Dear Noel: One difference between Hitchcock and Welles in their handling of material is that, though both are concerned with the effects of total or totalitarian power over humans, Welles always shows compassion for the victims and a certain pity for the villain (whom he often chooses to play). It is hard to find much of that in Hitchcock, who is taken up almost entirely with cleverness, irony, cynicism (and concealed sadism running underneath).
Hitchcock, as you point out, had a long apprenticeship in film, but he was not known much in America until, say, THE 39 STEPS (1935), a story which Welles was also interested in producing the actual John Buchan story as a spy drama for his Mercury Theater on the Air three years later. Rather than THE SECRET AGENT (1936) or THE LADY VANISHES (1938), it was JAMAICA INN (1939), not much to look at today, that was rare given fairly wide distribution in America, rare for a British film at the time. Welles, in these years, had become one of the most widely known personages in the Arts of the Western World. All of this activity, of course, attracted the attention of voracious David O. Selznick to both of them.
I'm sure I don't really have to remind you, Noel, of the cat and mouse game, rather honorable in the Arts, which continued between Selznick and Hitchcock with Welles for the next twenty years.
Selznick, an inveterate student of Radio for shorthand ideas, heard the Welles' first Campbell Radio Playhouse production of Rebecca in January 1939, which allowed him to figure a way to cut the DuMaurier's novel down to movie size. He wanted Welles to direct, better yet to star. Failing that, he brought Hitchcock over to make REBECCA (1940).
There was talk of Welles starring, too, in Hitchcock's SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943), written by Welles' old friend Thornton Wilder. Mercury Player Joseph Cotton, under contract to Selznick after Welles' departure for Brazil, was hired instead. A few years later, Welles made THE STRANGER (1946), a film thematically very similar to SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
Meanwhile, upon his return from South America, Welles starred in (some say, produced, wrote and directed, in part) JANE EYRE (1944), a David O. Selznick package deal with Robert Stevenson (Hitchcock's supposed replacement) sold to 20th Century Fox; it was another story Welles had done for the Campbell Playhouse in Radio. He co-starred with Selznick's REBECCA "discovery," Joan Fontaine, joining Mercury Players Agnes Moorehead and Eustace Wyatt (music courtesy of Bernard Herrmann).
Welles then wrote and spoke the narration for David O. Selznick's DUEL IN THE SUN, which starred Joseph Cotton, and Selznick's new find Jennifer Jones, as well as his old friend from New York stage, Walter Huston, father of John.
There was talk of Welles writing, directing and starring in THE THIRD MAN (1949), but Selznick had cooled on Welles, exiled to Europe by that time. Mogul of equal British rank Alexander Korda and Director Carol Reed held out for Welles at least for the villain, and Selznick dropped back, retaining the American distribution rights (and trimming the film, to later viewers' dismay). And so, Welles once more played the (criminally) powerful villain to Joseph Cotton's Graham Greene "hero."
True, Selznick never was associated with Welles closely again, but Hitchcock obviously continued to watch Welles' work closely.
[Selznick transferred his interest to Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, which revived a similar cat and mouse game between Hitchcock and them, but that is the subject for another thread.]
It is pretty clear that, when Welles returned to the United States, after completing MR. ARKADIN(1955), a film about a Harry Lime figure grown old and powerful, and made TOUCH OF EVIL (1958), that film was a major influence on Hitchcock's PSYCHO, two years later, not only in the featuring of Janet Leigh and the motel setting, but figure of Norman Bates of Anthony Perkins, very like the motel night man of Dennis Weaver, all "borrowed" from TOUCH OF EVIL. (And of course, by this time, Bernard Herrmann had become Hitchcock's major composer.)
Of course, Anthony Perkins starred in Welles' THE TRIAL in 1962.
Sorry, for calling all this a cat and mouse game. Just my little conceit.
Sorry, too, Noel, that in my ignorance, I had never realized David O. Selznick was a non sequitur.
I beg your pardon.
Glenn.
Falstaff
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
-
Harvey Chartrand
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
For more on Psycho and Touch of Evil, Read Touch of Psycho
-
Noel Shane
- Member
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 5:49 pm
...in my ignorance, I had never realized David O. Selznick was a non sequitur. I beg your pardon.
My intention was not to be curt. REBECCA aside, Selznick is just not worth much discussion in either man's artistic life, as I think your history illustrates. Hitchcock, in fact, spent most of his time under the producer circumventing their contract. I wasn't dismissing you, Glenn, by calling him a non sequitor, I was dismissing him from the Hitchcock-Welles context: he wasn't in the same game as them.
I can't quite concede your conceit about the cat and mouse triangle, though, if it's meant to tie the two directors together. Largely it shows Selznick's separate interest in the two men, mostly Welles. No argument there. As to the more direct Welles-Hitchcock relationships you point out, I would first say that directors can be interested in, or connected to, the same properties or collaborators without being interested in one another. The fact that Welles was also an actor for hire further distances some of these links.
SHADOW OF A DOUBT was not conceived by Thorton Wilder. A fellow named Gordon McDonell boasts that credit, and he sent his treatment directly to Hitchcock. That Welles was a fan of Wilder (who crafted the finished script with the Hitchcocks) and was also talked about for the Cotten role seems a tenuous link. Similarities to THE STRANGER are also straining the point, but if they have any validity they would argue influence in the reverse, somewhat silly anyway since Welles had so little to do with the movie's conception.
That Hitchcock "obviously continued to watch Welles' work closely" (continued following what?) I'll assume you're basing on the PYSCHO-TOE relationship. This is not worth the argument, as folks holding to this theory will do so no matter what is said to the contrary, I suspect -- with my blessing. It's a fallacy, though, as I see it. The only contention of import from the essay Fat Annie linked is that Hitchcock wanted to one-up Welles' crane shot; one need only watch the correlating shots in YOUNG AND INNOCENT (1937) or NOTORIOUS (1946) to throw a wrench into that one.
The lone connection from your list I will grant you is that of Bernard Herrman, who, yes, did elevate Hitchcock's films incalculably with his music. And who, undoubtedly, Hitchcock discovered through Welles -- who DIDN'T discover Herrman through Welles? One visit to Kane's childhood home, and anyone with ears wanted Herrman I'm sure.
Perhaps we should just leave it that CITIZEN KANE influenced everyone in the medium, consciously or not, Hitchcock included. That much we can probably agree on! As to your opening comments about philosophical differences between the two men, that could spark another long thread I'm sure.
[One major correction, unrelated to the discussion: THE THIRD MAN was written by Graham Greene for Carol Reed. Of this there's no question; Greene prefaced his pre-script story: "To Carol Reed / In admiration and affection / And in memory of so many early morning Vienna hours at Maxim's..." Reed's previous film had been Greene's script of THE FALLEN IDOL (from his own story). TTM was written for Reed to make. There could never have been any serious talk of Welles either writing or directing. Nor did Selznick have anything to do with its production. As Welles himself told Bogdanovich: "To borrow Cotten and Alida Valli from Selznick, [Alexander] Korda had to make a deal giving David American distribution... Alex dreamed up the whole project, in every sense of the word produced it, but David took the bows." He'd earlier said: "It was Carol's picture, Peter -- and Korda's."]
My intention was not to be curt. REBECCA aside, Selznick is just not worth much discussion in either man's artistic life, as I think your history illustrates. Hitchcock, in fact, spent most of his time under the producer circumventing their contract. I wasn't dismissing you, Glenn, by calling him a non sequitor, I was dismissing him from the Hitchcock-Welles context: he wasn't in the same game as them.
I can't quite concede your conceit about the cat and mouse triangle, though, if it's meant to tie the two directors together. Largely it shows Selznick's separate interest in the two men, mostly Welles. No argument there. As to the more direct Welles-Hitchcock relationships you point out, I would first say that directors can be interested in, or connected to, the same properties or collaborators without being interested in one another. The fact that Welles was also an actor for hire further distances some of these links.
SHADOW OF A DOUBT was not conceived by Thorton Wilder. A fellow named Gordon McDonell boasts that credit, and he sent his treatment directly to Hitchcock. That Welles was a fan of Wilder (who crafted the finished script with the Hitchcocks) and was also talked about for the Cotten role seems a tenuous link. Similarities to THE STRANGER are also straining the point, but if they have any validity they would argue influence in the reverse, somewhat silly anyway since Welles had so little to do with the movie's conception.
That Hitchcock "obviously continued to watch Welles' work closely" (continued following what?) I'll assume you're basing on the PYSCHO-TOE relationship. This is not worth the argument, as folks holding to this theory will do so no matter what is said to the contrary, I suspect -- with my blessing. It's a fallacy, though, as I see it. The only contention of import from the essay Fat Annie linked is that Hitchcock wanted to one-up Welles' crane shot; one need only watch the correlating shots in YOUNG AND INNOCENT (1937) or NOTORIOUS (1946) to throw a wrench into that one.
The lone connection from your list I will grant you is that of Bernard Herrman, who, yes, did elevate Hitchcock's films incalculably with his music. And who, undoubtedly, Hitchcock discovered through Welles -- who DIDN'T discover Herrman through Welles? One visit to Kane's childhood home, and anyone with ears wanted Herrman I'm sure.
Perhaps we should just leave it that CITIZEN KANE influenced everyone in the medium, consciously or not, Hitchcock included. That much we can probably agree on! As to your opening comments about philosophical differences between the two men, that could spark another long thread I'm sure.
[One major correction, unrelated to the discussion: THE THIRD MAN was written by Graham Greene for Carol Reed. Of this there's no question; Greene prefaced his pre-script story: "To Carol Reed / In admiration and affection / And in memory of so many early morning Vienna hours at Maxim's..." Reed's previous film had been Greene's script of THE FALLEN IDOL (from his own story). TTM was written for Reed to make. There could never have been any serious talk of Welles either writing or directing. Nor did Selznick have anything to do with its production. As Welles himself told Bogdanovich: "To borrow Cotten and Alida Valli from Selznick, [Alexander] Korda had to make a deal giving David American distribution... Alex dreamed up the whole project, in every sense of the word produced it, but David took the bows." He'd earlier said: "It was Carol's picture, Peter -- and Korda's."]
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Thanks, Harvey. It's amazing how much of movies and life have to do with viewpoint.
I think you will find "the cooling" -- I wouldn't call it a rift -- developed between Welles and Selznick over time. Both had giant egos, but the power and money were always on the Producer's side; Welles had the ideas but constantly needed money for new worlds to stage. When he found himself powerless, and was denied. Welles responded to setbacks with tongue and pen. Selznick gave him a number of opportunities, such as refusing to invest any substantial sum to stage or save Welles's stage extravaganza, Around the World in 80 Days, on Broadway. Thus, for instance, when Welles provided Selznick narration for Duel in the Sun, he allowed his amused contempt for the piece to show through in ripe parody. Selznick responded by not giving Welles a check he had been counting on but a pair of fine (symbolic?) duelling pistols instead.
The matter was exacerbated by the fact that Welles proceeded to write a screenplay based on Cyrano de Bergerac. Many say that it was a perfect script. (I would not be surprised that some members of our erudite company will have read it.) Welles saw himself perfect for the part of Cyrano at the time. He bolstered the role to make the long-nosed poet/swordsman as a truly viable rival to Christian for the love of Roxanne. He had Alexander Trauner doing the production design, and he wanted Jean Simmons for the star-making part of Roxanne.The picture would have brought the Mercury Players together again and established Welles as a romantic hero, while refurbishing his laurels as a writer-director. Unfortunately, Selznick had the rights for the property and would not give them up on terms Welles could meet.
Which brings us to THE THIRD MAN. One of the motivations for Welles going to Europe was to work on Cyrano. He became involved with Alexander Korda on THE THIRD MAN, hoping Korda's power could wrest the rights to Cyrano from Selznick. I am not suggesting, Noel, that Greene did not write THE THIRD MAN for Korda and Carol Reed. In fact, it was one of Greene's rare shifts of practice, in that he wrote the script first -- and then the novel. All I am saying is that there was talk of Welles not only starring, but rewriting and directing, which if you examine the production notes is exactly what happened. It was Welles who had the idea of altering the script so that Harry Lime made his entrance late in the film; it was Welles who wrote "The Cuckoo Speech"; it was Welles who directed a number of the scenes, according to Reed, who had to let him do that in order to prevent Welles from bailing out and going back to shooting OTHELLO.
There is no use to continue re-hashing the rest of it, Noel. We have different views of the films and lives involved. I shall only say that there was a flow among these talented men, Welles, Hitchcock and Selznick. Some parts of their interactions are on the record; others were covert, not yet revealed. May I suggest that wherever we come across Welles, we find his fingerprints on everything and everyone he touched.
Welles had great presence on stage, on film and in person. His influence on the era is continually being revealed.
I leave it to the group.
Time will tell, as I always say, with great originality; it always does.
Regards.
Glenn
P.S. -- Thank you, Annie. I have read that article, "Touch of Psycho," in Bright Lights. It's amazing the linkage there is between the players, the characters, the settings, the choice of monchrome photo stock, etc., in TOUCH OF EVIL and PSYCHO. Some would call it all coincidence; I would not.
I think you will find "the cooling" -- I wouldn't call it a rift -- developed between Welles and Selznick over time. Both had giant egos, but the power and money were always on the Producer's side; Welles had the ideas but constantly needed money for new worlds to stage. When he found himself powerless, and was denied. Welles responded to setbacks with tongue and pen. Selznick gave him a number of opportunities, such as refusing to invest any substantial sum to stage or save Welles's stage extravaganza, Around the World in 80 Days, on Broadway. Thus, for instance, when Welles provided Selznick narration for Duel in the Sun, he allowed his amused contempt for the piece to show through in ripe parody. Selznick responded by not giving Welles a check he had been counting on but a pair of fine (symbolic?) duelling pistols instead.
The matter was exacerbated by the fact that Welles proceeded to write a screenplay based on Cyrano de Bergerac. Many say that it was a perfect script. (I would not be surprised that some members of our erudite company will have read it.) Welles saw himself perfect for the part of Cyrano at the time. He bolstered the role to make the long-nosed poet/swordsman as a truly viable rival to Christian for the love of Roxanne. He had Alexander Trauner doing the production design, and he wanted Jean Simmons for the star-making part of Roxanne.The picture would have brought the Mercury Players together again and established Welles as a romantic hero, while refurbishing his laurels as a writer-director. Unfortunately, Selznick had the rights for the property and would not give them up on terms Welles could meet.
Which brings us to THE THIRD MAN. One of the motivations for Welles going to Europe was to work on Cyrano. He became involved with Alexander Korda on THE THIRD MAN, hoping Korda's power could wrest the rights to Cyrano from Selznick. I am not suggesting, Noel, that Greene did not write THE THIRD MAN for Korda and Carol Reed. In fact, it was one of Greene's rare shifts of practice, in that he wrote the script first -- and then the novel. All I am saying is that there was talk of Welles not only starring, but rewriting and directing, which if you examine the production notes is exactly what happened. It was Welles who had the idea of altering the script so that Harry Lime made his entrance late in the film; it was Welles who wrote "The Cuckoo Speech"; it was Welles who directed a number of the scenes, according to Reed, who had to let him do that in order to prevent Welles from bailing out and going back to shooting OTHELLO.
There is no use to continue re-hashing the rest of it, Noel. We have different views of the films and lives involved. I shall only say that there was a flow among these talented men, Welles, Hitchcock and Selznick. Some parts of their interactions are on the record; others were covert, not yet revealed. May I suggest that wherever we come across Welles, we find his fingerprints on everything and everyone he touched.
Welles had great presence on stage, on film and in person. His influence on the era is continually being revealed.
I leave it to the group.
Time will tell, as I always say, with great originality; it always does.
Regards.
Glenn
P.S. -- Thank you, Annie. I have read that article, "Touch of Psycho," in Bright Lights. It's amazing the linkage there is between the players, the characters, the settings, the choice of monchrome photo stock, etc., in TOUCH OF EVIL and PSYCHO. Some would call it all coincidence; I would not.
-
Noel Shane
- Member
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 5:49 pm
Glenn,
The prose form of THE THIRD MAN was published after the movie, but it was written before the script as a basis from which to write the latter. Not only is this widely known, and stated in almost any editor's preface to the story, but it can be determined with a brief glance at the text, in which Holly Martins is named "Rollo Martins" (who writes westerns "under the name of Buck Dexter"): other such differences bespeak revision in the scripting and shooting processes.
You reiterate that there was "talk" of Welles directing and rewriting but don't cite any source on that except clues in the production notes, from which you've worked backwards to arrive at this conclusion. That Welles inserted his own dialogue in many instances (as was common practice for him on any film) is understood; however, that he revised the script so that Lime doesn't appear until late is preposterous! That is Greene's from the very first. Look at the PRE-script story, once again. In a story seventeen chapters in length, Lime's being alive is only discovered at the end of chapter eleven, in which (following the revelation that Lime was dealing in diluted penicillin in the previous chapter), Martins goes to Anna's flat and they have the "there isn't enough for two laughs" talk -- utterly recognizable to the finished form, albeit with similar evidence of later elaboration in the revision. Martins leaves when it's clear he won't be able to seduce Anna, and:
"...just around the corner, pressed against the wall to escape notice, was a thick stocky figure... Martins stood there, twenty yards away, staring at the silent motionless figure in the dark side street who stared back at him. A police spy perhaps, or an agent of those other men, those men who had corrupted Harry first and then killed him -- even possibly the third man?" (Etc.)
Brilliant of Welles to give that to Greene and co, wasn't it? I'm sorry, but I have trouble accepting some of your other assertions, out of hand, when something like this gets wrapped into pretzels trying to attribute as much as is humanly possible to Welles' intercession.
Like the links between PSYCHO and TOE, they reach a bit too far and a bit too clumsily to mean much to the record as it stands. Welles accomplished quite enough in reality, and was sufficiently influential as a result, to be the uniquely impressive figure that you and I hold dear.
The prose form of THE THIRD MAN was published after the movie, but it was written before the script as a basis from which to write the latter. Not only is this widely known, and stated in almost any editor's preface to the story, but it can be determined with a brief glance at the text, in which Holly Martins is named "Rollo Martins" (who writes westerns "under the name of Buck Dexter"): other such differences bespeak revision in the scripting and shooting processes.
You reiterate that there was "talk" of Welles directing and rewriting but don't cite any source on that except clues in the production notes, from which you've worked backwards to arrive at this conclusion. That Welles inserted his own dialogue in many instances (as was common practice for him on any film) is understood; however, that he revised the script so that Lime doesn't appear until late is preposterous! That is Greene's from the very first. Look at the PRE-script story, once again. In a story seventeen chapters in length, Lime's being alive is only discovered at the end of chapter eleven, in which (following the revelation that Lime was dealing in diluted penicillin in the previous chapter), Martins goes to Anna's flat and they have the "there isn't enough for two laughs" talk -- utterly recognizable to the finished form, albeit with similar evidence of later elaboration in the revision. Martins leaves when it's clear he won't be able to seduce Anna, and:
"...just around the corner, pressed against the wall to escape notice, was a thick stocky figure... Martins stood there, twenty yards away, staring at the silent motionless figure in the dark side street who stared back at him. A police spy perhaps, or an agent of those other men, those men who had corrupted Harry first and then killed him -- even possibly the third man?" (Etc.)
Brilliant of Welles to give that to Greene and co, wasn't it? I'm sorry, but I have trouble accepting some of your other assertions, out of hand, when something like this gets wrapped into pretzels trying to attribute as much as is humanly possible to Welles' intercession.
Like the links between PSYCHO and TOE, they reach a bit too far and a bit too clumsily to mean much to the record as it stands. Welles accomplished quite enough in reality, and was sufficiently influential as a result, to be the uniquely impressive figure that you and I hold dear.
While this doesn't directly involve Welles, I just wanted to say that anybody who's in New York this month or early next month, you might want to check out Henry IV, both parts being performed at the Lincoln Center Theater. Its getting rave reviews by the NY critics.
I saw it this past Saturday. I'm no theater critic, and the truth is that this is only the second time I've ever been to the theater and the first to see Shakespeare. But I thought the play was incredible. Both parts of Henry IV are presented in one performance, albeit in an almost 4-hour show. Kevin Kline plays Falstaff and while he may not have seemed as epic as Welles was, he gave an incredible performance. The other actors and actresses were great but I have to give kudos to Ethan Hawke. Not someone I'd expect to be a good Shakespearean actor, but he gave an emotional performance as Hotspur.
Comparing the two, this performance and Chimes at Midnight, I loved them both in their own ways. I would have to say that if there was only one thing that made me prefer one over the other, it would have to be at the end when Hal renounces Falstaff. In Chimes I loved the way it seemed to break up Hal. He knew what he had to do, but still seemed to hate doing it. In this live performance, Hal was colder. He didn't relish renoucing Falstaff, but it didn't seem like he was going to lose any sleep over it.
Anyway, if you are in NY, I'd recommend seeing it.
I saw it this past Saturday. I'm no theater critic, and the truth is that this is only the second time I've ever been to the theater and the first to see Shakespeare. But I thought the play was incredible. Both parts of Henry IV are presented in one performance, albeit in an almost 4-hour show. Kevin Kline plays Falstaff and while he may not have seemed as epic as Welles was, he gave an incredible performance. The other actors and actresses were great but I have to give kudos to Ethan Hawke. Not someone I'd expect to be a good Shakespearean actor, but he gave an emotional performance as Hotspur.
Comparing the two, this performance and Chimes at Midnight, I loved them both in their own ways. I would have to say that if there was only one thing that made me prefer one over the other, it would have to be at the end when Hal renounces Falstaff. In Chimes I loved the way it seemed to break up Hal. He knew what he had to do, but still seemed to hate doing it. In this live performance, Hal was colder. He didn't relish renoucing Falstaff, but it didn't seem like he was going to lose any sleep over it.
Anyway, if you are in NY, I'd recommend seeing it.
-
blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
-
Sir Bygber Brown
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:17 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Chimes is incredible - to those who haven't seen it. I got a spanish dvd off ebay - they're zero region - so they'll play in any player!
So many great things in it - Like Kane, Evil and The Trial, i can't pick just a few things i love in it - its one great shot or moment after another.
So many great things in it - Like Kane, Evil and The Trial, i can't pick just a few things i love in it - its one great shot or moment after another.
You may remember me from such sites as imdb, amazon and criterionforum as Ben Cheshire.
-
Sir Bygber Brown
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:17 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
And another difference between Hitch and Welles is that images are primary in Welles and words are primary in Hitch. Those over-long dialogue scenes where we're just looking at the same set with the same two characters setting up the action - this is not the stuff of a great cinematic visualist. Welles is so much more of an exciting visual stylist. And he cared about making exciting images. Hitch did some good things - The Lady Vanishes - for example, but if you watch Vertigo next to The Trial or Psycho next to the restored Touch of Evil, you'll giggle at the thought of comparing the two!
You may remember me from such sites as imdb, amazon and criterionforum as Ben Cheshire.
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
For those curious about the status of CHIMES, I've been told that the film is currently the subject of a French lawsuit by Adriana Saltzman (who inherited the rights from her late husband, CHIMES producer Harry Saltzman) against the Spanish producers of the film. A hearing was to have taken place recently, but I haven't heard any more. Hopefully, if things work out, we'll start seeing the film in circulation again, where it belongs, instead of the backalleys of eBay and tape trading circles.
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
What good news, Jeff. I've just come off jury duty -- 20 minutes. The Judge walked in with a cup of coffee in hand, told us to relax, the parties had settled. "I just work here. Go home. You're dismissed!}
Almost everyone, including at least one of the contestants, smiled happily and flowed out into the wintry sunlight.
May that be the case here.
Glenn
Almost everyone, including at least one of the contestants, smiled happily and flowed out into the wintry sunlight.
May that be the case here.
Glenn
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
From the Chicago Tribune site, it's reported that a restoration in progress of CHIMES will be screening this weekend at a Chicago theater; Michael Dawson, behind the OTHELLO "restoration," has been diligently working on the project for the last few years, according to the article, and the results, according to critic Michael Wilmington, are astonishing. My first thought was that the film is being put through the same treatment as OTHELLO, with its attendant changes, but without more info, there's no way to comment. Hopefully we'll hear more about this soon.
CHIMES link
CHIMES link
Return to “Macbeth, Othello, Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest