[HN Gopher] I was at the clapperboard for Orson Welles' drunk wi...
___________________________________________________________________
I was at the clapperboard for Orson Welles' drunk wine commercial
(2021)
Author : jsnell
Score : 206 points
Date : 2024-05-05 16:12 UTC (6 days ago)
(HTM) web link (melmagazine.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (melmagazine.com)
| anonymous_user9 wrote:
| This parody of those outtakes is fun:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6P1ifGjvEE
| benoliver999 wrote:
| Reminds me a bit of the Michael Caine acting class parody
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdaLhOODouI
| bee_rider wrote:
| Oh dang, I have no idea if the thing about recording the
| conversations from both sides and then splicing them together
| is real or not!
| toddmorey wrote:
| Yeah it's real & one way where you can get continuity
| errors. I had a friend who's job it was to carefully
| catalog all set objects in FileMaker Pro so he could
| reconstruct the parts of set that had to be torn down when
| moving cameras, lights, etc.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Oh wow.
|
| In the video, it was suggested that Caine would get in
| the back of other actors scenes. Of course the extent of
| it in the video is obviously parody.
|
| But is there anything to it? I imagine an actor could,
| for example, cheat a bit in the two shots; look right at
| the camera while they are the speaker, then just shift a
| little bit while the other actor is speaking, not enough
| to be obvious, but just enough to catch the camera with a
| little bit more of their face...
| TRyanMooney wrote:
| The Director and Director of Photography would
| immediately reposition them. It would look very awkward.
|
| What does happen often is impactful news will be
| delivered causing the foreground actor to turn to camera
| and contemplate as they rack focus from the background
| actor to the foreground. See also, a door slamming or an
| event happening just off camera.
|
| It's an easy way to get a nice little two shot of both
| actors faces
| devilbunny wrote:
| Famously, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster barely did any
| direct interaction during the filming of _The Silence of
| the Lambs_. Hopkins was essentially walled into his
| prison cell during filming that took place in the
| "prison", so they did all his shots for as long as his
| bladder could last before breaking the set down to let
| him out.
| toddmorey wrote:
| That's amazing trivia! Thanks for sharing
| devilbunny wrote:
| I don't know for sure that this is the one that I
| watched, but I _think_ so and the time frame is about
| right: [The Inside
| Story](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1918873/).
|
| The deep details of the movie are fascinating. Schlock
| filmmaker gets a recent Oscar winner and an experienced
| but little-known in Hollywood actor to take on a very
| confusing story, which then debuts into a slow burn that
| gradually builds over more than a month to become one of
| the best movies ever? You would never sell that as a
| script because nobody would believe it, but it really is
| true.
| TRyanMooney wrote:
| It's real and the reason is mostly money.
|
| A 101 approach to a filming a conversation is to
|
| 1. A wide shot establishing the actors geography in the
| scene.
|
| 2. a medium shot of both of them facing each other.
|
| 3. A "dirty" over the shoulder shot where the foreground
| actors head fills a third of frame with the focus on the
| background actor. This is usually as the conversation heats
| up, and focused on the actor giving the most exposition.
|
| 4. Close up single shots of each individual actor as they
| talk and react to the information
|
| 5. Finally a medium or wide as the actors leave the
| conversation. This would have already been filmed on step 2
| or 3, but edits in at the end.
|
| Financially this make sense as you generally light for one
| direction before "turning around" and moving all your
| lights to the other side and shooting in the opposite
| direction. It ensures that you get the most footage without
| have to spend lots of time moving lights over and over. It
| also allows you to get your highest paid actors off the
| clock sooner, as you don't need them for the dirty or
| single shots. Everything about making films is trying to
| catch magic while not spending all your money.
| TRyanMooney wrote:
| A Notable subversion of this technique is Sorkin's "walk
| and talk" shots where 2 or 3 characters have a walking
| conversation facing camera as it leads them through a
| path.
|
| It will take more time to light that entire path upfront,
| but then you are free to let your actors live in the
| moment without cutting and there's no need for turn
| around. You get something feels more real, but you rely
| on your dialogue and your actors for the pacing instead
| of editing.
|
| Typically you need "character" actors to pull this off
| which is a phrase that generally means "good at acting."
| codetrotter wrote:
| Another parody, this one from 1994 cartoon "The Critic":
|
| https://youtu.be/6i7ycxiog40
|
| The voice actor in this clip is the guy that voiced The Brain
| in Pinky and the Brain, as well as several other famous cartoon
| characters. Maurice LaMarche.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_LaMarche
| bena wrote:
| Brain is just his Welles impression. They even do a parody of
| the pea commercial on Pinky and the Brain
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uWW--w4SRs&t=6s
| op00to wrote:
| Every time I hear Orson Welles, I think of green pea-ness.
| jimihen wrote:
| LaMarche also did the voice of Orson Welles in Tim Burton's
| 1994 movie Ed Wood. Vincent D'Onofrio played Orson Welles,
| but was later dubbed by Maurice LaMarche.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wood_(film)
| kristopolous wrote:
| We really need to figure out a way to fund online journalism that
| doesn't rely on the diminishing returns of digital ads.
|
| It's really getting extreme
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Could you relate this assertion back to your experience with
| the article at hand?
| cheschire wrote:
| If you read the article on a phone, there are at least 2 pop
| over ads that take half the screen, with a full screen pop
| over at the end. And all throughout the article there are
| flashy video ads that take the entire screen as you scroll.
|
| This constant attention grabbing destroys whatever narrative
| is being crafted.
| Luc wrote:
| May I ask why you're not running an ad blocker?
| swayvil wrote:
| By running an ad blocker you are forcing them to create
| more ads, to make up their losses.
| duggan wrote:
| Hardly, if done correctly, you're probably improving the
| CTR by reducing the number of ad impressions that would
| never result in a click.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The goal is to eventually make ads completely unbearable
| for the handful of people that allow them, eventually
| destroying that whole toxic sector.
| swayvil wrote:
| Imagine you're a mother, with a baby. Full of motherly
| love. High on bonding hormones and such.
|
| Breastfeeding. So nice.
|
| Now give that baby a chihuahua's head. Grotesque. And
| those teeth are sharp. But still, it's your baby. So you
| go with it.
|
| Now give the baby spider claws. Then 20 eyeballs.
|
| At what point do you reject your child?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't understand the analogy really, are ads the baby?
| I don't think ads are anybody's baby, ads are the
| monetization strategy of last resort.
| mikedelfino wrote:
| I'm not the person you're asking to, but in case you're
| interested in another opinion, I also no longer use ad
| blockers. I think it's fair to consume content in the way
| the author intended, especially because it seems that ads
| often give the author or the platform some revenue. That
| said, I do refuse to browse sites where the ads get too
| annoying. So I just close the tab and go on with my life
| without it. It turns out I rarely need most of the stuff
| that I come across randomly.
| simion314 wrote:
| Even USA gov recommends running an ad blocker for safety
| reasons.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is what I do as well. I don't like the price of
| entry, so I don't partake. Not my stuff to take outside
| of the price of entry.
| hinkley wrote:
| I started using an ad blocker, oddly enough, because a
| web comic I read had a shitty habit forever of having ads
| above the comic that would load in and shift the page
| down. That shift would be late enough that it would
| happen just as I was clicking on the comic to make it
| full screen. Now I get a popup saying "please support us"
| and I think I've supported you enough, sir, with
| unplanned clicks on ads and whatever tracking bullshit
| they're doing.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| And how exactly is using an adblocker depriving the
| website owner of revenue if you simply close the tab
| instead? And 'annoying ads' are the precise reason I use
| an adblocker; if they were as intrusive as google's ads
| from the early 2000's I would hardly care, but we've long
| careened past that. I'm unsure the premise of your
| argument makes much economic sense.
| mikedelfino wrote:
| Before trying to answer you, let me just reassure that I
| am not, by any means, preaching that people should stop
| using ad blockers. I was just sharing how I manage to not
| bother using one anymore.
|
| You're right that using an ad blocker isn't worse than
| closing the tab when it comes to revenue that comes from
| actually clicking on the ads. And I can only assume
| that's how it works, I don't know.
|
| What I was trying to say is that authors intend to share
| their content with ads. It's like having the ads there is
| what they're charging me for their otherwise free
| content. Not that I click on the ads. Not that I even
| read the ads. Just to have the ads there.
|
| Half the time, it doesn't bother me too much, and I
| consume their content to their terms.
|
| However, many sites are unreadable with so many ads. So,
| using an ad blocker would help me consume their content,
| yes. And since it's very rare for me to actually click on
| an ad, it wouldn't make much economic difference to them
| anyway.
|
| The central point of my comment wasn't about this,
| though. It was that most of the internet isn't worth
| reading. So when I'm faced with content I'm not willing
| to "pay" for by having all the ads on my screen, it's
| okay to just let them go. It doesn't really matter. They
| won't be missed.
|
| So I prefer to see the ads from those I keep reading,
| just because it's what they've implicitly asked to do by
| sharing their content.
|
| Then again, this is not an advice. I'm not defending a
| point. That's just what I've been doing.
| bee_rider wrote:
| While I run an ad blocker, I think it is something
| everybody ought to do, and I can't think of many reasons
| not to do it, IMO we should still consider the blocker-
| less experience to be the default one. For better or
| worse, (almost certainly the latter) it is what you get
| out of the box.
| bee_rider wrote:
| There's something very odd going on with this site, on iOS
| I get no ads. Maybe Safari is blocking them or something.
| hinkley wrote:
| Do you have an ad blocker? Or just the built in user
| tracking controls?
|
| I wonder if it's confusing their ad network.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Sometimes I wish newspaper subscriptions had simply evolved
| into "here's an E-reader. All it will ever do is show you this
| week's worth of newspapers we've delivered to you. When you
| unsubscribe we'll want it back. Again, it will never do
| anything but show you the newspaper."
| wwilim wrote:
| That would take a decade to turn a profit on each device. It
| is a cool idea, though - a glimpse of a world of friendly
| technology that will never happen
| dylan604 wrote:
| But even the newspaper itself was chock full of ads.
| Sometimes it was a full page ad. We seem to forget this in
| these discussions.
|
| I have no issues with ad supported anything. I do have issues
| with the ad tech being used to have ads on a website. The
| actors running them have been shown to do very bad things at
| various levels from running malicious code, to running video
| underneath an image just to juice their numbers for charging
| their customers more. Because of their historical behavior, I
| will do everything in my powers to block them.
|
| Create an ad system that is not evil, and I'll allow ads.
| Until then...
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Those seem particular instances of adtech. Any service than
| runs malicious code in your browser is bad. I don't think
| websites are bad because some of them have malicious code.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I never claimed the sites are bad. I specifically said ad
| tech is bad. I block ads, not web sites. You're trying to
| make my comment into something it is not.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| No, you've missed the point. You're saying all ad tech is
| bad because some has before served malware. I'm saying
| this isn't consistent - you don't avoid all websites
| because some of them serve malware.
| devilbunny wrote:
| Yeah, but newspaper ads weren't specifically targeted at
| _you_ , and they were mostly full of the information you'd
| get directly from the source today - what movies are
| showing, at what time, or what hours that restaurant is
| open, or where the nearest "massage" place is. On that last
| one, the newspapers even did ads disguised as news stories.
| "Oh, good citizens, run far away from this desperate house
| of ill repute located at 123 Main Street, where just this
| past weekend the police found evidence of crimes against
| morality being committed. That's 123 Main Street, the green
| house with a blue door, not to be confused with 125 Main
| Street, the blue house with a green door. Yes, stay far
| away."
| jonhohle wrote:
| Back in the early Pocket PC days, I think it was called
| Microsoft Today would sync daily news stories to read offline
| (this was long before WiFi was affordable and ubiquitous).
|
| I remember waiting for class in college and browsing stories
| and thinking that this was what the fire urn was going to be
| like for everyone. In some ways yes, but in most ways no.
| krapp wrote:
| Sites need to charge for subscriptions, then, and write content
| worth paying for. Maybe give us a headline and charge access
| per story. But charge up front.
|
| That means losing 90% of "journalism" on the web at least, but
| that's fine. Most of it is filler for ads anyway.
| digging wrote:
| There are probably a lot of independent online journals I'd
| gladly support with money even though I don't read them and
| don't even know they exist.
|
| A curated independent journalism fund could do wonders. I
| donate to my local NPR station because it's good and I want
| to ensure something widely accessible still exists, but they
| also need my money less than smaller outfits. Even if I don't
| read those smaller journals, I think it's quite important for
| them to exist as an option and for those who do read them.
| coldpie wrote:
| This doesn't work because the ad farms will just copy the
| content and make the profit on it. We need to kill
| advertising as a viable business model, because it consumes
| all other forms of business.
|
| Ad blockers are ethical.
| hinkley wrote:
| PBS needs a streaming platform more like YouTube and less like
| Prime. We've needed this for at least a decade.
| digging wrote:
| PBS streams _on_ YouTube, unfortunately.
| podunkPDX wrote:
| They also stream on their PBS app, and if you donate to
| your local affiliate you can unlock access to most (all?)
| of their content.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/explore/passport/
| tptacek wrote:
| _Please don 't complain about tangential annoyances--e.g.
| article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button
| breakage. They're too common to be interesting._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Taking a sleeping pill to try to get a few hours of sleep between
| Las Vegas and LA puts a different spin on it. Sure, he probably
| shouldn't drink with his sleeping pills, but I know a fair amount
| of nonalcoholics that have done similar.
| Joeboy wrote:
| Surely what really puts a different spin on it is that the
| purpose of these takes was apparently to demonstrate to the
| insurance company that Welles was unable to work. In that
| context, he put on a great (albeit method-enhanced)
| performance.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| + the nugget that, after a few hours sleep, he later nailed
| it the same day
| zwischenzug wrote:
| See also the frozen peas rant:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V14PfDDwxlE
|
| And Michael Palin's hilarious 'bearded man' performances, loosely
| based on OW ads:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38KWQ3Cufvg&t=36
| OliveMate wrote:
| I feel guilty for saying this but when I think of Orson Welles,
| instead of any of his pioneering contributions radio and cinema
| my mind defaults to 'muahahahh the frensch'. There's something
| stunning to see master of the arts act in such a way, and in the
| internet age it's probably his most iconic performance!
| Aloha wrote:
| Even half asleep on sleeping pills, he sounded like someone who
| very much enjoyed the product he was hawking, which is not too
| bad on its own!
| kragen wrote:
| not sure 'the wine for out-of-control alcoholics' is the
| branding paul masson was hoping for
| hinkley wrote:
| Robin Williams on Johnny Carson, high as a fucking kite on
| coke.
|
| Hollywood did so, so much cocaine back then.
| webwielder2 wrote:
| The article reveals that Welles was under the influence of a
| sleeping pill, but the intro states that he was "obviously
| drunk."
| karaterobot wrote:
| > By 3 p.m. he'd been seated, and he delivered the lines
| perfectly. We were done by five, getting everything we needed
| without overtime. I remember him grinning at the furious agency
| guys as he walked away from the set. Later on, after a few more
| commercials, they'd fire him, but I wasn't around for that.
|
| Sounds like he combined alcohol with a sleeping pill--never a
| great idea--and needed to take a nap. Unprofessional, but hardly
| the worst thing a star has ever done on set.
|
| My favorite Orson Welles thing is this anecdote from Kenneth
| Tynan:
|
| > Arriving, some years ago, to deliver a lecture in a small mid-
| western town, he [Welles] was faced with a tiny audience of
| listeners and no one to introduce him. He decided to introduce
| himself.
|
| > "Ladies and gentlemen," he began, "I will tell you of the
| highlights of my life. I am a director of plays. I am a producer
| of plays. I am an actor on the legitimate stage. I am a writer of
| motion pictures. I am a motion-picture actor. I write, direct,
| and act on the radio. I am a magician. I also paint and sketch,
| and I am a book-publisher. I am a violinist and a pianist." Here
| he paused, and rested his chin on his hands, surveying the sparse
| congregation. "Isn't it strange," he said, quizzically but with
| clinching emphasis, "that there are so many of me--and so few of
| you?"
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > "Ladies and gentlemen," he began, "I will tell you of the
| highlights of my life. I am a director of plays. I am a
| producer of plays. I am an actor on the legitimate stage. I am
| a writer of motion pictures. I am a motion-picture actor. I
| write, direct, and act on the radio. I am a magician. I also
| paint and sketch, and I am a book-publisher. I am a violinist
| and a pianist."
|
| I.... am Unicron.
| drewolbrich wrote:
| TIL, Orson Welles' last movie role was playing the voice of
| an entire planet.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The things you learn on HN...
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transformers:_The_Movie
|
| Dialog: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0DPW44-I3n4&t=30s
|
| (Also, RIP days when Transformers had Gundam levels of
| animation budget)
| inanutshellus wrote:
| That movie legit traumatized a generation of little boys.
|
| The GI Joe movie was changed to un-kill Duke because of
| it.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Can't sell the new characters' toys if you don't kill off
| half a dozen old favorites in the first ten minutes of
| the movie!
| thwarted wrote:
| Optimus Prime has been resurrected and come back more
| times than Jesus.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| That's generally agreed to be once so far, so maybe not
| the highest bar in resurrections? Even JR Ewing matches
| it.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Which was defeated by a character named "Rodimus Prime".
| rikthevik wrote:
| The Transformers: The Movie soundtrack got me through this
| morning's workout. Highly recommended.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Your bargaining posture is highly dubious!
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> Unprofessional, but hardly the worst thing a star has ever
| done on set.
|
| I think he did pretty well. Other drunk/high actors get angry
| to grab people they should not. This appears to be tipsy-drowsy
| drunk, not shouty-punchy drunk. He still came to set. He was
| dressed. They got the shot in the end. All those extras (paid
| by the hour) were probably perfectly happy that it took longer
| than expected.
|
| >> I told him that I had to put him on camera for insurance
| reasons, so that we could show that he was all over the place
| and that we couldn't do the job -- that way we'd have insurance
| coverage for the day because of the actor malfunctioning. He
| understood, so I helped him out of the vehicle; he held onto my
| arm and we walked in.
|
| Being drunk is certainly unprofessional, but few modern celebs
| would push though, embarrassing themselves on camera, to
| satisfy the needs of the shoot. A drunk yes, but still a pro
| imho.
| peterclary wrote:
| Given that Welles agreed to do the outtakes to prove
| incapacity for insurance purposes, I wonder whether he'd
| hammed it up a bit to be sure that they met the necessary
| bar.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > Sounds like he combined alcohol with a sleeping pill--never a
| great idea
|
| No, the sleeping pill just took too long to hit him. He
| probably took it on a full stomach or some other random gastro
| think slowed it down.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| The article does imply that he was drunk off alcohol, in
| addition to the sleeping pill.
| edelsohn wrote:
| The article implies that he was drunk, but every eyewitness
| refers to sleeping pills. It seems that the alcohol claim
| is solely from his demeaner in the infamous outtakes
| without knowing the cause of the slurred speech. People
| assume that he was drunk, so the few articles written about
| this event duly report that he was drunk.
| deanresin wrote:
| It is obvious he partied all night after a late shoot. "I
| took a sleeping pill and it didn't kick in until now" is
| just a polite way of saying partying was more important
| to me than this commercial. The man was a known
| alcoholic.
| js2 wrote:
| My favorite anecdote is this one from Edward Zwick:
|
| > ZWICK: You know, I have a story that I actually recalled
| after I wrote the book, but it's one of the most important
| stories in my life, and I'll tell it to you and see if you're
| interested. But it's - after the show, I was put on news
| programs, and I was asked to go on a local news program with
| Orson Welles. And you have to understand that Orson Welles was,
| of course, the spiritual father to this with his "War Of The
| Worlds." And I was in the green room with Welles, and he was in
| his wheelchair and not very communicative and actually rather
| cold. And I thought, oh, here's this opportunity to be with my
| idol. And he was not really forthcoming, and I just accepted
| it.
|
| > And we went on with the show. And on the air, this news
| person begins to attack me and saying, well, how dare you do
| something like this and confuse people with actors acting as if
| they're news people? And Welles rises from his chair and says,
| you're an actor. You're just reading the news. How dare you
| attack this young man. And it was just one of those, you know,
| wonderful moments when things come full circle.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/03/07/1236539789/a-hollywood-filmma...
| hinkley wrote:
| Sounds a bit like siblings who hit each other but will
| destroy anyone else who hits their little brother.
| bozhark wrote:
| So, siblings
| masfuerte wrote:
| The context is Zwick's show "Special Bulletin", which was a
| TV film done in the style of a breaking news story.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Bulletin
| kragen wrote:
| lawyers, priests, and physicians are professionals. they
| answer, in theory, to a higher code of ethics than whoever
| they're getting paid by at the moment, partly because they are
| in a better situation than their client to judge whether
| they've done their work well or poorly. their respective
| professional colleges judge that, largely to protect the
| clients from incompetent or corrupt professionals. partly as a
| consequence, it is often considered questionably ethical for
| them to become too dependent on a single client. they have
| duties to their profession such as education and the
| advancement of the profession itself--raising the level at
| which their successors can work
|
| (those are not the only professions, but they are central
| examples of the professions)
|
| this strikingly contrasts with the relationship in capitalism
| between employers and employees; like professionals, employees
| assume an ethical duty to act in the interests of those who pay
| them; but, unlike professionals, employees must defer to their
| employer's judgment on what that means. as a consequence, it is
| often considered questionably ethical for them to _not_ be
| entirely dependent on a single employer
|
| freelance artists, such as freelance actors and freelance
| photographers, do not fit either of these categories very well.
| it's not clear that they have a duty to act in the interests of
| their clients at all, but their clients often may not be able
| to tell how well they've done their work. moreover, both
| professionals and employees usually have a duty to suppress
| their own feelings in service of their work, whereas _artists '
| work is their feelings_ to a significant extent. certainly
| there is no professional college of actors needed to protect
| clients from incompetent or unethical actors; such a thing
| would be absurd. the sag, as its name indicates, exists to
| protect actors from their clients, not vice versa. it is a
| cartel (look the word up before arguing with me about this),
| not a professional college
|
| so to me it seems like a category error to describe welles's
| behavior as 'unprofessional', like trying to assess the
| electrical conductivity of a social movement, or the color of
| television
| selimthegrim wrote:
| You better let William Gibson know about the color of
| television bit
| kragen wrote:
| heh!
| User23 wrote:
| I wonder how many readers today even know what a television
| tuned to a dead channel looks like today.
| HocusLocus wrote:
| That beautiful static. I heard voices in it.
| kragen wrote:
| it's a standard stock footage trope
| pierrebai wrote:
| I have a hard time swallowing the hubris of the teller. No one
| was to be able to approach or chat with Orson Wells... except
| him, of course, who "connected" with Orson, so it was all OK and
| he'd launch with Orson too! But the others, these inferiors, mere
| crew, set extras. God, even a clapper boy could not /possibly/ do
| their job as they would need to get near Orson Wells!!!
|
| But him, the director, yeah, he could approach talk, whatever.
| He's in another classssssssss, you see...
| johtso wrote:
| This is another Orson Welles classic, outtakes from a frozen food
| radio commercial:
|
| https://archive.org/details/findusfoods_orsonwells
| jihadjihad wrote:
| OT, but one of my favorite gems I've found on the internet is a
| conversation about Hamlet with Orson Welles and Peter O'Toole
| [0].
|
| 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU
| bambax wrote:
| > _the great man needed to subject himself to work that was well
| beneath his talents_
|
| There's this cool anecdote of Mel Brooks hiring him to be the
| narrator to History Of The World Part 1. Brooks paid Welles
| $25000 for five days of work, from 9 to 5. But Welles was done by
| 11:30 the first day, and it was "all perfect". So Brooks asked
| him what he would do with the money, and Welles said "Cuban
| cigars and Sevruga caviar. I would have included women but I'm
| getting just a little too heavy for that."
|
| He chose Sevruga because in his opinion it was just as good as
| Beluga, and half the price.
|
| As told by Mel Brooks:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hhwp4tm6Wc
| mzs wrote:
| "I just wanted to show off my French." - Mel Brooks
|
| The GOAT doing that:
| https://twitter.com/JFrankensteiner/status/17876944958421527...
| bambax wrote:
| From the same Twitter account, "Orson Welles talking shit, a
| mega thread", very pleasant and funny: https://twitter.com/JF
| rankensteiner/status/15227611538222694...
| cdchn wrote:
| This thread got me to buy the book "My Lunches With Orson"
| havblue wrote:
| Be sure to watch the John Candy impersonation of Welles. It's a
| classic.
|
| https://youtu.be/eOmYEssdXg8?si=AEboh7p4LcHXnueO
| bitwize wrote:
| I admired Welles back when I thought the famous Paul Masson shoot
| was him with no more fucks to give.
|
| Now that I understand he was under the influence of a sleeping
| pill, slept it off, and finished the shoot perfectly in the most
| friendly and professional manner possible, I admire him even
| more.
|
| He butted heads with suits all the time, as he did with the
| agency personnel, but with ordinary people like the cast and crew
| of this shoot he was always the most affable gentleman. Towards
| the end of his life he said "I want to be remembered as a good
| guy, not a difficult genius." And man, he lived up to that.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| For those who perhaps do not know Welles, but can afford 5
| minutes, I offer his live transformation into Falstaff from the
| Dean Martin show.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ6v7GHYDbM
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-11 23:02 UTC)