'The Deep' rough cut

[mido505]

There are various versions of this slanderous story circulating around. Here is the most explicit one, recently related by Oja herself at Woodstock:

THE DEEP was not finished because Jeanne Moreau refused to dub her lines. It had nothing to do with Lawrence Harvey's death. Jeanne Moreau and Welles apparently had had a romantic relationship because Moreau was very jealous of Kodar on the set of THE DEEP. "You're going to do the same thing to me that Antonioni did with Monica Vitti!" she screamed at Welles. Welles's lawyer, Arnold Weissberger, advised Welles to sue Moreau for breach of contract, but Welles did not want to do that as he still considered her a friend.

It's a garbage story, and it's time to put it to rest.

Moreau, an icon of European cinema, acted in four films for Welles during his most brilliant and fertile creative period: THE TRIAL, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, THE IMMORTAL STORY, and the unfinished THE DEEP. A tough woman whose dedication to her art matches Orson's own, Moreau has a well-deserved reputation for siding with her directors, and for standing up to meddling producers. Nonetheless, she was also box-office, and in high demand. It is likely that her presence in Welles's films helped get them funded.

Moreau is a consummate professional, who has always spoken of Welles in god-like terms in interviews. It is unthinkable that she would wreck a film because of a jealous snit. Not only would such an action harm Welles, it would sully Moreau's own reputation. Such was Moreau's dedication to Welles that she often took no money up front for her involvement, instead accepting a back end deal. For example, on THE IMMORTAL STORY, Moreau took a piece of the theatrical and broadcast distribution rights outside of France. This was not lucrative. According to an account in the great book ORSON WELLES AT WORK, "neither Welles, nor Moreau, nor their producer received a penny from the film they had made for the love of cinema". Nonetheless, Moreau immediately signed up for THE DEEP.

Once again, Moreau took no salary. According to Kodar herself, "Moreau agreed to be paid later". She probably made a deal similar to the one made for THE IMMORTAL STORY. But this time, Moreau would not just be betting on herself, and on Orson. She was not carrying the film. This time, Orson (and Moreau) would be betting the farm on an untried and, as it became increasingly apparent, hopelessly untalented amateur, who just happened to be having an affair with her director.

My guess is that Moreau must have been appalled. She may have tried to talk some sense into Welles. Moreover, given her age and immaturity, and the personality traits that have recently become so apparent, Oja was probably insufferable. I can imagine the cattiness, and the snottiness, and the disrespect for Moreau. I suspect she just waltzed around with her nose in the air, letting everyone, especially Moreau, know that she was Orson's special lady. No wonder Moreau blew a gasket.

If the Lawrence Harvey anecdote is to be believed, Welles finally lost his temper with Oja, and shut down production. When it resumed in a desultory fashion, only Orson, Oja, and a scratch crew were present, although most of the important scenes seem to have been in the can.

I think that, seeing the way THE DEEP was going, Moreau probably thought THE DEEP, if it ever got finished, would be a bomb. Having been burned (through no fault of her own, or Orson's) on THE IMMORTAL STORY, she probably reversed herself and demanded some money up front, and used the dubbing issue as leverage. I am sure there are letters between Weissberger and Welles on the subject, but they exist in a wider context. That Moreau has stated publicly that she was waiting to do the dubbing, but never got the call, leads me to think that the issue was resolved, but that Welles, for his own reasons, decided not to finish THE DEEP.

The question still remains, why not? My guess is that Welles knew that Moreau was right, and that THE DEEP would be an embarrassment for him. The tipping point was probably the Italian scandal, when the Roman gutter press got wind of Welles's relationship with Kodar. Welles was so angry, and so concerned not to embarrass his family, that he left Italy, and Europe, for good, and relocated to the United States. There is an interesting anecdote from editor Mauro Bonanni, who worked in THE DEEP, that confirms my suspicion:

You know, for example, because of The Deep being there, he wanted to work more on it? But I told him one day at lunch - it was just me and him – “Can you imagine, Welles, the day when the movie comes out, there will be a few reviews, and they’ll all speak only of the leading actress, Oja?” Because of this, there was deathly silence on his part ... and that was why we did not do any more work on it. There were still scenes with her that didn’t work because, unfortunately, at that stage of her career, she was having trouble. And I, as a young naif, I said such a thing to him. Shame on me.

Of course, Oja Kodar, who at age 74 has no need to be diplomatic, as she insists in interviews, is not going to admit this. So she distorts history and slanders a woman who is not only a great artist, but also a great friend to Orson.

[jdrouette]

I've recently been in touch with "major pepper", who was lucky enough to attend the Cinémathèque Française's screening of the work print of THE DEEP July 18th, 2015. He was very happy to provide a detailed description of film and the event, but didn't feel confident he could do so in English. I offered to translate his text from French to English for the benefit of the board, and he agreed, asking me to post it here on his behalf.

Stefan Drössler and DP Willy Kurant were present to describe the missing scenes and provide some production history and anecdotes.

Since the camera negative has been destroyed, the quality of the surviving film elements varies quite a bit, even though the print from which the video copy was derived looked well-preserved. Eighty to ninety percent of the work print was comprised of reasonably good quality black and white footage, although the finished film was always intended to be in colour. Stefan Drössler explained that Orson Welles had the rushes printed in B/W as a cost-cutting measure. The few shot processed in colour shots were quite beautiful despite being significantly faded. Blue skies had unmistakably turned red. If the film was ever to be released commercially, major restoration and colour correction could prove a daunting task, and it's unclear whether it would be feasibly accomplished

Roughly 5 to 10% of the print was overexposed with poor definition, making it difficult to see the actors' faces. For a minute or two, the image also became unstable and drifted out of frame to the left. I presume this was due to a telecine problem, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the technical side of things to say for sure. During the film's final 15 minutes, the image got progressively darker up until the climax, which was mercifully not affected. This darkening obscured the most burlesque and jubilant part of the film in which the Orpheus's crew threw paint and other flammable products onto the boat while shooting flares into the sky. During this scene, the image is so dark that I got the impression that the multi-coloured paint splashing onto the screen was actually an optical effect. The darkening ends at the point where an underwater sequence was to begin. Only a fragment of this scene remained - a shot of John (Michael Bryant) diving into the water explore the bottom of the yacht.

The actual edit was indeed based on Welles's own work print, with the exception of one scene - Rae's (Oja Kodar) dream sequence, which was filmed later and was reportedly not present in the shooting script. According to Drössler, this sequence could only be inserted at the head or tail of the work print itself. Otherwise, white leader stood in for missing inserts. During those sections, Drössler would describe the missing elements - usually short B-roll inserts which could easily be shot without requiring the cast - such as a shot of a bottle dropping into the sea. The more important missing scenes were concentrated near the end of the film. Without venturing too far into spoiler territory, I can say that the eventual appearance of sharks immediately reminded me of great picnic scene from THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI.

Instead of having the multiple takes play back sequentially as they had on the actual Munich Cinematheque print, this presentation only retained the best ones. The only exception for which multiple takes were kept in was a monologue by Hughie (Laurence Harvey) in which he acts both menacingly and seductively towards Rae. First, she looks terrified as we hear his off-screen voice, then we see the scene again from her POV with him (in a striking extreme close-up) looking aggressively at her (and at us). I presume that a decision was made not to intercut the two angles in order to show the full take of Harvey's impressive performance.

Since Welles had never completed post-production, this print had no music other than a short bass and piano jazz piece, added, I presume, by the Munich Cinematheque. This music worked so well with the the on-screen action that it made me regret the absence of a complete score. All the dialog tracks were from the original production audio, and although they hadn't gone through any additional sweetening, they were clear enough to follow. Unfortunately, there were also a few silent sequences for which no sound had been recorded (or had survived). The actual dialogue was apparently present in the script, no effort was made to subtitle these scenes to ease comprehension. I was particularly disappointed that much of Welles's own dialog was missing, since his character was clearly the most colourful and eccentric of the lot. For example, when John, seen repeatedly hanging from the ship's mast in low-angle shots, becomes increasingly tyrannical on board the Orpheus, Ruth responds with a forceful "Jawohl, mein Führer!"

Willy Kurant (the film's DP) shared a few memories from the film's shoot with us in perfect French. He related a few anecdotes and, even after all the years, he hasn't gotten over the fact that the negative had been ceased and destroyed by French customs.

The shoot had originally been planned for Spain, but was relocated closer to Oja Kodar's home in Croatia.

Welles insisted on one particular camera, the Cameflex, which had a singularly large viewfinder. He found that other cameras weren't well-suited for a head as large as his own. However, the Cameflex had one major drawback, however: it was loud! This explains why we often heard the camera's motor noise over the actors' dialog. The Cameflex was also the source of other anxieties when Welles had to wait several days for it to be delivered to the set. The entire cast and crew waited, at great expense, only to finally discover that the precious camera had in fact arrived on the first day at the hotel where Welles and the crew were staying.

Kurant also explained that Welles intended to shoot the entire film backlit. They covered the lens with a stocking when shooting Jeanne Moreau's close-ups to soften her features. He recalled Welles yelling at owner of the yacht when the wind changed direction, keeping them from shooting against the sun. The sailor tried to explain that it was impossible to move against the wind, but Welles wouldn't hear any of it. With a laugh, Kurant recalled that Welles shouted at the sailor that his own job was to film with a camera and that the sailor's job was to allow him shoot like he wished, keeping the yacht positioned against the sun!

Kurant also explained his technique for keeping the camera steady on rough seas - keeping it tucked firmly against his stomach. He also recalled he dangers he unconsciously faced shooting alone on a canoe a few hundred meters away from the yacht.

If we're to believe Welles' own statements, THE DEEP was intended to be a commercial project calculated to re-ignite his directing career; a thriller full of action and suspense. Although it's impossible to judge the final film based solely on the unfinished work print, I felt that the film's introspective and psychological elements came across more strongly than the action. The humorous excerpts seen in THE ONE MAN BAND documentary did not strike me as being very representative of the film as a whole in its present state. Except for a few action scenes making ample use of the zoom, Welles focused in large part on the more claustrophobic elements and on the emotionally-charged psychological state of the characters.

Shot entirely aboard two boats drifting in the middle of the ocean, THE DEEP did not contain any scenes set on land. Despite this technical constraint, the film never felt visually monotonous, the inventiveness of the direction keeping things fresh with elegantly composed shots typical of Welles's work. A splendidly composed shot from Jeanne Moreau's POV had the sea appear rhythmically in front of her while intercutting with the horizon moving up and down behind her as the yacht dips with the waves. We know that Willy Kurant held the camera perfectly steady against his stomach, so the shots were clearly an artistic choice, not an accident.

THE DEEP bathes in a climate of paranoia, keeping the spectator in a constant state of doubt. We never really know who the good and the bad guys are in the confined spaces that separate two couples aboard two different vessels. Ruth's (Jeanne Moreau) admissions about her psychopathic husband keep us from judging her too harshly, like Rae, a hostage who eventually pushes a gun barrel away from her attacker Hughie. The character relationships remain largely ambiguous, like when a liaison seems to appear between Rae and Hughie and we're unsure if this is simply her ruse for survival or a real mutual attraction.

Not having read the script nor the novel on which it was based, I had a hard time understanding certain parts of the story, particularly the climax. This may have been due to the fact that we didn't have access to essential dialog or to entire missing scenes. Going by what I saw, and by Stefan Drössler's detailing of the missing scenes, the story plays like this:

John (Bryant) and Rae (Kodar) are young newlyweds on their honeymoon aboard the Saracen, a well-maintained yacht running low on fuel. The Saracen sails out into the ocean, farther and farther away from the coast. The camera lovingly follows Oja Kodar as she removes her bathrobe to reveal her nude body. John's hand moves down to caress her back, then he pushes her violently into the water and starts the motor, abandoning her in the ocean. Rae awakens, startled, and tells her husband her strange feelings of solitude and abandonment. These scenes prepare us for Hughie's (Harvey) eventual discomfort every time he sees something fall into the water. When John and Rae rescue Hughie onto their yacht, John calls Hughie's bluff when the latter claims to be the only survivor of the Orpheus following a food poisoning incident that supposedly killed the other passengers. With Rae staying aboard the Saracen with Hughie, John boards and explores the Orpheus which is slowly sinking. He discovers a man and a woman locked away in one of the cabins, when he hears Rae screaming in the distance. She's been taken hostage by Hughie on the Saracen which is sailing away at high speed. The Orpheus, taking on water with torn sails, belonged to Hughie and Ruth (Moreau), an unhappy couple. They were accompanied by Russ (Welles), a ridiculous hunter incapable of steering a boat despite the captain's hat permanently affixed to his head.

Only Rae can save her husband and the Orpheus's passengers of certain death as they struggle to pump the water out of their boat. Who knows if she will let herself be seduced by her kidnapper, if she will confront him, or try to use the radio to call for help. Although she appears late in the film and has much less screen time than Kodar, I was impressed by Moreau's sober performance. Her best scenes are those where she defends Hughie's actions to John while remaining emotionally ambivalent about her husband. Through her, we learn Hughie's story, his problem with women dating back to his childhood with an absent father and overprotective mother. Hughie has never really attained adulthood. He gains Rae and Ruth's sympathies, but never their trust.

Welles's character, both ridiculous and wry, stands in sharp contrast with Bryant's, who becomes progressively tyrannical and unsympathetic. Russ is a dime store sailor ironically decked out with his captain's hat; a loser who always finds himself in the direct trajectory of buckets of water or paint thrown by John, and who never seems to notice the holes in his own bucket as he uselessly struggles to pour water from the boat. Initially, though, Russ appears more sympathetic than Ruth. Gradually, as their real natures are revealed by their actions, our sympathies completely shift. John also softens up in Ruth's presence, who confides in the husband of her own husband's hostage. We expect John and Ruth to develop some sort of bond, but each one remains focused on their own quest: John wants to save his wife, while Ruth and Ross are driven by their desire for vengeance. From this pessimistic state of affairs, only Rae gains the audience's real admiration, through her actions based on her humanity and compassion for her aggressor.

[RayKelly]

I have spent the past few months going through old newspaper clippings from the 1960s, vintage and new interviews and files now available at the University of Michigan for 'Dark voyages: The Deep and Dead Calm.' It recounts how Orson Welles unfinished thriller gave birth to the movie that launched Nicole Kidman's Hollywood career.

http://www.wellesnet.com/dark-voyages-the-deep-and-dead-calm/

[Roger Ryan]

Superb article, Ray - you made some interesting connections between the dots.

[tonyw]

I second that, Roger. Ray has done a fine job trying to untangle the knotted threads concerning this film's history. It should also be added that Noyce not only directed the best film version of Graham Greene's THE QUIET AMERICAN giving the story back to Greene as opposed to the CIA 1958 influenced version but one of teh finest films about Australian journalism - NEWSFRONT with the late Bill Hunter. I'll have to search out that Kidman film.

[Roger Ryan]

...Noyce not only directed the best film version of Graham Greene's THE QUIET AMERICAN giving the story back to Greene as opposed to the CIA 1958 influenced version but one of the finest films about Australian journalism - NEWSFRONT with the late Bill Hunter...

You might be pleased to know that I saw NEWSFRONT at a repertory cinema in the early 80s as part of a double feature - it was paired with CITIZEN KANE!

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks Ray, for an outstanding article. A second Welles DEEP film from 1964? Let's hope so. I wonder who co-starred in that?

Also, a belated thanks to JDrouettte for translating Major Popper's interesting rundown of the Deep showing in Paris.

Willy Kurant (the film's DP) shared a few memories from the film's shoot with us in perfect French. He related a few anecdotes and, even after all the years, he hasn't gotten over the fact that the negative had been ceased and destroyed by French customs.

That's hard to believe.

DEAD CALM is a fine thriller, BTW. Haven't seen it in about 20 years, though.

[tonyw]

I'm also skeptical about Oja's comments over Jeanne Moreau. Granted that she was not in her 20s at the time of THE DEEP she remained an attractive looking woman well into the early 1970s. Who is the real Elsa Bannister in this saga? The recent turn of events seem to go in Beatrice's favor very much like Hawks's THE BIG SLEEP (1946) moves towards a sympathetic view of Lauren Bacall's character.

[Le Chiffre]

Yes, Oja's comments about Moreau sound pretty catty (it's unfathomable that Welles wouldn't have made it clear to Moreau from the start which role she would be playing in the film), but then, I've gotten to the point where I'm skeptical about anything anyone says about any of Welles's unfinished projects. We've heard so many contradictory things over the years it's hard to know what to believe anymore. So I tend not to fully believe anything. If you look at the Druga Stana Welles excerpts posted on Vimeo...

https://vimeo.com/145153908?utm_source= ... aign=29220

...Moreau speaks fondly of both the picture and Welles. One thing that is pretty well established, however, is that Welles was not very loyal when it came to women.

[RayKelly]

it's unfathomable that Welles wouldn't have made it clear to Moreau from the start which role she would be playing in the film,

Unfathomable, but apparently true.

Cinematographer Willy Kurant to Cinematheque in 2003: "My third and final collaboration with Welles was The Deep, whose script neither Jeanne Moreau nor I had read. I had only read the novel by Charles Williams... There wasn't a script available, but one day Orson's secretary left her copy on the side of the boat and Jeanne read it. She realized her role wasn't as big as Oja Kodar's. So the work stopped for one day while the two actresses spoke via their agents."

The age/beauty issue troubles me. Laurence Harvey, Michael Bryant and Moreau were ALL born in 1928. (Oja Kodar was 13 years their junior and 26 years younger than Welles).
It is not inconceivable to me that the husband-wife characters in The Deep might be the same age.
Of course, Nicole Kidman was 20 years younger than her on-screen spouse, Sam Neill, in Dead Calm.

[Le Chiffre]

Cinematographer Willy Kurant to Cinematheque in 2003: "My third and final collaboration with Welles was The Deep, whose script neither Jeanne Moreau nor I had read. I had only read the novel by Charles Williams... There wasn't a script available, but one day Orson's secretary left her copy on the side of the boat and Jeanne read it. She realized her role wasn't as big as Oja Kodar's. So the work stopped for one day while the two actresses spoke via their agents."

Yes, that makes more sense. It probably wouldn't have been wise for an actress of Moreau's international stature to be playing second fiddle to a untested newcomer like Oja. Reminds me of the story Friedkin told on The Projection Booth episode on SORCERER of losing Steve McQueen for the lead and then losing Marcello Mastriani because he wouldn't take second billing to Roy Scheider. Lot of politics when it comes to putting a film package together.

Here's another famous statement by Moreau that contradicts Oja's version of events:

Ah, but Orson…that huge, strong man, you know that he’s very easily loved, but it’s very easy to hurt him…he’s capable of such beautiful things, and it’s so hard for him now to make a film that you wouldn’t be the little stone that stops the machine from going, once he has the chance to make a film. - Jeanne Moreau

[A Sled in Flames]

Watched it and loved it! Despite the workprint quality of the footage, of all the things shown at MOMA, I wish this would be released... perhaps with a Criterion BD of Chimes at Midnight (though the more likely supplement would be Merchant of Venice).

Though Welles's was moving onto more experimental work at the time, I found it personally gratifying to see a regular thriller- fun and capably made.

The story is basic yet compelling. Sometimes the simplest plots are the best. It's a nice touch that not one scene is set on land. Right from the dream sequence at the beginning, the audience is made to feel uneasy, set adrift in a boat with no clear geographical marker except some vague stretch of land called "The Skeleton Coast." By the end of the film, it is as if nothing has been resolved, a bit of a contrast to Welles's thrillers from the classic Hollywood era.

As Mr. Drossler explained, the interpretation that the movie is about the concerns around a newly formed marriage seems to come through fairly clearly. For this reason, it is fascinating to see the husband's character arc into a tyranical captain- a quasi-Ahab if you will.

Lawrence Harvey acquits himself well in the role of a man who we assume, though are not entirely sure, is psychotic. He is unhinged, yet undeniably interesting... whether he is talking about feet or noses (this actually happens). Oja Kodar is also quite good as the young wife; the role is far more than the basic damsel in distress. Of course, Mr. Welles himself is very, very funny in the role of a cynical, boozing sailor, though his drinking may have sad roots, considering his character's wife died... or so it seems.

One of the central aspects of the film, which intrigued me-- very Wellesian-- is the degree of ambiguity. We never find out the definite truth of what happened on the boat. First, Harvey's character tells us it has something to do with Russian-packed(?) salmon, a strange bit of Cold War paranoia. Then, Welles's sailor tells us the story of how Harvey's character killed his wife then pretended sharks did it, even cutting his hand to bolster his story. BUT, when Harvey's character tells the shark story to the young wife, it almost seems convincing. Finally, Jeanne Moreau, the wife of Harvey's character, begins to allude to an incident that triggered Harvey's madness when she is untimely stopped from divulging any more...

Though the other actors are all magnificent in their roles, Moreau no doubt makes the star turn. Playing the wife of an insane man, she carefully convinces us why we shouldn't be so eager to deal out justice. Her loyalty is undeniably touching. She sticks by her husband, truly for better or worse, understanding there is a reason he is what he is.

All in all, The Deep is a great thriller. Though it is in by no means a complete state, I personally believe that an entertaining version can be made with some basic editing (the reconstruction as it stands is basically just raw footage). The primary obstacles are the variable quality of the video and the lack of certain dialogue. The former could be excused; the whole thing is watchable. As for the latter, I think dubbing, for better or worse, may be in order... They dubbed Olivier when they restored scenes to Spartacus and Lee Van Cleef when they did the same for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Certainly, a dubbed version of The Deep is better than none at all! Alternatively, subtitles could be used. Mr. Drossler points out that the script, though missing the bookending dream scenes, does exist.

Really, after all is said and done, I personally would rather see The Deep released than The Other Side of the Wind... While the latter is bogged down by legal issues and its almost unfathomable, avant garde structure, the other should be a relatively straightforward last hurrah for Welles.

[jbrooks]

I too saw and loved the work print version of "The Deep" that screened last night at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Yes, it's a fairly-straight forward thriller. Yes, it's probably "minor Welles." But "The Stranger" and "Lady from Shanghai" are also "minor Welles." So just because it isn't another "Chimes at Midnight" doesn't mean that it isn't a great little movie on its own terms.

I disagree with those who think that the film plays like any TV director could have directed it. There are technical limitations, of course, imposed by the low budget and by the fact that it's shot on actual boats at sea. But to me, it played as an intriguing and moody psychological thriller, reminiscent of Polanski's "Knife in the Water." It desperately needs tighter editing, ADR, foley work and a score. But the foundations are there.

The performances are very interesting. With so much of the dialogue missing, it's impossible to fully judge, of course. But Harvey is very effective as the creepy and then somewhat sympathetic madman. (To be honest, I couldn't tell how much of Harvey's dialogue was dubbed by Welles. His voice seemed consistent to me. In contrast, there is one bit of Michael Bryant's dialogue that Welles dubbed that stands out as obviously Welles' voice). Welles is great in a partially comic performance -- though most of his dialogue is missing. Moreau is excellent. And even Oja Kodar is fine. She may be a bit less comfortable than the others. But to me, she was good enough to cast much doubt on the suggestion that Welles never finished the project because he feared she'd receive harsh reviews. Her on screen performance was compelling enough that, with some well-directed looping, she would have held her own fine.

The condition of the work print has been fairly accurately described by others in this thread. It would take a lot of work and money to get it into good shape. My guess is that with modern digital restoration/colorization tools, it would be possible. But it may be cost prohibitive. The content of the film seems 95% complete or perhaps more. All that seems to be missing are a few insert shots of items sinking into the sea (a bottle etc.) that could be fairly easily done now. Also missing is the underwater fight between Welles and Harvey and the shark attack that ends the fight and both men's lives. That could probably be constructed by some combination of body doubles and CGI effects and stock footage of a shark. Or (more cheaply) stock footage of a shark could be used to hint at their fate. My biggest concern is that all the on-boat action of the climax feels very rushed. If there is no additional footage to use, it may be difficult for the audience to follow exactly what happens in the big confrontation on deck before Welles and Harvey plummet into the sea. At the screening last night, Droessler had to explain the climax to the audience.

To respond to a point in A Sled in Flame's post above, I don't think the food poisoning in the salmon was attributed in the film to the Russians. My recollection is that the Harvey character says that it was not commercially canned and that the other couple had canned it themselves.

I also strongly disagree with A Sled in Flame's comparison of the relative merits of "The Deep" and "The Other Side of the Wind." Welles was playing on a whole other level with the latter. I've seen enough of "Wind" to know that, if it is a failure, it is a magnificent failure. And it is not correct that it has an "unfathomable avant garde structure." I think A Sled in Flames is confusing the film with the film-within-the-film. Hannaford's "Wind" has an "unfathomable avant garde structure." But Welles' "Wind" has a story and a clear structure. Anyone confused by the various clips floating around should get a copy of the screenplay. It's not "unfathomable" at all.

As for "The Deep," though it doesn't reach for greatness in the same way "Wind" does, it is a worthwhile effort, and I very much hope that Stefan Droessler and his team continue working on it. Just the addition of missing dialogue (dubbed by new actors) and a musical score would be enough to make the film play very well (even in its current beaten-up visual state).

[RayKelly]

I don't know how it would be possible to turn what I saw on Sunday into a finished film (given the state of the workprint), but I think a more polished assembly is possible.
Dubbing, or subtitles, is desperately needed. If Stefan gets the resources, I am sure he will do a fine job.
Sorry,I thought Oja was god awful. To call her adequate would be kind.
The Deep could have been a solid, respectable thriller. For whatever reason, Welles abandoned it.
Personally, I don't buy it had anything to do with dubbing Moreau or Harvey. Welles used alternate voice actors in Othello and other projects.
Prior seeing The Deep, it had been described to me as playing like a 1970s ABC Movie of the Week.
While that may sound harsh, consider that Steven Spielberg's Duel was an ABC Movie of the Week.

[A Sled in Flames]

To respond to a point in A Sled in Flame's post above, I don't think the food poisoning in the salmon was attributed in the film to the Russians. My recollection is that the Harvey character says that it was not commercially canned and that the other couple had canned it themselves.

I had a feeling that Russian-canned salmon was too weird even for Welles's standards, hence my question mark after "Russian-packed(?)." Nonetheless, Cold War paranoia has precedence in Welles's films, with the mention of bombs dropping in Lady from Shanghai. If someone on here has the script, it would probably be more helpful than the recollections of two audience members listening to distorted dialogue...

I also strongly disagree with A Sled in Flame's comparison of the relative merits of "The Deep" and "The Other Side of the Wind." Welles was playing on a whole other level with the latter. I've seen enough of "Wind" to know that, if it is a failure, it is a magnificent failure. And it is not correct that it has an "unfathomable avant garde structure." I think A Sled in Flames is confusing the film with the film-within-the-film. Hannaford's "Wind" has an "unfathomable avant garde structure." But Welles' "Wind" has a story and a clear structure. Anyone confused by the various clips floating around should get a copy of the screenplay. It's not "unfathomable" at all.

Doing that last post pretty late, I don't think I chose the right words. Were I to write the post again, I would say "its highly experimental nature" as opposed to an "unfathomable avant garde structure." It certainly is coherent, and I never had any aspersions to the contrary. But, that said, it is very experimental in its uniquely fast cutting and mix of different stocks- black and white color. Even today, it's quite unusual. The film comes across very much as the more narratively-grounded successor to F for Fake.

In an ideal world, I would want to see both incomplete Welles films in a complete form. I fear, though, with its long sections devoted to the movie within the movie and experimental editing, Other Side of the Wind could be merely the "magnificent failure" that jbrooks admits it could be. Perhaps further editing could improve the overall pace, though it would be hard to improve the performances. Unlike The Deep, the clips that I've seen of The Other Side of the Wind (now over 30 minutes total?) don't really blow me away acting-wise. John Huston seems to fare the best, but put that against the turns by Lawrence Harvey, Jeanette Moreau, or even Welles himself in the other film! It may be heresy to say: I appreciate it, but, like it... not so much. It's very impressive that they raised $400K for the IndieGoGo campaign, which I still hope will lead to an end product down the road, but the advertising seemed based around the fact that it was a lost Welles film and less that it was a magnificent achievement. Why not post clips to prove what an innovative, interesting, and good film it was? Perhaps rights issues, perhaps not...

And, again, this relates to my personal tastes as I tried to stress in my last post: "personally believe"/"personally would rather."

Personally, I like Welles the best when he deals with the seemingly unimportant people, not rich newspaper magnates or (former) bigshot Hollywood directors. It's interesting jbrooks that you mention Lady from Shanghai as minor Welles. For me, that is certainly one of his most important films! It deals with some unimportant sailor and deconstructs his desire to be a chivalrous knight of old, protecting the titular lady from her twisted husband. Like Kane aspires to reach the American dream, Michael O'Hara tries to become a hero, only to find that such a notion is hollow. Similarly, in Touch of Evil, Hank Quinlan conforms to this pattern. He strives to become this unquestionable arbiter of right and wrong but winds up coming across as a corrupt cop, despite the fact that he is sometimes, maybe oftentimes right, as proven by the ending! With the Deep, Welles explores two people trying to fill the role of the husband and wife. Michael Bryant becomes tyranical instead of heroic. This incongruity between reality and ideals is a fascinating Welles theme to me. Journey to Fear may also be added to this category, even though it's more optimistic-- the passive man who learns to finally fight back.

Just the addition of missing dialogue (dubbed by new actors) and a musical score would be enough to make the film play very well (even in its current beaten-up visual state).

To conclude, I totally agree with this point. I don't believe it would be that difficult to assemble The Deep into an actual film. The stock footage idea is a good one. Again, audiences would just have to accept the lower quality due to the lack of the original negative.

But, for me, the film should not be discarded. It is not minor in the least. I question whether or not it would reach a broader audience than The Other Side of the Wind. Not only is the deeper(!) craft good but it is a wonderfully entertaining movie superficially as well. To make a comparison, Touch of Evil, a noir thriller which lures people in with its deceptive simplicity, seems more popular and well known than F for Fake, which, like Other Side, is more experimental.

Again, as with all internet posts, this is just my personal two cents. Feel free to strongly disagree.