Orson Welles, Volume 1: The Road to Xanadu

This is a fantastic, very detailed and rather objective biography of the boy genius of the theatre world. 600 pages about Welles for only the first 26 years of his life is a lot, but definitly worth all the details.The author basically tells Orson's early life around the plays he directed and that were his life at the time. It is amazing to me how a 14 year old kid was able to succesfully direct Shakespeare plays and even write a book on how to understand Shakerpeare's work.The book gives great details on every single play he directed, radio shows he produced, the making of citizen Kane and on a broader scale gives a great insight on what broadway was like during the 30s. The account of the war of the world radio broadcast that terrorised the northern US on halloween night 1938 will make you relive the moment as if you were there.I highly recommend this biography to any fan of Orson Welles or anyone who is interested in the history of broadway or the theatre in general.

Orson Welles did more before he was 10 than most of us will in a lifetime.........or at least he tells you he did. The mystery of OW is still in full effect but Simon Callow helps the reader wade through the mire and stories that seem like BS. It's a damn fine read. Makes you want to see VOODOO MACBETH for yourself. Luckily there's enough internet resources to listen to some of the Mercury Radio Broadcasts as well ( more than just War Of The Worlds ).

I've read several bio's of Welles. All were pretty good but Callows approach is unique and contained a lot of new information on the boy wonder. I'm looking forward to volumes 2 & 3

It pains me to say it, but this is a hateful book. Not per se in terms of quality - it is certainly well-researched and, at certain points, helps debunk some of the many myths that surround its subject. It is hateful because it is quite clear that Callow despises his subject. His ultimate view of Welles is that he was, quite simply, a fraud. Relentlessly referring to him as a magician and a conjurer -i.e., a trickster - Callow consistently attempts to follow in the footsteps of writers like Pauline Kael and Charles Higham who sought to strip Welles of every one of his achievements. This becomes quite clear at the end, in which Callow notes the consensus surrounding the greatness of Citizen Kane only to spent pages upon pages attempting to debunk it. The cumulative effect of all this is to force the reader to conclude that Callow hates Welles' plays, hates his films, hates his writing, particularly hates his acting, and generally speaking despises the man himself.It should also be noted that, in terms of quality, the book is highly problematic. It is massively bloated, and spends an inordinate amount of pages simply recounting contemporary reviewers' views of Welles' work. This is not so much writing as copying, and grants little insight into the works themselves and their creation. Callow's major source for much of the book, moreover, is clearly John Houseman, who Welles regarded as his "only enemy," a choice that is inexplicable for a writer ostensibly concerned with objectivity.Callow is also clearly driven by certain personal agendas. He clearly thinks Welles is a bad actor, and spends a stunning amount of time and sarcastic invective repeating this opinion. He is obsessed with Welles' sexuality, and while he never comes out and says it, obviously thinks Welles was gay, although he admits there is no evidence to support this. Worst of all, Callow, a man of the theater, is patently ignorant of radio and cinema, the two mediums in which Welles did his most important work. He wastes a truly stunning amount of space on long-dead critics' views of Welles' plays, but spends only a handful of pages on the War of the Worlds broadcast, one of Welles' most important works (he tries to deny Welles credit for it as well). Callow's ignorance of film is particularly glaring, leaving him unable to grasp why Citizen Kane is a film of such significance. For the most part, Callow seems to think Kane's fame is the product of mass delusion and/or brainwashing by RKO's publicity department.The question then is why Callow would spend such an inordinate amount of energy on a subject he loathes. One is reminded of George Orwell's essay on Tolstoy's hatred of Shakespeare. Tolstoy, Orwell concluded, hated Shakespeare because plays like King Lear cut through Tolstoy's illusions about himself. We can only wonder, then, what Callow's Rosebud might be. Clearly, however, it has created in him a violent fascination with an Orson Welles he cannot stop himself from hating.

well done

Unfortunately, for the casual reader who just wants a biographical account of Welles' life and work, this book does not fill that need. It gets bogged down for pages upon pages of minutiae that might be of some importance to someone within the 'theatre world' but it's too detailed and too incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't have the literary background to appreciate it. I found myself skipping whole chapters only to get bogged down in the next. Finally I put it down and instead decided to try out Frank Brady's  Citizen Welles: A Biography of Orson Welles , a much more freely flowing text without any extrapolations.I won't delve into other facets that bothered me about this book because that would be unfair as I wasn't able to finish it. Suffice to say that it's not one I would recommend to anyone that has just discovered Orson Welles and his works. Other than the book I mentioned, there a numerous other books, videos etc. that may offer a better introductory overview of his life and work.

I just started reading this book. It's so very lovely & smart. He's quite impressive.

What a life, what a genius. Can't imagine a more authoritative bio of Welles.

Well written authoritative study of the subject, will be purchasing the two further volumes in the future

Well researched and very well written.

Crease free dust jacket, no turned pages. It's in really good nick. It's also a whopper, so although I've only started it and can't review it, it is very readable, and impeccably written.

Very good book

Callow's biography on Welles is detailed, obviously written after much reading and research, his account of the theatre is interesting and difficult to find elsewhere (although some of his assessments, which aren't always specially bright, are written as if he were the highest authority on the subject...this making the text sometimes confusing-so much assurance on something that isn't at all evident as stated in the text), and this is why I'm rating it 2/5 and not less...because on the other hand, I don't understand his approach to Welles himself. The main sources for this biography were conversations with John Housemann (as Welles said more than once, "One of my oldest ennemies") and Michéal MacLiammóir, whose opinions shouldn't be free of suspicion either (there are blatant precedents of his trying to diminish Welles and his work for clearly personal reasons, alternating with moments of praise and collaboration). Callow also quotes other biographies, Welles' interviews and letters, etc, but, it seems to me, with the main aim to deny anything said in them (said by Welles about himself)...finding in each case a better intepreretation (most of them seem to be too far-fetched).In some paragraphs objectivity is there, giving fair results...in some others, its misuse leads to underserved attacks, putting mere personal hypothesis as the only true facts (trying to fill in the created gaps)...there is some unfair cruelty in it, and I am sorry for Welles...Reading (or listening to) Welles' interviews (specially the basis of the book "This is Orson Welles", by Welles and Bogdanovich), watching his films, or even reading his biography by Barbara Leaming (she interviewed many people having known Welles, and most of all, "interviewed" Welles during years while working on its redaction), the picture seems so complete (all parts match the others), of who Orson Welles was. After reading Callow's book, the result is the opposite...the person appears blurred, and I'm almost offended that Callow only sees and writes what he wanted to see from the beginning (maintaining criticism of unclear origin and denying evident merits...). The worst fault in it is a very unkind one: to pretend to know and understand more about someone than he himself did...Orson Welles was his own worst critic (I don't see the point in trying to outdo him in this field) and since he was honest enough to admit more personal faults and mistakes than most would dare to, I dislike reading so many attempts to find minor faults and "lies" where Welles said there weren't.