Any news on this other than Benamou was working on the handheld Eyemo footage that was posted last year? I was really surprised to read the note on page 78 of What Ever Happened To Orson Welles? by Joseph McBride that 143,345 feet of the film has yet to be transferred. Also mentioned was that 48,370 feet was subject to nitrate detioration.
I wonder how much money would be needed to preserve the whole lot?
Chip
It's All True Preservation Project?
Her new book was released yesterday: it promises to be the greatest single source on It's All true, and took her more than a decade to research and write:
http://www.amazon.com/Its-All....s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Its-All....s=books
-
Roger Ryan
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:09 am
I talked briefly with Ms. Benamou about this in early December. It requires quite a bit of money to develop and/or transfer all the footage to usable safety stock and that money has apparently only been forthcoming in drips and drabs. She commented that much of footage exists as small mags of film (probably 10 minutes in length or less) stored together in larger film reel cases, making it difficult to catalog what's available and to prioritize footage for preservation.
As McBride noted in his book, some of the money raised was used to transfer and preserve raw footage of various watercraft cruising around the Rio harbor (shot for the scene when the jangadeiros arrive on their raft), and some of it was used to transfer and preserve raw footage from the "My Friend Bonito" segment. The Rio harbor footage was shown in Locarno in 2005 and I would describe it as only marginally interesting (repeated takes of boats docking, etc.). The "Bonito" footage was not screened at the Locarno conference because, reportedly, the largely B-roll footage of bulls in training was even duller. This could very well have been a situation of not knowing what footage you have until you spend the time and money to develop and transfer it. With this in mind, I can understand the difficulty in raising the money to preserve more of these reels.
As McBride noted in his book, some of the money raised was used to transfer and preserve raw footage of various watercraft cruising around the Rio harbor (shot for the scene when the jangadeiros arrive on their raft), and some of it was used to transfer and preserve raw footage from the "My Friend Bonito" segment. The Rio harbor footage was shown in Locarno in 2005 and I would describe it as only marginally interesting (repeated takes of boats docking, etc.). The "Bonito" footage was not screened at the Locarno conference because, reportedly, the largely B-roll footage of bulls in training was even duller. This could very well have been a situation of not knowing what footage you have until you spend the time and money to develop and transfer it. With this in mind, I can understand the difficulty in raising the money to preserve more of these reels.
That's too bad the footage isn't that exciting...in the sense that if it was it would attract the money to get it transferred.
That said, anything Welles directed is worth saving. We should find out how much money is needed and see what we can do about raising awareness. You would think with the people active on this board we could figure out some way of combining our resources to see what we could do...
(That is as long as the hosting is all paid for for the the actual site!
)
That said, anything Welles directed is worth saving. We should find out how much money is needed and see what we can do about raising awareness. You would think with the people active on this board we could figure out some way of combining our resources to see what we could do...
(That is as long as the hosting is all paid for for the the actual site!
)A) It's amazing that they created an entire film/documentary on It's all True, and they don't know what footage there is- they don't know what's on the undeveloped film. Do I understand this correctly? It just seems very strange. How on earth did they create IAT?
B) I'm sure there was quite a bit of second unit stuff filmed, so it's not all directed by Welles.
???
B) I'm sure there was quite a bit of second unit stuff filmed, so it's not all directed by Welles.
???
-
Roger Ryan
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:09 am
Tony wrote:It's amazing that they created an entire film/documentary on It's all True, and they don't know what footage there is- they don't know what's on the undeveloped film. Do I understand this correctly? It just seems very strange. How on earth did they create IAT?
I agree that this seems perplexing. Most, if not all, of "Four Men On A Raft" was completed when Richard Wilson was still alive; if anyone knew what was on those reels it would have been Wilson. Also, both "Four Men..." and "Bonito" would have better documentation regarding shooting since one was a recreation and the other a fictional story. I tend to think all of the "Four Men..." footage is accounted for, but maybe not all of the outtakes have been transferred to safety stock (the reel I saw in Locarno was unedited rushes, but did contain a few shots that ended up in the "It's All True" documentary). The "Carnival" footage, on the other hand, is probably more difficult to catalog since it was four days of indiscriminate shooting by several units.
Again, this is speculation on my part. We know that Ms. Benamou has provided approximate footage lengths for the available film on each segment, but I get the impression that some of this footage (especially the "Bonito" stuff) has not been viewed. Whether that's due to the material not being developed or the nitrate stock being too fragile to view before transfering to safety stock (or a combination of both), I'm not sure. I'm hoping Ms. Benamou addresses this directly in her new book.
Benamou's book just arrived from Amazon. About 400 pages, $24 paperback shipped. This is one dense manuscript; the last 100 pages are devoted to endnotes and indexes. I've just got through the 20 page Introduction and I have to say, unless you're familiar with academic-style writing, you will have a difficult time plodding through. What is a complex series of events is made even more complex by the author's use of deconstructionist theory. Even with my limited familiarity with Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault, those were a rough 20 pages. Really need to put a bookmark on the endnote section to refer back when the more esoteric theoretical analyses pops up. Fascinating reading nontheless, particularly the political and social subtext of what Welles was trying to accomplish years before these anthropological documentaries became popular.
The Intro briefly mentions the It's All True preservation project. One of the issues is that some of the combustible nitrate stock that was transferred to safety stock had to eventually be transferred AGAIN to even more stable polymer stock. The safety stock, while not combustible, eventually deteriorates as well.
The Intro briefly mentions the It's All True preservation project. One of the issues is that some of the combustible nitrate stock that was transferred to safety stock had to eventually be transferred AGAIN to even more stable polymer stock. The safety stock, while not combustible, eventually deteriorates as well.
akio wrote:This is one dense manuscript; the last 100 pages are devoted to endnotes and indexes. I've just got through the 20 page Introduction and I have to say, unless you're familiar with academic-style writing, you will have a difficult time plodding through.
It is an unbelievably well-researched book that is also incredibly difficult to read. There is so much new information (Desi Arnaz trying to interest the AFI into taking the footage in the 1960s, for example) but it is a chore to read.
RayKelly wrote:akio wrote:This is one dense manuscript; the last 100 pages are devoted to endnotes and indexes. I've just got through the 20 page Introduction and I have to say, unless you're familiar with academic-style writing, you will have a difficult time plodding through.
It is an unbelievably well-researched book that is also incredibly difficult to read. There is so much new information (Desi Arnaz trying to interest the AFI into taking the footage in the 1960s, for example) but it is a chore to read.
Exactly. You'll be plowing through a complex paragraph, and then you come across some fascinating piece of footnoted information. Benamou cites that the funhouse sequence from Lady from Shanghai is basically lifted from the "Love Story" screenplay by John Fante which wasn't used in It's All True. The story itself wasn't a true story at all; Fante admits in correspondence to his father that he made it up in order to sell it.
I always knew Desi was a good guy; a real innovator in TV production in addition to being a strong supporter of Welles. I also recall Lucy saying that Welles spent more money on the "Fountain of Youth" wrap party than on the production itself; even allowing for possible exagerration, it's clear the Arnez's were pissed at Welles for overspending. There goes Orson, shooting himself in the foot yet again! He could have revolutionized television in adition to his accomplishments in stage, radio and film, but he just couldn't control himself. I remember him once saying, when looking at young Beatrice, that "She has no discipline- just like her old man".
I thought it interesting that the IAT footage was discovered in early 85 in a vault at Paramount (formerly Desilu, formerly RKO), but when told of it by a Paramount exec, Welles expressed no interest at all; rather he only asked "Did you find my Ambersons?"
Too bad: it could have been an interesting "F For Fake" type postmodern documentary of an interesting time in his life, but perhaps it was too painful. Still, another late opportunity lost, at a time when few offers were coming to fruition. Finishing IAT in 85 would have somewhat silenced the Highams who maintained the "fear of completion" thesis.
I thought it interesting that the IAT footage was discovered in early 85 in a vault at Paramount (formerly Desilu, formerly RKO), but when told of it by a Paramount exec, Welles expressed no interest at all; rather he only asked "Did you find my Ambersons?"
Too bad: it could have been an interesting "F For Fake" type postmodern documentary of an interesting time in his life, but perhaps it was too painful. Still, another late opportunity lost, at a time when few offers were coming to fruition. Finishing IAT in 85 would have somewhat silenced the Highams who maintained the "fear of completion" thesis.
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
It goes without saying that Catherine Benamou's new book is a must have for anyone interested in IT'S ALL TRUE. So after reading her synopsis of the three filmed segments Welles shot for IT'S ALL TRUE, as well as consulting the recently posted memos that Welles wrote to RKO, I decided to watch IT'S ALL TRUE again on the Paramount DVD.
To my great surprise, it seemed like a film I had never seen before, and one that I now found incredibly moving. After seein it again, I feel there isn't the slightest doubt that if Welles had been allowed to finish the film it would have been his third masterpiece in a row. It's truly an incredible piece of directorial acumen.
Of course, I must confess, that after all the years of hype, when I finally did see IT'S ALL TRUE in 1993 I was a bit disappointed. In fact, to be brutally honest, I was rather bored with it, and actually dozed off while watching FOUR MEN ON A RAFT. But let's face it, most contemporary viewers are really not prepared to watch what is essentially a silent movie today. Plus, I had no inkling about the various details regarding the background of the storyline of the film, which after reading CB's book, I am now far more more familiar with. So it's to be expected that you really have to bring a certain knowlege beforehand to understand and enjoy the movie. I think this is true to a great degree about almost every Welles film, excepting perhaps, THE STRANGER. Which is no doubt why Welles never had a box-office hit.
Another problem with FOUR MEN ON A RAFT was the musical score, which had received mostly bad reviews. I always felt that way, myself, but on re-viewing the film I think one reason the score seems so out of place is actually more due to technical reason. Think of Bernard Herrman's scores for KANE and AMBERSONS. They ran the gauntlet, from brassy, loud and epic, to delicate, beautiful and sublime. Both were masterpieces of music scoring.
Now, for IT'S ALL TRUE, the music obviously isn't up to the level of Herrmann's work, but's it's actually not bad. What's bad is how it has been dubbed into the movie.
Firstly, it's in stereo, so it seems completely out of place for a movie that way made 1942. This is really comparible to colorization of movies. Why should anyone expect or want to see a movie made in 1942 in stereo? Maybe they should have added computer animation to it as well.
And since FOUR MEN IN A RAFT is a film that has a complete lack of dialogue, the score has also been dubbed in at too high a volume. In contrast, the new foley of the ocean waves and other sound effects seems much more musical than the music itself.
But despite these flaws with the soundtrack, when I saw the film on DVD again, it gave me a completely different outlook on the movie. It also made me realize that Welles's work on FOUR MEN ON A RAFT was actually filmed on a budget of only $12,000. Talk about genius on a budget!
What was even more astonishing, though, was the brief excerpts from the Technicolor footage of the CARNIVAL episode. They are even more incredible than I had remembered. The footage Welles shot of CARNIVAL is so ravishingly beautiful, it is almost beyond belief! It brought tears to my eyes, watching this fabulous footage. It's easily some of the best three-strip Technicolor I've ever seen, and to imagine there is apparently much more of this footage waiting to be restored, except that no studio or backer seems to want to spend the money needed to perserve it.
As a result, it just sits in a vault, decomposing.
Can you imagine that?
The first Technicolor footage ever shot by Orson Welles may be lost forever! It's really an artistic crime.
Now, imagine if IT'S ALL TRUE were a canvas by Picasso or Van Gogh and was sitting in somebody's basement in Hollywood getting moldy. In that case, we'd have thousands of rich idiots lining up wanting to pay 20 million or more to buy it so they could hang it on their wall.
Well, maybe that's the solution. Offer anyone who wants to invest $10,000,000. to restore IT'S ALL TRUE the ownership rights. Then maybe somebody would realize what an incredible piece of art we are in danger of losing.
Steven Spielberg, are you listening?
To my great surprise, it seemed like a film I had never seen before, and one that I now found incredibly moving. After seein it again, I feel there isn't the slightest doubt that if Welles had been allowed to finish the film it would have been his third masterpiece in a row. It's truly an incredible piece of directorial acumen.
Of course, I must confess, that after all the years of hype, when I finally did see IT'S ALL TRUE in 1993 I was a bit disappointed. In fact, to be brutally honest, I was rather bored with it, and actually dozed off while watching FOUR MEN ON A RAFT. But let's face it, most contemporary viewers are really not prepared to watch what is essentially a silent movie today. Plus, I had no inkling about the various details regarding the background of the storyline of the film, which after reading CB's book, I am now far more more familiar with. So it's to be expected that you really have to bring a certain knowlege beforehand to understand and enjoy the movie. I think this is true to a great degree about almost every Welles film, excepting perhaps, THE STRANGER. Which is no doubt why Welles never had a box-office hit.
Another problem with FOUR MEN ON A RAFT was the musical score, which had received mostly bad reviews. I always felt that way, myself, but on re-viewing the film I think one reason the score seems so out of place is actually more due to technical reason. Think of Bernard Herrman's scores for KANE and AMBERSONS. They ran the gauntlet, from brassy, loud and epic, to delicate, beautiful and sublime. Both were masterpieces of music scoring.
Now, for IT'S ALL TRUE, the music obviously isn't up to the level of Herrmann's work, but's it's actually not bad. What's bad is how it has been dubbed into the movie.
Firstly, it's in stereo, so it seems completely out of place for a movie that way made 1942. This is really comparible to colorization of movies. Why should anyone expect or want to see a movie made in 1942 in stereo? Maybe they should have added computer animation to it as well.
And since FOUR MEN IN A RAFT is a film that has a complete lack of dialogue, the score has also been dubbed in at too high a volume. In contrast, the new foley of the ocean waves and other sound effects seems much more musical than the music itself.
But despite these flaws with the soundtrack, when I saw the film on DVD again, it gave me a completely different outlook on the movie. It also made me realize that Welles's work on FOUR MEN ON A RAFT was actually filmed on a budget of only $12,000. Talk about genius on a budget!
What was even more astonishing, though, was the brief excerpts from the Technicolor footage of the CARNIVAL episode. They are even more incredible than I had remembered. The footage Welles shot of CARNIVAL is so ravishingly beautiful, it is almost beyond belief! It brought tears to my eyes, watching this fabulous footage. It's easily some of the best three-strip Technicolor I've ever seen, and to imagine there is apparently much more of this footage waiting to be restored, except that no studio or backer seems to want to spend the money needed to perserve it.
As a result, it just sits in a vault, decomposing.
Can you imagine that?
The first Technicolor footage ever shot by Orson Welles may be lost forever! It's really an artistic crime.
Now, imagine if IT'S ALL TRUE were a canvas by Picasso or Van Gogh and was sitting in somebody's basement in Hollywood getting moldy. In that case, we'd have thousands of rich idiots lining up wanting to pay 20 million or more to buy it so they could hang it on their wall.
Well, maybe that's the solution. Offer anyone who wants to invest $10,000,000. to restore IT'S ALL TRUE the ownership rights. Then maybe somebody would realize what an incredible piece of art we are in danger of losing.
Steven Spielberg, are you listening?
Todd
I disagree Todd:
To my mind IAT was a disaster of film editing, foley effects, narration and music. I can imagine a much better production quite easily: first, you must be brutal with the cutting: the movie as it stands is just boring. Secondly, you need much better foley work: the present sounds are really fake sounding. Third, you need a good composer, probably Brazilian, who can do appropriate music. And finally you need to redo the narration: I would suggest a combination of Welles from various sources (radio, Bogdanovich tapes, BBC, etc.) and a very subtle narrator, not slick sounding like the present one.
Then you'd have a really good film.
:;):
To my mind IAT was a disaster of film editing, foley effects, narration and music. I can imagine a much better production quite easily: first, you must be brutal with the cutting: the movie as it stands is just boring. Secondly, you need much better foley work: the present sounds are really fake sounding. Third, you need a good composer, probably Brazilian, who can do appropriate music. And finally you need to redo the narration: I would suggest a combination of Welles from various sources (radio, Bogdanovich tapes, BBC, etc.) and a very subtle narrator, not slick sounding like the present one.
Then you'd have a really good film.
:;):
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest