Orson Welles

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AMalickLensFlare
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:22 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Orson Welles

#151 Post by AMalickLensFlare » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:25 am

I forget exactly where it was I saw or heard it, but I remember Bogdanovich saying Chimes at Midnight is his favorite Welles film. It never seems to get much attention compared to his other films (seemingly, anyway, from my admittedly limited perspective). Anyone know who owns the distribution rights and/or if there are plans for a BD release on the table?

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#152 Post by Drucker » Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:38 am

AMalickLensFlare wrote:I forget exactly where it was I saw or heard it, but I remember Bogdanovich saying Chimes at Midnight is his favorite Welles film. It never seems to get much attention compared to his other films (seemingly, anyway, from my admittedly limited perspective). Anyone know who owns the distribution rights and/or if there are plans for a BD release on the table?
I believe Beatrice Welles claims rights, and a Studio Canal release was quickly pulled after release at her request. No word of a BD.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Orson Welles

#153 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:28 am

Right. CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT enjoyed a brief U.S. re-release in cinemas circa 1993, but rights issues/court battles have largely prevented the film from being screened and/or released on home video ever since (although some quasi-bootleg versions have come out). Looking at the Film Forum display ad for the Welles retrospective, I see that CHIMES is listed as a "new DCP restoration courtesy of Filmoteca Española" so this is not the same restoration attempted by the producers who restored OTHELLO in 1992.

As to MACBETH, the longer "Scottish" version should, indeed, be considered Welles' preferred cut. However, the shorter, re-dubbed version is also of interest since Welles himself determined the re-editing. Even though the studio demanded that two reels be cut, Welles always emphasized that he was the one who determined what footage to take out. Of course, this was after much prodding from Richard Wilson who wrote numerous letters to Welles (who was in Europe at the time) warning him that the loss of control he experienced on AMBERSONS and LADY FROM SHANGHAI would be repeated on MACBETH if he didn't act soon. Wilson oversaw the re-dubbing himself with Welles shipping tape of his own new line readings as Macbeth from London at the tail end of the re-edit.

User avatar
AMalickLensFlare
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:22 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Orson Welles

#154 Post by AMalickLensFlare » Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:58 pm

Damn. Thanks for the info.

User avatar
J Wilson
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:26 am
Contact:

Re: Orson Welles

#155 Post by J Wilson » Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:40 am

Drucker wrote:
AMalickLensFlare wrote:I forget exactly where it was I saw or heard it, but I remember Bogdanovich saying Chimes at Midnight is his favorite Welles film. It never seems to get much attention compared to his other films (seemingly, anyway, from my admittedly limited perspective). Anyone know who owns the distribution rights and/or if there are plans for a BD release on the table?
I believe Beatrice Welles claims rights, and a Studio Canal release was quickly pulled after release at her request. No word of a BD.

I've never heard of Beatrice acting against Chimes, but producer Harry Saltzman's estate and the other Spanish producers had/may still be having legal battles over the film. You would think by this point they've spent more on legal fees than they'll ever make back on the film should it get a legit re-release from one of them.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Orson Welles

#156 Post by Roger Ryan » Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:33 pm

J Wilson wrote:
Drucker wrote:
AMalickLensFlare wrote:I forget exactly where it was I saw or heard it, but I remember Bogdanovich saying Chimes at Midnight is his favorite Welles film. It never seems to get much attention compared to his other films (seemingly, anyway, from my admittedly limited perspective). Anyone know who owns the distribution rights and/or if there are plans for a BD release on the table?
I believe Beatrice Welles claims rights, and a Studio Canal release was quickly pulled after release at her request. No word of a BD.

I've never heard of Beatrice acting against Chimes, but producer Harry Saltzman's estate and the other Spanish producers had/may still be having legal battles over the film...
I don't know the details either, but in the 90s it was announced that CHIMES would receive a restoration and release by the same team that did the '92 OTHELLO restoration which Ms. Welles has ownership of. I assume that she thought she had the legal right (or could obtain the right) to restore and release CHIMES in the same manner as the earlier Shakespearean effort. At any rate, the legal wranglings between the Saltzman estate and the other producers put an end to these plans even though some restoration work was done.*

*I have no idea what materials were used for this restoration attempt performed in Chicago; my impression is that most of the work was in cleaning up the audio and attempting to provide better synchronization. When I saw two reels of this restoration projected alongside a print presumably provided by Filmoteca Española, I could not see or hear much of a difference.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#157 Post by Drucker » Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:23 pm

Wasn't a Studio Canal release produced, released, and quickly pulled?

User avatar
martin
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:16 am
Contact:

Re: Orson Welles

#158 Post by martin » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:42 am

It was released on this 5-disc boxset with two other Orson Welles films. I haven't seen this version myself.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#159 Post by Drucker » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:20 pm

Here's the films and formats of the upcoming Welles run at Film Forum:

Kane: DCP
Ambersons: 35mm
It's All True: 35mm
Stranger: 35mm
Journey Into Fear: 35mm
Lady From Shanghai: DCP
Macbeth Scottish: "HD" (weird)
Macbeth Release: 35mm
The Third Man: 35mm
Othello: DCP
Mr. Arkadin: 35mm
Touch of Evil 58: 35mm
Touch of Evil Preview: 35mm
Touch of Evil Reconstruction: DCP
The Trial: DCP
Chimes at Midnight: DCP
F For Fake:35mm
The Immortal Story: Digibeta
Wellesiana: Digibeta
Too Much Johnson: 35mm
A Man For All Seasons: 35mm
Someone To Love: 35mm
Muppet Movie: DCP
Prince of Foxes: 35mm
The Black Rose: DCP
Compulsion and Long Hot Summer: no note
Jane Eyre: 35mm
Tomorrow is Forever 35mm
Man In The Shadow: DCP
Black Magic: 35mm
Last edited by Drucker on Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Orson Welles

#160 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:23 pm

Do film elements even exist for The Immortal Story? Since it was made for broadcast, I wonder if video elements are all that's left. Have never seen it, but it's supposedly a genuinely great film, is it not?

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#161 Post by Drucker » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:28 pm

hearthesilence wrote:Do film elements even exist for The Immortal Story? Since it was made for broadcast, I wonder if video elements are all that's left. Have never seen it, but it's supposedly a genuinely great film, is it not?
I tried watching it on TCM a few weeks ago and was very disappointed and couldn't get through it...so we'll see in person!

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Orson Welles

#162 Post by MichaelB » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:29 pm

hearthesilence wrote:Do film elements even exist for The Immortal Story? Since it was made for broadcast, I wonder if video elements are all that's left. Have never seen it, but it's supposedly a genuinely great film, is it not?
It was definitely shot and edited on film. It played reasonably regularly in London rep cinemas throughout the 1980s and 90s.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Orson Welles

#163 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:09 am

I saw a (the?) Digibeta copy of THE IMMORTAL STORY at a Yale retrospective eight years ago and it actually looked surprisingly good on a big screen. The film itself is only moderately successful in my opinion: the most obtuse subject matter of all of Welles' films handled in a somewhat slipshod manner. However, my appreciation of its better moments has increased with subsequent viewings.
Drucker wrote: Macbeth Scottish: "HD" (weird)
I wonder if they are simply going to screen the Olive Blu-ray for this?

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#164 Post by Drucker » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:02 am

That's my thinking, though Film Forum boasts generally that they only exhibit DCP and Film Prints, so that's disappointing (and I'll probably not attend if that's the case).

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#165 Post by Drucker » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:39 am

They got back to me on Twitter:
Hey Robert - we'll be projecting an HDCAM. We don't project off blu-ray as a policy. Hope you can make it!

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#166 Post by Drucker » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:57 am

Following up I asked about the source:
It's from a restoration by the UCLA film archive. See you soon!

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#167 Post by Drucker » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:18 pm

Hm according to a review on Amazon, the Carlotta blu rays have forced French subtitles:
i called carlotta a few weeks ago to ask about the forced french subtitles which spoil so many french dvds & blu-rays (including some, but not all by carlotta). i was told in no uncertain terms that the subtitles of this blu-ray can N O T be switched off. curiously, the explanation given was not that they are there for legal reasons (as wild side explained to me on another occasion) but that these blu-rays are not meant for export. i cannot say why carlotta would thus want to self-sabotage their potential foreign ex-ports (i asked but received no coherent reply) but in any case, this here is only meant to warn prospective non-french buyers (& patronized french buyers who speak english well enough to do without imposed subtitles).
the 1 star given is thus NOT meant to reflect the films or their quality (& carlotta's releases are usually very good, which makes it all the more re-grettable that this release is useless for many prospective buyers abroad).
But the blu ray.com reviews claim the subtitles are optional. Anyone pick it up yet? Also, wouldn't a screencapture like this one display a subtitle?

User avatar
John Hodson
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Near dark satanic mills...
Contact:

Re: Orson Welles

#168 Post by John Hodson » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:06 am

DVDClassik's review also says they are removable.

isakborg
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Orson Welles

#169 Post by isakborg » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:08 pm

I have the set and can attest to the subtitles being removeable (at least on my Oppo). Also, even if it's not the version we'd all hoped for, the Othello still looks quite good and a damn sight better than my old Image DVD, and the Macbeth by far outclasses the Olive - made me reassess the film.

User avatar
Harmonov
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Bloomington, IN

Re: Orson Welles

#170 Post by Harmonov » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:34 am

Off topic, but the Indiana University Cinema will be hosting a celebration in honor of Welles' 100th birthday in late April and early May.

May 6, 2015, marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of actor, writer, producer and director Orson Welles. There will be numerous celebrations of this date at cinemas and institutions worldwide. Indiana University will host one of the most significant collections of scholars, writers, filmmakers and archivists who have been key figures in in the scholarship surrounding Welles' work.

Check it out if you are in the area:

http://www.cinema.indiana.edu/?post_type=series&p=7603" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It helps that one of the libraries on campus hold a great portion of his personal documents which will be the focus of a spring exhibition.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#171 Post by Drucker » Thu Dec 25, 2014 10:44 am

Macbeth "Scottish Version" updated to be a 35mm print, restored from UCLA.

Also, the Friday night, 7:10pm showing which is already introduced by Joseph McBride, is now also going to be followed by a Q&A with Chris Feder Welles (Orson's daughter).

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#172 Post by Drucker » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:58 am

So I've seen Kane, Journey Into Fear, and The Stranger thus far in the Film Forum celebration of Welles.

The former I really have nothing to add that hasn't been said by smarter people than I. But seeing it on the big screen only confirms my love for the film. It's humor is at times grand, it's darkness is unrelenting as well. The greatness of Welles' performance can't be overstated. Sitting on the beach outside Xandadu, in the tent with Susan, is where it really hit me just how well he was acting. A 25 year old is perfectly acting out the ways or a tired, old, and beaten-down by his wife old man. Again, I'm just jotting down thoughts after these screenings, but: confirmed, Kane is perfect.

Last night was a double feature of the other two films mentioned above. While I know just an outline of what Welles achieved on stage, I know that his genius was often matched by failures. Voodoo Macbeth could be matched by any number of failures that followed, and after enough failures, the allure and secure money of Hollywood seemed like a good idea around 1939 if I remember correctly. Such was Welles' ambition, that sometimes his work could be a bit of a mess. I wouldn't call Journey Into Fear a total disaster or a mess, but I honestly could not follow nor make any sense of the movie. While Norman Foster has director's credits, it remains an "Orson Welles" production and his fingerprints are all over this. The dialogue and how it's delivered. A man plunging into a rabbit hole/labyrinth of a mystery that he needs to escape from, and the overall darkness of the film (jeez Welles films are often dark!) Unfortunately, right from the get-go, this movie makes little to no sense. Cotten is just a bit too trusting and willing to go along with all of these strangers, trusting Haki with his wife, etc. etc. The film also features way too much of what is one of Welles' worst tendencies: two strangers meet, and then a long exposition follows where a sinister man explains that he a) knows what the situation is b) explains how he got there c) gives away his whole nefarious plot d) we are supposed to believe all of this, this random person just dropped into our laps.

The plot is nigh impossible to follow, the big fat man wasn't quite sinister, and the film moves so damn fast we can't get to know anyone enough to build tension when they die or are in a bad situation. I'm sure there were cuts made to this film, as it was surely released once Mercury was already on their way out at RKO, but I was still disappointed.

But though I've seen The Stranger a few times on the wonderful Kino blu-ray, I gained a new appreciation for it last night. The film is actually quite strong, and while a bit ordinary, features a few delightful characteristics, and few missteps. I attribute the latter to the fact that it probably wasn't tampered with too much and while I believe there were cuts made against Welles' wishes, the whole thing still feels like one cohesive unit. Nothing appears re-shot by Welles or someone else after the initial production to make anything "more cohesive" in the studio's eyes, and therefore, the whole thing actually makes sense.

A few quick notes: almost all of the supporting cast is delightful. The pharmacist/town clerk, the Supreme Court Justice, and certainly Mary's house maiden. All of the people in the periphery were great. In addition, this feels like neither a Welles nor a Robinson-dominated film, both share screen time very effectively, and are given a lot of space to develop their character (though there are problems with Welles' character, I'll get to shortly).
Overall, this also feels like the loosest Welles film. Rather than erupting to a manic pace, which most of his films do at some point, this one actually has a very cool pace. A great example was when Welles leaves the house with the dog to double check the body. This is a slow, brooding scene, filmed in darkness. It's creepy and highly effective. There was also some cool camera effects I never noticed. In the scene where they uncover the dead dog and sit in a boat fishing, there's a weird, octagon-shaped veil that seems to be covering the lens. I'm not sure if that's what made the film almost seem to bleed, with a cool reflection, but it was neat. If all of the plot developments in Journey Into Fear seem forced and rushed, none of that happens in The Stranger. Every bit of the mystery Robinson peels back makes sense, as does Welles' progression to the monster that seeks to kill his wife.

The film is far from perfect. It surely doesn't have anything truly spectacular going on. Furthermore, as McBride points out in his first book on Welles, Welles' performance and place in the town is absurd. He makes no sense. How could anyone believe his existence isn't suspicious is truly weird. He is bizarre, and freely admits that he has out of place opinions about Germany. I found his "Marx wasn't a German, he was a Jew" comment to be very effective, a lesser version of the joke in To Be Or Not To Be where the film just stops dead and totally grabs your attention away from everything else. It's well-executed. Mostly, though, Welles' performance is kinda weird and not in a good way. Is this the only film for Welles where a supposedly great man doesn't really fall from grace? If Kindler is such a genius of the Third Reich, none of his schemes really work that well, like at all. Sort of betrays the idea that he was ever that smart (though of course, portraying a Nazi as smarter than Americans surely wouldn't have gone over well!) So while the film isn't perfect, it's certainly been my best experience seeing it.

Macbeth and Magnificent Ambersons up next!

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Orson Welles

#173 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:52 pm

Drucker wrote:...I wouldn't call Journey Into Fear a total disaster or a mess, but I honestly could not follow nor make any sense of the movie...
This film was even more mutilated than AMBERSONS and it ends up a disappointing muddle. Welles originally envisioned JOURNEY INTO FEAR as a thriller with sex comedy overtones, but faced censorship before the script was even completed (the Hays office would have none of the implication that Graham was having an affair with Josette while his wife was stepping out with Haki). A good twenty minutes of footage was cut from the preview version and a couple of scenes were transposed creating even more discontinuity. Welles was able to pull the film from release, do a quick re-edit and shoot a new ending himself after he returned from South America, but the damage had already been done (interestingly, both the earlier studio-butchered release and Welles' attempt to salvage that version both exist, but neither comes close to what the film should have been).

As to THE STRANGER, you're right that the film doesn't suffer from re-shoots. What is missing is a more thrilling chase through South America near the film's beginning that was reduced to mere minutes of screen time. Also, Welles intended Young's character to suffer from troubling dreams (a la SPELLBOUND?) that would be inter-cut in a way that showed she was having an increasingly difficult time telling fantasy from reality. This is the reason Edward G. Robinson wishes her "sweet dreams" at the film's end, something that now seems completely incongruous.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#174 Post by Drucker » Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:00 am

I saw Macbeth (Scottish version) last night. Review below. Joseph McBride interviewed Chris Wells, and afterwards I asked him about three questions I'm sure people are interested in:

1) He is in no way connected to the Other Side of the Wind restoration. He called himself "fired", which makes sense if you have read about him being "let go" in What Ever Happened To Orson Welles. Surprisingly, he also didn't seem to think Bogdanovich was involved at all. Which means we're likely getting the "Kodar" version, I assume, also detailed in the book.

2) He didn't know about the upcoming Criterion of Othello (if true*) which is disappointing, as it would infer that if a Criterion is really happening, they aren't using him for any extras.

3) The home video rights for Chimes at Midnight are still a mess and two Spanish families claim ownership.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Orson Welles

#175 Post by Drucker » Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:48 am

Disclaimer: except for in high school, I've never read Shakespeare.

Macbeth, stylistically, had a lot of the things I liked in The Stranger, and afterwards, McBride remarked that the camera-person who was Metty's assistant on The Stranger was the principal photographer for this film, so not a surprise! The greatest strength of Macbeth has to be the camerawork. In hindsight, it's really this that helps elevate the material and feel of The Stranger to a great film.

The murder scene is a perfect example. The camera, in these two films, is really its own character. Following the actors, closing in and the pulling away. In a movie like this, which is obviously so theatrical and full of exposition, to have the camera adding to the tension is enormously helpful. The way the camera sort of follows of Lady Macbeth up the steps as Macbeth murders the king, and then pulls back, etc. was very reminiscent of the way the camera would loosely follow Welles in those woods scenes in The Stranger.

Another similarity is the pacing of this film, which works incredibly well. The psychosis of the Macbeths is given all the space in the world to build. The revenge by those he has wronged is powerful and believable. The character Welles invents, the priest, has a minor but very useful role, acting as the moral compass tying together those who flee and those who stay behind in Scotland.

Throughout the film, we see that Welles, given creative control, could really make something special out of nothing. The film was shot in 21 days on painfully obvious soundstages and unbelievable sets. Rather than hindering the film, it forced them to make a smoky, brooding, terrifying atmosphere. There are certainly moments in the film you could mistake for a horror film (or at least a Val Lewton prodcution!) Again, I have nothing to add that wouldn't be a regurgitation of people smarter than me, but the minimalism of this film's sets and style is absolutely brilliant.

Chris Welles, his oldest daughter, who appears as Macduff's son, explained to us that to shoot the film in the necessary 21 days, there were three sets set up at once, and Welles would run back and forth between them directing scenes. It's a marvelous production, and probably the closest we get to Welles' theatrical work. While the shooting of the film sounds like it was manic, that doesn't come across at all in this marvelous, well-paced, and brilliant adaptation.

Post Reply