Rosebud : The Story of Orson Welles

Rating:
Summary: Ludicrous in Every Way
Review: David Thompson has written a biography that for the most part seems objective on all accounts. While acknowledging Orson Welles's great genius, he doesn't gloss over the major flaws in his character. Like the tragic figure in Citizen Kane, Welles's seemed to fall because of his own arrogance and indifference to others around him. As a young man in his twenties, Welles seemingly has the world on a string, but either because of ego and the aforementioned arrogance, never seems to learn the important game of diplomacy, whether it be with film executives or some of his talented inner circle. Like a good novel, this biography is an interesting read. It moves along at a nice pace, and the information surrounding Welles's early days in theater and radio are fascinating. The fascination only increases once Welles and Company set off for Hollywood. After inking one of the all-time sweetheart deals that a film studio ever put together, Welles just seems to take it all for granted. He's either alienating friends and executives or just plan goofing off. As a history of the entertainment industry, this book is terrific. As a history of someone who for unknown reasons squandered opportunity after opportunity it's both frustrating and sad. What would American film be today had Welles been a more disciplined individual? We'll never know, but Rosebud helps give us a glimmer of what might have been.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Arresting
Review: David Thompson has written a biography that for the most part seems objective on all accounts. While acknowledging Orson Welles's great genius, he doesn't gloss over the major flaws in his character. Like the tragic figure in Citizen Kane, Welles's seemed to fall because of his own arrogance and indifference to others around him. As a young man in his twenties, Welles seemingly has the world on a string, but either because of ego and the aforementioned arrogance, never seems to learn the important game of diplomacy, whether it be with film executives or some of his talented inner circle. Like a good novel, this biography is an interesting read. It moves along at a nice pace, and the information surrounding Welles's early days in theater and radio are fascinating. The fascination only increases once Welles and Company set off for Hollywood. After inking one of the all-time sweetheart deals that a film studio ever put together, Welles just seems to take it all for granted. He's either alienating friends and executives or just plan goofing off. As a history of the entertainment industry, this book is terrific. As a history of someone who for unknown reasons squandered opportunity after opportunity it's both frustrating and sad. What would American film be today had Welles been a more disciplined individual? We'll never know, but Rosebud helps give us a glimmer of what might have been.

Rating:
Summary: Masterfully written, and truly indispensible for Welles fans
Review: David Thomson and Simon Callow both released biographies of Orson Welles at about the same time, and it seems the two will be perpetually linked in reviews. Certainly Callow's book is the more deeply researched, but it is Thomson's which tries and succeeds to get into the soul of the elusive Welles. Free from the overwhelming piles of research which make Callow's book exhausting, if still fascinating, Thomson is free to pick and choose which details he wishes to emphasize, and he does a marvelous job of it. Thomson's account of Welles' final years, for example, with its use of choice anecdote and observation, is brief and heartbreaking. His insights into the films are immensely interesting as well. Even if I did not agree with them all, they did have the effect of making me go back to the films themselves to have another look, which is perhaps the ultimate compliment one can pay Thomson. "Rosebud", unlike Callow's book, is written by someone who genuinely admires Welles. Thomson doesn't fail to point out Welles' shortcomings and failures, but his critiques are free of Callow's sniping. Thomson refrains from gossip, doesn't weigh himself down with trivia, and in the end, has written the one truly indispensible biography of Welles.

Rating:
Summary: One genius deserving another
Review: David Thomson is, now that Pauline Kael is no long with us, arguably the finest film critic writing in English. And this is the Welles book history has waited for, the one only Thomson could write. Not in any way a conventional biography, "Rosebud" is a brilliant meditation on the meaning of Orson Welles' life and art. He might have less stringent champions, but he's probably never had a fairer one. A perfect compliment to Frank Brady's "Citizen Welles" (the best conventional Welles bio) and Peter Bogdanovich's "This is Orson Welles."

Rating:
Summary: One genius deserving another
Review: David Thomson is, now that Pauline Kael is no long with us, arguably the finest film critic writing in English. And this is the Welles book history has waited for, the one only Thomson could write. Not in any way a conventional biography, "Rosebud" is a brilliant meditation on the meaning of Orson Welles' life and art. He might have less stringent champions, but he's probably never had a fairer one. A perfect compliment to Frank Brady's "Citizen Welles" (the best conventional Welles bio) and Peter Bogdanovich's "This is Orson Welles."

Rating:
Summary: Judgement day for Orson Welles
Review: David Thomson thinks he's some kind of superior being and criticizes in a pompous and condescendent manner everything Welles ever did. He's one of those people who think that Welles never achieved anything after Kane. He wonders if he was even really responsible for Kane? He states that Welles did not write any of the script (false), that Greg Toland was director of photography while Robert Wise was responsible for the editing. SO what did Welles do? He directed! Apparently, that's not enough to make Kane his movie, his masterpiece, among others. Well if movies were only based on photography, scripting and editing, then why would directors be needed?

Thomson insults Welles in every paragraph; he hammers him over and over, relentlessly. He focuses on the less successful aspects of his life and exaggerates them. He ridicules him, makes fun of his weight, says he's egotistical, a liar, a misogynist, an unfaithful friend, a machiavellic mischievous man who uses people, cheats on his wives, dates married women, eats like a pig and stuffs his face with anything he could find (he talks a lot about that), a pretend genius or would be genius who thinks he's the victim of evil Hollywood moguls. What other bad things could be said about Welles? Basically, any insult or evil thought you would ever have towards your worse enemy would not match up to the way Thomson writes about Welles.

Welles is not the only target of the author's wrath towards famous people. Any dead actor that was a friend or acquaintance of welles is also treated unkindly, as for the ones who are still alive, Thomson refrains himself from making a judgement. What a coward! Dead celebrities are such easy targets to criticism aren't they?

When Thompson runs out of evil things to say, he talks about his childhood and when he went to see The Third Man with his grand mother who for some reason has a claw instead of a hand. Oh poor little David, he could not hold his grandma's hand, only a claw! Tear. Who cares! Also, he has the annoying habit of interrupting every other chapter with imaginary conversations between the writer (?) and the publisher (?). It's never quite clear and really pointless. It's a way for him to put himself in value and shows how he can also criticize his own work. What a decent man!...

I was not expecting a hagiography, I know Welles was not godlike. Thomson explains at the end of the book that he does not mean to put Welles down, but only attempts to humanize him. Well there's a difference between humanizing someone and destroying the truth. Also, a biography should include anecdotes, facts, it should be detailed and accurate. Thompson writes some kind of very superficial, selective, inaccurate story, with imaginary dialogues about what people could have said to welles or thought of him. You can't assume things in a biography.

The author is too involved with his own thoughts instead of sticking to the facts in an objective manner. If you want to learn about Welles, read "Road to Xanadu' by Simon Callow, which focuses on Welles life up to Kane. Or "This is Orson Welles" which is a series of Welles interviews conducted by Peter Bogdanovich in which Welles tells the story of his life. Sure he had a tendency of lying about his past, but only because he was a story teller. Story Tellers always add a little to the truth. Thomson has no such skill.

Unfortunately I can't give 0 star to this book, or I would. It's really just food for the shredder.

Rating:
Summary: Lack of facts make for a better bio!
Review: David Thomson's <Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles>, though undeniably detailed and well researched, was also lacking in many respects. This was a good thing.

Several years back, upon my brother's behest, I picked up a book entitled <Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu> by Simon Callow. Callow's book was intensively researched, shattering the godlike Wellesian visage that existed within my mind due to Welles' own self promoting exaggerations. The imposingly thick tome only covers the first 26 years of Welles' life, and though entertaining, I found Callow to be highly skeptical , a bit removed from his subject and utterly exhausting.

Thomson's work, in comparison to Callow's, may seem rushed and under researched, but that is only part of its charm. Thomson has no ill intentions of passing himself off as someone who has done vast amounts of research, but merely as a great admirer of Welles willing to ask questions and make bold observations. Not blinded by hero worship, Thomson is ready and able to criticize Welles for what he sees as a genius' failures or shortcomings, and I believe he is able to do so in a way that does not lend itself to Callow's skepticism. If I wanted to read a straightforward text on the life of Welles, I could easily do some research and find books like Frank Brady's biography, but Thomson's <Rosebud> is anything but conventional, inviting the reader to partake in some musings and discussions on an enigmatic character with the stylistic flourish of the most engaging novelist.

Thomson is able to expand upon the aspects of Welles' life that he finds most fascinating or noteworthy, leaving me to feel as though Welles' earlier radio and theatre work, which Callow goes into extensively, were not of great interest to Thomson. It is upon Welles' entry into film that <Rosebud> really picks up, and though Thomson reveals a frustratingly sad side of Welles, it is not altogether cynical and abrasive. Thomson is uninterested in simply providing an unbiased view of Welles, for which I applaud him, as <Rosebud> offers up very personal opinions that may or may not be wholly justified, but they all encouraged me to second guess myself, second guess Welles and see things from another perspective.

<Rosebud> is no "Idiot's Guide To" anything, and for that I was grateful. Another rehashing of the same tired "...and then this happened, and this is what Welles said about it..." is precisely what Thomson avoided.

Thomson provides an examination of Orson Welles in a light I had previously not seen, basking the legend in an unappealing, and all-too-human glow that lovingly gives fault to fantasy, adding a character and life that could easily be overlooked by "sticking to the facts" as it were.

David Thomson is simply not the man to be writing a straightforward biography. He lovingly embraces his subject, attempting to recreate a destroyed man by examining his cinematic triumphs, his humanistic failures and, yes, even his quirky physical traits. For this unique view, <Rosebud> is a more valuable text to me than a thousand exhausting Callows.

Rating:
Summary: Lack of facts make for a better bio!
Review: David Thomson's <Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles>, though undeniably detailed and well researched, was also lacking in many respects. This was a good thing.

Several years back, upon my brother's behest, I picked up a book entitled <Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu> by Simon Callow. Callow's book was intensively researched, shattering the godlike Wellesian visage that existed within my mind due to Welles' own self promoting exaggerations. The imposingly thick tome only covers the first 26 years of Welles' life, and though entertaining, I found Callow to be highly skeptical , a bit removed from his subject and utterly exhausting.

Thomson's work, in comparison to Callow's, may seem rushed and under researched, but that is only part of its charm. Thomson has no ill intentions of passing himself off as someone who has done vast amounts of research, but merely as a great admirer of Welles willing to ask questions and make bold observations. Not blinded by hero worship, Thomson is ready and able to criticize Welles for what he sees as a genius' failures or shortcomings, and I believe he is able to do so in a way that does not lend itself to Callow's skepticism. If I wanted to read a straightforward text on the life of Welles, I could easily do some research and find books like Frank Brady's biography, but Thomson's <Rosebud> is anything but conventional, inviting the reader to partake in some musings and discussions on an enigmatic character with the stylistic flourish of the most engaging novelist.

Thomson is able to expand upon the aspects of Welles' life that he finds most fascinating or noteworthy, leaving me to feel as though Welles' earlier radio and theatre work, which Callow goes into extensively, were not of great interest to Thomson. It is upon Welles' entry into film that <Rosebud> really picks up, and though Thomson reveals a frustratingly sad side of Welles, it is not altogether cynical and abrasive. Thomson is uninterested in simply providing an unbiased view of Welles, for which I applaud him, as <Rosebud> offers up very personal opinions that may or may not be wholly justified, but they all encouraged me to second guess myself, second guess Welles and see things from another perspective.

<Rosebud> is no "Idiot's Guide To" anything, and for that I was grateful. Another rehashing of the same tired "...and then this happened, and this is what Welles said about it..." is precisely what Thomson avoided.

Thomson provides an examination of Orson Welles in a light I had previously not seen, basking the legend in an unappealing, and all-too-human glow that lovingly gives fault to fantasy, adding a character and life that could easily be overlooked by "sticking to the facts" as it were.

David Thomson is simply not the man to be writing a straightforward biography. He lovingly embraces his subject, attempting to recreate a destroyed man by examining his cinematic triumphs, his humanistic failures and, yes, even his quirky physical traits. For this unique view, <Rosebud> is a more valuable text to me than a thousand exhausting Callows.

Rating:
Summary: Lack of facts make for a better bio!
Review: David Thomson's , though undeniably detailed and well researched, was also lacking in many respects. This was a good thing.

Several years back, upon my brother's behest, I picked up a book entitled by Simon Callow. Callow's book was intensively researched, shattering the godlike Wellesian visage that existed within my mind due to Welles' own self promoting exaggerations. The imposingly thick tome only covers the first 26 years of Welles' life, and though entertaining, I found Callow to be highly skeptical , a bit removed from his subject and utterly exhausting.

Thomson's work, in comparison to Callow's, may seem rushed and under researched, but that is only part of its charm. Thomson has no ill intentions of passing himself off as someone who has done vast amounts of research, but merely as a great admirer of Welles willing to ask questions and make bold observations. Not blinded by hero worship, Thomson is ready and able to criticize Welles for what he sees as a genius' failures or shortcomings, and I believe he is able to do so in a way that does not lend itself to Callow's skepticism. If I wanted to read a straightforward text on the life of Welles, I could easily do some research and find books like Frank Brady's biography, but Thomson's is anything but conventional, inviting the reader to partake in some musings and discussions on an enigmatic character with the stylistic flourish of the most engaging novelist.

Thomson is able to expand upon the aspects of Welles' life that he finds most fascinating or noteworthy, leaving me to feel as though Welles' earlier radio and theatre work, which Callow goes into extensively, were not of great interest to Thomson. It is upon Welles' entry into film that really picks up, and though Thomson reveals a frustratingly sad side of Welles, it is not altogether cynical and abrasive. Thomson is uninterested in simply providing an unbiased view of Welles, for which I applaud him, as offers up very personal opinions that may or may not be wholly justified, but they all encouraged me to second guess myself, second guess Welles and see things from another perspective.

is no "Idiot's Guide To" anything, and for that I was grateful. Another rehashing of the same tired "...and then this happened, and this is what Welles said about it..." is precisely what Thomson avoided.

Thomson provides an examination of Orson Welles in a light I had previously not seen, basking the legend in an unappealing, and all-too-human glow that lovingly gives fault to fantasy, adding a character and life that could easily be overlooked by "sticking to the facts" as it were.

David Thomson is simply not the man to be writing a straightforward biography. He lovingly embraces his subject, attempting to recreate a destroyed man by examining his cinematic triumphs, his humanistic failures and, yes, even his quirky physical traits. For this unique view, is a more valuable text to me than a thousand exhausting Callows.

Rating:
Summary: Insightful Biography of a giant
Review: David Thomson's biography of Orson Wells is neither particularly scholarly nor exhaustive. Several longer biographies have been written that go into far greater detail. Why do I recommend this one? Thomson book is excellent for the effort he makes to reconstruct this strange and tragic man. Moreover, his beautiful prose brings to life much of the sad poetry of this artist who was lost to us, mostly because of his self destruction.

Many may argue about the conclusions and theories Thomson lays out. I urge you to read the book and judge for yourself.