‘The Eyes of Orson Welles’ focuses on director’s artwork

( Unrated ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

The movie is a literal love letter to the legendary filmmaker.

Courtesy of Jane Brown/Topfoto/Cinetic Media
Orson Welles, photographed by Jane Brown, 1951.

What with all the innumerable biographies, monographs, and documentaries over the years, you might think there isn’t much more to say about Orson Welles, who died more than 30 years ago. But just last year we had the premiere of his restored, benighted “The Other Side of the Wind” as well as the fascinating Morgan Neville documentary “They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead” about its making. 

Now we have “The Eyes of Orson Welles,” a digressive, idiosyncratic, and altogether fascinating documentary by Mark Cousins, an Irish filmmaker based in Scotland who is best known for his 15-hour “The Story of Film: An Odyssey.” The focus of the new film, which is structured literally as a love letter spoken by Cousins to the director, is Welles’ little-known artwork: the sketches, watercolors, and oil paintings that he rendered throughout his life, beginning in childhood and continuing through his precocious teenage years knocking about Ireland and Morocco and then on to fame in New York and Hollywood, from which he ultimately self-exiled for lack of commercial support. 

It seems almost comically unfair that, given his great gifts as director and actor, Welles should also, as it turns out, be a marvelous artist. Some of his caricatures are as deft as Daumier’s. This side of his talent is virtually unknown, but Cousins makes the point early on that, for Welles, who as a boy attended the Art Institute of Chicago, painting was always a mainstay. Welles is quoted as saying that, beginning at age 9, which was also the year his mother died, painting was “what I loved the most always.” (Magic and bullfighting were equal loves too.) As is always the case with Welles, these grand pronouncements should be taken with a grain – no, make that a ton – of salt. 

But in a larger sense – and this is the crux of Cousins’ movie – Welles the filmmaker was first and foremost a visualist. (He also used sound more creatively than any other director, but that should be the subject for yet another documentary reassessment.) Still, Cousins goes in for a lot of wild speculation: He imagines, for example, that Welles’ penchant for shooting upward from very low angles was influenced by his years in Chicago, that city of sky-high edifices. I don’t know that it matters very much why Welles saw the world in the way that he did. What is more important is how he saw it.

Cousins had access to a treasure-trove of material from Welles’ youngest daughter, Beatrice, as well as material from archives at the University of Michigan. They include storyboard sketches Welles made for several of his films, including “Macbeth,” which he filmed hastily on the set of a “poverty row” Hollywood studio when no major studio would finance him, and “Chimes at Midnight,” his masterful Falstaff movie in which he also gave his finest performance. Welles described his cinematic vision of “Macbeth” as a “violent ... charcoal sketch of the play,” and in the clips that Cousins provides, that’s just how it looks. For “Chimes at Midnight,” we are shown the drawings he made for the Battle of Shrewsbury, which I consider the greatest expression in movie history of the dreadful wages of war. Seeing the sketchbook origins of this scene is like being privy to the first stirrings of a great symphony. 

Cousins doesn’t unduly dwell on “Citizen Kane,” as if to emphasize, as he should, that there was far more to Welles than that movie. He perhaps overdoes the art/film references in “Mr. Arkadin,” one of Welles’ lesser achievements, but he draws all sorts of fascinating connections with such films as the Kafka adaptation “The Trial,” which, as a piece of visual art, he compares to a linocut, or “Touch of Evil,” which he calls a fresco. He describes how Welles assisted in painting the sets for “The Lady From Shanghai” and points out the constructivist look in several of its scenes, including its famous hall-of-mirrors shootout. 

We hear how Welles and his “Citizen Kane” cinematographer Gregg Toland wished for a time when films could be made without bulky cameras, when one could make a movie with the same ease as drawing with a pen or pencil. Cousins wonders what Welles could have accomplished today when, more than ever, “you can draw with a camera....” 

I hope that, just as there was a book last year of Stanley Kubrick’s great early work as a still photographer, some enterprising publisher will see fit to grace us with a thick tome of Welles’ entrancing artwork. Grade: B+ (This movie is not rated.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to ‘The Eyes of Orson Welles’ focuses on director’s artwork
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today