist since 1968. Student of magic as deception since 1973. Wrote The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Magic (1989 & 2000), Who’s Who in Magic (1990 & 2001), and The Man Who Was Erdnase (1991 with Martin Gardner & Jeff Busby). Won four international awards for these books.
In 2003-2004 Visiting Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, teaching deception, the detection of deception, and intelligence analysis. Also, in 2004 hosted a two-day conference at the School on “Magic and the Military”. At present he is polishing his forthcoming book, How to Detect Deception, while working as a consultant for the U.S. Intelligence community.
EDITOR’S NOTES This is a large ebook. Some time ago, one publisher said that if it could be reduced by one-half he would take it. At that time, Bart said no, because he did not want to “gut it”. That publisher did not understand that this Orson Welles book is a case study of an individual that was able to think “out of the box”. Each small fact presented leads to the whole of a thinking process that will always provide an unexpected Third Option. The process that is presented here is the kernel of all deception theory. It's why Bart is called the “defining expert” of deception and counterdeception (the detection of deception) by the intelligence communities of many countries.
Not only does it personify the Whaley Deception Theory it presents the genius of Orson Welles through all his creative work, not just Citizen Kane. Orson Welles was not the pitiful individual that some biographers present. It's my wish that all who read this will appreciate (as I have come to) this unique presentation of Orson Welles, one that not only buries many of the old myths but, for the first time, presents him not just as a stage and film celebrity but as the extraordinarily multi-talented and creative thinker that he was.
Susan Aykroyd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THE AUTHOR EDITOR’S NOTES
THE I OF THE BEHOLDER PART I: THE MAKING OF A MAGUS (1915-1934) SORCEROR'S APPRENTICE
THURSTON, HOUDINI, & MR. LONG
BOY MAGICIAN
YOUNG MACHIAVELLI
THE DUBLIN GATE
ATLANTIC CITY SWAMI
PART II: NEW YORK!, NEW YORK! (1934-1939) BROADWAY UNLIMITED
HARLEM NIGHTS AND STAGE VOODOO THE MAGIC OF SOUND & THE SOUND OF MUSIC PLAYING FAUST AND LOOSE
BULL IN THE AFTERNOON
MERCURIAL MOMENTS
THE SHADOW KNOWS!
MINDREADERS EXTRAORDINARY
THE VAUDEVILLIAN AND HIS UNHOLY FIVE
PART III: EARLY HOLLYWOOD (1939-1941) WESTWARD HO! HO! HO!
MANKY PANKY
THE CAMERA AS MAGIC BOX
“A TOUCH OF RHINESTONES”
NATIVE SON
THE TRADE OF THE TRICKS
PART IV: HOLLYWOOD AFTER KANE (1941-1947) AMBERSONS AND THE MAGIC OF LIGHT
THE MYSTERIOUS ORANGE TREE
JOURNEY INTO FEAR AND LOATHING
SESSIONS WITH FU-MANCHÚ
RITA MAID: HOW TO RECRUIT A MAGICIAN'S ASSISTANT FRAMING THE MERCURY WONDER SHOW
THE WONDER SHOW OPENS
THE SHOW MUST GO ON
FOLLOW THE BOYS
MAGICAL MEDLEY
MEXICAN MELODRAMA
SPECIAL SERVICES
FILM AND LIFE
JOKERS WILD
AROUND THE WORLD FROM BOSTON TO BROADWAY TOWN SKRYER
LADY FROM SHANGHAI
JAZZ MAN
-vCopyright (c) 2005 Bart Whaley PART V: WORLD VAGABOND (1947-1956) BLACK MAGIC IN ROME
THE MOOR OF MOROCCO AND VENICE “AN EVENING WITH EARTHA KITT” HARRY LIME MEETS WINSTON CHURCHILL WITH THE OLIVIERS AT NOTLEY ABBEY THE MOOR OF LONDON AND CANNES MASQUERADE
MOBY SHTICK
PART VI: AMERICAN INTERLUDES (1956-1966) LAS VEGAS MAGIC – “HORSIN' WITH ORSON" I LOVE LUCY AND DESI
TV MAGIC
HOW TO PREDICT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS TOUCH OF EVIL
RETURN OF THE BULLFIGHTER
IN KAFKALAND
FALSTAFF IN QUIXOTELAND
ORSON WELLES VERSUS JAMES BOND
PART VII: AULD LANG SANG (1966-1972) THE GREAT ONE AND A MIS-MADE LADY SHAZZAM!
HOW TO RECRUIT ORSON WELLES OF RABBITS AND MEN
F FOR FAKE – DECEPTION PURE AND SIMPLE
PART VIII: THE USA (1972-1985)
BACK TO THE USA
CAREFREE IN ARIZONA
AN ARTIST'S EYE: SET AND COSTUME DESIGN DIRECTOR'S CUT
HOW TO CON A CON
IN A MAGIC CASTLE
THE LAST MAGIC SHOW
BUSINESS AND PLEASURE AT MA MAISON ON THE MAGIC SET WITH ORSON WELLES MORE MAGICAL APPEARANCES
PICKS & PANS – THE MAGICIAN AS CRITIC A RATHER BIZARRE MAGICKIAN
INTO THE MIND OF A MAGICIAN
MR. MEMORY
TRICKS NO TREATS
TIME & CHANCE
FINAL CUT
CONCLUSION: TWO QUESTIONS, TWO ANSWERS THE BIG BRASS RING
AN OPEN BOOK
APPENDICES:
A. MAGIC VOICE, WONDER WORDS
B. WHEN THE CREDITS ROLL
C. AUTEUR! AUTEUR!: WELLES AND AUTEUR THEORY D. THE GREAT MANIPULATOR
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CAST OF CHARACTERS
-viCopyright (c) 2005 Bart Whaley
THE I OF THE BEHOLDER Speak of me as I am;
nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice.
– Othello’s dying request
In later life whenever asked the secret of his success, he was ready with a stock one-liner: “Start at the top and work yourself down." Orson Welles. A name to conjure with. A child prodigy; a boy genius. At age 16 in 1931 he was a celebrated actor on the Dublin stage. At 20 he was hailed as the most innovative director of plays on Broadway. At 22 his direction of The Cradle Will Rock stage play provided the most stunning first night ever in American theater – front page news in New York's next day papers. At 23 he was a Time magazine cover story and then seized the attention of all America with his Halloween eve War of the Worlds radio broadcast hoax that millions of listeners mistook for a real invasion by Martians. At 25 he made Citizen Kane, a movie that astounded the whole world and still heads the major lists of “best” films of all time.
Then this promise of genius quickly vanishes like Lewis Carroll's grinning Cheshire cat to be replaced by images of a fat old man doing TV commercials for thin young wines. This is the picture that most people have been given of him. But it's not just trite, it's false. And it wasn't tragic. At least not for him.
Two decades ago while watching Welles play himself as a magician in his last completed movie, F for Fake, I recalled references to his being an “amateur" conjuror. That film's theme was pure deception, an amusing cautionary romp to teach people how easily they can be tricked, hoaxed, deceived. As a specialist on military deception and a student of magic I wondered to what extent his clearly deep understanding of principles of the sorcerers art had affected his other work. Like Welles, Lewis Carroll had been a magic buff; perhaps Welles's Cheshire smile had only vanished from the front pages.
I wondered to what extent if any did his obvious ability to think like a magician influence his other movies. Or, indeed, his stage and radio work. Or, perhaps, even his personal life. I began to research these questions. I initially assumed it would take a week or two to get the answers. And a short article for some obscure film journal. That estimate was about as far off target as anything I’ve ever done. Why did I go so wrong?
Two facts slowly emerged. First, magic wasn’t just some casual hobby for him, an excuse for moments of R&R away from his demanding artistic creations. He’d early on learned that magic wasn’t just kid tricks, it was a whole way of life, a way to manipulate people, a way to get them to do things his way and without their quite knowing why. Second and consequently, he applied his magical thinking to all of his artistic projects – stage, radio, movies, TV. He did this throughout his life. It was the very source all those astonishing moments reported by his many biographers and the critics – all those creative solutions to problems that arose again and again during his many productions. All resulted from magical thinking at its best. And what is that? Neither more nor less than the rare ability to almost always find a third way out of those many either-or dilemmas we face in life and work. I came to call them Orson’s Third Option.
Both these key points had been either entirely overlooked by most of the biographers; or, at best, misunderstood and, accordingly, underplayed. The reason is simple. With only one exception, none of his biographers were magicians. And the one who was, James Naremore, wrote only about a narrow aspect of Welles’ movie work. I recognized this part in Orson and his work only because I too was a magician. Sometimes, it truly takes one to know one.
Orson is one of those endlessly fascinating subjects for writers and, judging by sales, readers. Like such friends and acquaintances as Marlene, Marilyn, Frank, Lucy, Desi, Tennessee, and Ernest, first name alone is usually sufficient identification. And it has promoted the sales of at least six TV documentaries, forty books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of passing references.
Higham’s first book (1970) concentrates on Orson’s movie career, as do the fine studies by Cowie (1965 & 1973) and McBride (1972 & 1996). France (1977 & 1990) examines his stage work. Naremore (1978) describes the actor. Leaming (1985) adds, and at depth, his private and family life as well as his excursion into politics in the 1940s. Carringer (1985) and particularly Wood (1990) stress his professional interest in music and his experiments in sound effects on stage and in radio and movies. The books by The Museum of Broadcast (1988) and Maltin (1997) show us the amazing radio director-actor. We need these separate monographic studies because he was all of these things and more – bullfighter and magician, for examples. So we also need an overview that puts all of these aspects together to picture the whole person, albeit an adult hard-wired to recognize that every professional and personal problem may yield to those magician’s Third Option. This is the intent of this book.
Conventional biography, like history, requires raw information (the “facts"), a theory to decide which pieces are relevant, and interpretation (insight) to conclude what they mean. We expect biography to blend these three ingredients in a manner that chronicles not just what the person did and what happened to him or her but to explain why these actions and consequences happened the way they did. The facts are the old news reporters’ “Five W’s” – Who, did What, to Whom, Where, When. Some add the speculative Why. But the Five W’s are themselves a theory, a set of categories that reporters and news editors believed embodied all the questions, which when answered, constituted “the story”. Early sociologist Harold Lasswell, borrowing from journalism, called this Communication Theory. But we can’t separate the facts from the person – whether reporter, historian, or biographer – who selects and interprets them.
All biographies and autobiographies cease to become objective after their recitation of certain usually reasonably verified vital statistics (date and place of birth, sex, employment, marital status, number of legitimate children, etc.). Usually but not always. Thus Orson fudged about the place of his conception. Houdini lied about his country of origin. Eartha Kitt, an orphan born without a birth certificate, can only estimate her birth year. Studio biographers and theatrical agents routinely fabricated younger ages for players like Shirley Temple, Lena Horne, Beatrice Straight, and Paola Mori. Immigrant movie producer Louis B. Mayer patriotically pretended he’d been born on the 4th of July. In all these examples from people Orson knew, the facts have been reasonably pinpointed through research. It’s when a writer seeks to flesh out this kind of bare-bones Who’s Who data that the uncertainties and ambiguities begin to multiply.
In 1966, Truman Capote's In Cold Blood became the first modern biography to inject the writer's own thoughts into the minds of his subjects. The stock excuse for books of this type is that the writer has sufficient “empathy" to justify doing this. Even if its principle is plausible, its application will fail whenever lesser minds seek to empathize with larger ones. Empathy is the ability to get inside other persons’ minds – seeing the world in their terms, sharing or at least understanding their feelings, desires, prejudices. Some degree of empathy is required of all good biographers. Psychopaths, judging from their insensitivity to their victims, have none. Saints, judging from their high rate of martyrdom, have far too much. Good biographers fall between these extremes; but, even at their best, none can completely identify with their subject on all facets of that other person.
Testy Dr. Sam. Jonson once memorably critiqued an unsolicited book: “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the p
art that is original is not good." The good parts in Higham, Callow, and Thomson are the chunks of new information they have pried from obscure documents and the memories of eye-witnesses. The bad parts are their interpretations. All strive mightily to understand Orson, but none succeed. They acknowledge some of his enormous achievements but then invent a person too small to have produced any of them. Sometimes their three Orsons have become brainwashed prisoners who obediently feed back their captors’ rehearsed answers. Other times their Orsons are Rorschach ink blots from which the biographers read their own values, fears, and fantasies. But in all cases they are caricatures that resemble the corporeal Orson in bulk and name only. In his novel, I am Jonathan Scrivener (1930). Claude Houghton wrote of one character: “Mr. Winkworth is entirely normal and it is a dispensation of Providence that the normal have no insight of any kind. This fact makes life possible for the degenerate as well as the elect.” This explains why so many biographers disappoint. When they can’t understand someone’s behavior, they tend to manufacture a character that fits within their own range of insight. Many of Orson’s biographers did this by trying to put themselves in his shoes. But, because his shoes are so large, they shrink them to fit.
Celebrity biography tends to attract either the old myth builders – the Hagiographers – or the newly fashionable myth distorters – the Deconstructionists. The former paint in warm Bridges of Madison County colors; the latter in darkly poetic Fall of the House of Usher tones. But, like the fanzines and the weekly exposé tabloids they mimic, both give us fictions. And never assume
that the truth hides somewhere between these two lies. It usually exists outside both. That
Third Option. It is wise to be skeptical of biographical details voiced or published, particularly while the subject is still alive. This holds even more for positive statements. Is the biographer seeking to curry favor with his subject or his subject’s friends and fans? Or avoiding libel suits? Diaries can be useful sources for resolving discrepancies between a person’s private and public opinions. Example: Kenneth Williams’s autobiography, published while Orson was alive, mixes favorable and moderately unfavorable views; but his diary, published after both he and Orson were dead, is venomous. Skepticism is also warranted for negative reports. Is the biographer grinding a secret axe?
Orson Welles - The Man Who Was Magic: Part 1 Page 1