TOO MUCH JOHNSON Found!

[Wellesnet]

From Joseph McBride's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ORSON WELLES?:

Orson Welles to McBride:
"I wish you could have seen Too Much Johnson, though. It was a beautiful film. We created a sort of dream Cuba in New York. I looked at it four years ago and the print was in wonderful condition. You know, I never fully edited it. I meant to put it together to give to Joe Cotten as a Christmas present one year, but I never got around to it."

[Wellesnet]

Reports from the Italian premiere of TOO MUCH JOHNSON last week:

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=7921

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks to Allesandro Aniballi for this review of the TOO MUCH JOHNSON showing in Pordonone. I've attempted a translation from the original article in Italian:

http://clandestini2013.wordpress.com/20 ... h-johnson/

Operazione manierista ante litteram: è il film del ’38 di Welles, dato per perso e ritrovato da Le Giornate del Cinema Muto. Sessantasei minuti di slapstick comedy che rifanno il verso alle comiche anni ’20.

A Mannerist Operation Before Letters: is the film of the '38 of Welles, given for lost and found from the days of Silent Cinema. Sixty minutes of slapstick comedy that espouse (embrace, adopt) toward the comedy years of the 20’s.

Voto: 9
New York, tra la fine dell’Ottocento e l’inizio del Novecento. Un uomo, che con il nome fittizio di Alfred Johnson si finge proprietario di una piantagione di zucchero a Cuba, viene sorpreso a letto con la sua amante dal marito di lei. Questi riesce a strappare alla donna un pezzo della foto che ritrae il presunto Johnson e comincia a inseguirlo per le strade della Grande Mela, folle di gelosia. I due provocano scompiglio sia in un mercato sia sui tetti della città sia in una manifestazione di suffragette e arrivano fino a una nave che li porterà proprio a Cuba, dove continueranno ad inseguirsi. [sinossi]

Vote: 9
New York, between the end of the Nineteenth Century and the beginning of the Twentieth Century. A man, that with the fictitious name of Alfred Johnson who pretends to be the owner of a sugar plantation in Cuba, is surprised in bed with his lover by her husband. The husband manages to wrest from the woman a piece of the picture that portrays the alleged Johnson and jealously begins to chase him in the streets and crowds of the Big Apple. The two cause havoc both in a market that is over the rooftops of the city and is a manifestation of the hemisphere, and arrive at a ship that will take them to Cuba, where they will continue the chase. [Synopsis]

Del clamoroso ritrovamento dell’unica copia rimasta di Too Much Johnson ne abbiamo parlato nell’intervista a Piero Colussi, fondatore dell’associazione Cinemazero di Pordenone in cui sono stati scoperti i dieci rulli del film; del complesso restauro dell’opera di Welles del 1938 invece ne abbiamo dato conto nell’intervista a Paolo Cherchi Usai, curatore delle operazioni di restauro e socio fondatore – al pari di Colussi – delle Giornate del Cinema Muto; ora, è il momento di parlare in maniera più approfondita del film in quanto tale e di quanto può aggiungere alla già sterminata – ma sovente ingabbiata in formule troppo schematiche – esegesi del cinema di Orson Welles.

Of the sensational discovery of the single copy remaining of “Too Much Johnson”, we have talked about it in the interview to Piero Colussi, founder of the Association Cinemazero of Pordenone, where have been discovered the ten rolls of the film. On the complex restoration of the opera of Welles' of 1938, we have instead given an account in the interview with Paolo Cherchi Usai, curator of the operations of, restoration, and founder - like Colussi - of "The Days of Silent Films"; now, it's time to talk in a little more depth about the film as such, since it can add to the already immense - but often caged in formulas too schematic (abstract) - exegesis of the cinema of Orson Welles.

Too Much Johnson entrerà nelle monografie dedicate al regista di Quarto Potere come il suo unico film comico e dunque già solo questo motivo è utile per mettere in luce una tendenza alla commedia che Welles – abilissimo, da buon shakespeariano, nel modulare differenti registri – ha mostrato, sia pure in maniera mai predominante, in tutti i suoi lavori, finiti e non finiti: dallo stesso Quarto potere a L’orgoglio degli Amberson, passando per L’infernale Quinlan, per Falstaff, per il Don Chisciotte e per i suoi lavori televisivi, fino ad arrivare a F for Fake (che, se vogliamo, è una sorta di commedia dei paradossi intorno al concetto del Falso).

“Too Much Johnson” will enter the monographs dedicated to the director of “The Fourth Power” (“Citizen Kane”) as his only film comedy, and therefore already for this reason, it is useful to highlight a tendency to comedy that Welles - skillful, like a good Shakespearean, in modulating different registers - has shown, albeit in a manner never predominant in all his work, finished and unfinished: from the same Fourth Power to the pride of the Ambersons, leading to “The Infernal Quinlan”, “Falstaff”, for “Don Quixote” and his television work, until you get to “F for Fake” (which, if we want to, is a sort of comedy of paradoxes around the concept of the False).

Certo, un elemento fondamentale va tenuto in considerazione nell’approcciarci a Too Much Johnson e cioè la sua stessa impostazione, concepita non come film autonomo ma come accompagnamento filmato dell’omonima commedia teatrale di William Gillette che Welles, con la sua compagnia del Mercury Theatre, mise in scena nell’agosto del ’38 allo Stony Creek Summer Theatre. Il girato di Welles doveva dunque essere diviso in tre parti, ciascuna delle quali sarebbe servita da prologo a ognuno dei tre atti della commedia. Le durate di questi tre prologhi dovevano essere rispettivamente di venti minuti, dieci e poco più di dieci, per un totale all’incirca di 45 minuti.

Of course, a fundamental element should be taken into account in the appreciation to “Too Much Johnson”, i.e. its same setting, conceived not as an independent film, but as an accompaniment to a play of the homonymous comedy of William Gillette that Welles, with his company of the Mercury Theater, staged in August '38 in Stony Creek Summer Theater. The footage by Welles should therefore be divided into three parts, each of which would serve as prologue to each of the three acts of comedy. The durations of these three prologues were to be respectively of twenty minutes, ten and a little more than ten, for a total of approximately 45 minutes.

Ma il teatro in cui andò in scena Too Much Johnson non era attrezzato per delle proiezioni e allo stesso tempo Welles aveva finito i soldi a disposizione per allestire un altro spettacolo (Danton’s Death). Così il girato di Too Much Johnson, con un montaggio incompleto, venne abbandonato al suo destino. Quel resta oggi a noi è una copia-lavoro lunga 66 minuti, venti in più perciò rispetto alla durata prevista (e probabilmente incompleta in alcune parti. Non si vede ad esempio nessuna eruzione di vulcani a Cuba, sequenza cui Welles accenna nel libro-intervista di Peter Bogdanovich).

But the theater in which he went to show “Too Much Johnson” was not equipped for the screenings and at the same time Welles had finished obtaining the money available to set up another show (“Danton's Death”). So the already shot “Too Much Johnson”, with an incomplete mounting, was abandoned to it’s fate. What remains to us today is a copy-work 66 minutes long, twenty more so than the expected duration (and probably incomplete in some parts. Not seen, for example is an eruption of volcanoes in Cuba, a sequence which Welles mentions in the book-interview with Peter Bogdanovich).

Tutta questa premessa è fondamentale per evitare ogni tipo di confusione su cosa aspettarsi da Too Much Johnson. In proposito, quel che è stato proiettato in prima mondiale alle Giornate del Cinema Muto lo scorso nove ottobre, come ci ha raccontato Cherchi Usai, rispetta filogicamente – e giustamente – l’ordine e il contenuto di quanto ritrovato. Ciò significa, tra le altre cose, che a tratti ci sono dei ciak ripetuti.

This whole premise is essential to avoid any type of confusion on what to expect from “Too Much Johnson”. In this regard, what was projected for the “First World To the Days of Silent Cinema” last ninth of October, as Cherchi Usai told us, respects the philology - and rightly – the order and the content of the invention. This means, among other things, that at times there are shots repeated.

Questo però non vuole dire che Too Much Johnson debba essere considerato alla stregua di un cimelio per addetti ai lavori, anzi, si dovrebbe fare in modo di rivolgerlo a un pubblico il più ampio possibile (con proiezioni sia sugli schermi di altre città, ma anche con un’uscita in DVD). E ciò è necessario per almeno due motivi: il primo è che Too Much Johnson risulta effettivamente un film comico, una lunga slapstick comedy che si rifà alle comiche degli anni ’20, e a tratti riesce ad essere davvero divertente; il secondo motivo, invece, è più ampio e mette in discussione il concetto stesso di compiutezza filmica, non privo di una sua connotazione pedagogica. Per un’arte come il cinema che ha ormai ampiamente superato il primo secolo di vita è necessario che prenda piede sempre più una consapevolezza storiografica e critica che, come succede da tempo per le altri arti, vada a comprendere, valutare, studiare, far vedere anche tutta l’ampia gamma di incompiuti. E’ necessario poter valutare e apprezzare anche l’idea del frammento filmico, così come già accade per la pittura o per la scultura (e, del resto, i macro-contenitori dei DVD o dei Blu-ray potrebbero offrire tutto lo spazio possibile; come, solo per fare un esempio, è accaduto per il magnifico cofanetto della Criterion dedicato a Mr. Arkadin).

This however does not mean to say that “Too Much Johnson” should be regarded only as an heirloom for Welles insiders; on the contrary, they should try and orient it to an audience as large as possible (with projections on the screens of other cities, but also with a DVD release). And this is necessary for at least two reasons: the first is that “Too Much Johnson” is actually a film comedy, a long slapstick comedy that goes back to the comedy of the years of the 20’s, and at times it manages to be really fun; the second reason, however, is broader and puts into question the very concept of the usual perfection, and what is and is not devoid of pedagogical connotation. For an art such as the cinema that has now largely exceeded the first century of life, it is first necessary to take foot more and more of a historiographical awareness, and it is critical that, as happens from time to time to the other arts, go to understand, assess, investigate, and to see also the wide range of the “unfinished”. It is necessary to be able to evaluate and appreciate also the idea of the filmic fragment, as already it happens for the painting or the sculpture (and, for the rest, the macro-containers in DVD or Blu-ray could offer all the possible space; to give an example, in what happened to the magnificent casket of Criterion dedicated to “Mr. Arkadin”).

E in questo concetto del frammento, dell’incompiuto Orson Welles è – suo malgrado – il capofila, viste le tante pellicole non finite della sua filmografia.
Perciò quello che purtroppo non è stato possibile finora con altri incompiuti wellesiani (da The Deep al Don Chisciotte, da The Other Side of the Wind a The Dreamers), si spera che abbia in Too Much Johnson l’apripista per un universo di visioni ancora tutte da scoprire (e che sono state mostrate, in via del tutto eccezionale, al festival di Locarno del 2005).

And in this concept of the fragment of the unfinished, Orson Welles is the ringleader, having regard to the many films not finished of his filmography.
That unfortunately has not been possible so far with other unfinished Wellesiani (from “The Deep” to “Don Quixote”, from the “Other Side of the Wind” to “The Dreamers”), so it is hoped that “Too Much Johnson” will provide for a universe of dreams and visions still for all to discover (like the others that have been shown, on an exceptional basis, at the Locarno film festival in 2005).

In questo magma pressoché invisibile di non finiti wellesiani, Too Much Johnson occupa un posto del tutto particolare: sia perché, come detto, è un film prettamente comico, sia per la sua prematurità. Girato nel 1938, tre anni prima di Quarto potere, quello che ora bisognerà forse individuare come l’esordio wellesiano è già un precisissimo attestato delle enormi potenzialità che Welles avrebbe poi sviluppato in seguito. Il primo e più eclatante segno wellesiano è la profondità di campo. L’uso delle focali corte attraversa tutto il percorso del film, dall’unica sequenza in interni – quella della scena d’amore tra il finto Johnson e la sua amante – alle riprese dei tetti di New York fino al paesaggio tropicale e piovoso di Cuba. In più, già qui è evidente la predilezione del cineasta americano per le riprese dal basso e per i consueti primi piani “distorti”: non solo nelle sequenze girate sui tetti, dove le riprese dal basso e “fuori bolla” sarebbe quasi ovvio aspettarsele da uno come Welles, ma anche nella sequenza d’interni.

In this almost invisible magma (molten lead) of unfinished Wellesiani, “Too Much Johnson” occupies a special place: both because, as said, it's a film purely comic, and because of his prematurity. Filmed in 1938, three years before “The Fourth Power”, what it now may identify as the debut Wellesiano is already a essencial certificate of the enormous potential that Welles would have then developed as a result. The first and most glaring sign of Wellesiano is the depth of field. The use of focal court passes through all of the path of the film, from the single sequence indoors - that of the scene of love between the fake Johnson and his mistress - shooting of roofs in New York until the rainy tropical landscapes of Cuba. In addition, already clearly here is the predilection of the American filmmaker for shooting from below and to the usual first story "distorted": not only in the sequences which turn over the roofs, where the footage from the bottom (and "out of bubble") would be almost obvious to expect from one as Welles, but also in the sequence of interiors.

Insomma, sia pur girato in fretta e senza la preparazione e lo studio che avrebbe portato a Quarto potere (“Tutto quello che sapevo l’avevo imparato in sala di proiezione, dal Ford di Ombre rosse“, dice Welles, sempre a Bogdanovich), il futuro cineasta mostra già una notevole consapevolezza cinematografica e un gusto – assolutamente personale – per la messa in scena.

In short, although made in haste and without the preparation and the study that would have led to a Fourth Power ( "All I knew I had learned in a projection room, from Ford of Ombre Rosse (Stagecoach)", says Welles, always to Bogdanovich), the future filmmaker already shows a considerable awareness of cinema and a taste - absolutely personal - for the staging of it.

Ma c’è da dire di più: Too Much Johnson è una operazione tipicamente manierista: l’omaggio alla slapstick comedy degli anni ’20 non si limita infatti alla riproposizione di temi e contenuti tipici di quel genere (l’inseguimento urbano, per l’appunto), ma scende più in profondità: lo dimostra il fatto che Welles fece girare al suo operatore Harry Dunham la manovella a una velocità inferiore dei 24 fotogrammi al secondo, in modo tale da riprodurre in sede di proiezione il movimento accelerato degli attori tipico delle comiche di più di un decennio prima; inoltre, appaiono in scena diversi poliziotti abbigliati al tipico modo dei Keystone Cops di sennettiana memoria e gli attori sono truccati in maniera eccessiva e palese, così come accadeva tradizionalmente nel cinema muto; infine, si percepisce – come di nuovo in tanti film di quell’epoca, a partire da Preferisco l’ascensore (Safety Last, 1923) con protagonista Harold Lloyd – un evidente e reale senso del pericolo, in cui gli attori hanno messo davvero a repentaglio la loro incolumità.
Probabilmente, visto come sminuiva la portata teorica dei suoi lavori, Welles si sarebbe fatto una risata di fronte a questa considerazione, eppure ci sembra giusto dire che Too Much Johnson appare come uno straordinario cimelio di cinema manierista ante litteram, di operazione consapevolmente “storicista” e critica, forte insomma di un carattere fondamentalmente autoreferenziale e largamente anticipatore di tutta una serie di riflessioni che prenderanno piede solamente qualche decennio più in là.

But there is more to say: “Too Much Johnson” is an operation typically mannerist: it is an homage to the slapstick comedy of the years of the 20’s but is not limited to the reintroduction of themes and typical contents of that kind (the urban tracking, for example), but falls more in depth: as demonstrated by the fact that Welles did turn to its operator Harry Dunham and request the crank at a lower speed of 24 frames per second, so as to reproduce, in the projection, the accelerated movement of actors of a typical comedy of more than a decade before; in addition, several police officers appear on the scene dressed in the typical manner of Keystone Cops of Sennettiana memory, and the actors are rigged in an excessive and evident manner, which happened traditionally in silent movies. Finally, it perceives - as was new in many films of the time, from “I Prefer the Elevator” (“Safety Last”, 1923) starring Harold Lloyd - a clear and real sense of danger, in which the actors are really made to jeopardise their safety.

Seeing this as most sincere to the theoretical flow of his work, Welles would probably laugh in the face of this account, yet we think it is fair to say that “Too Much Johnson” appears as an extraordinary heirloom of the cinema mannerist ante litteram (before letters), and that the operation is consciously "historicist" is critical, strong in short of a fundamentally self-referential and widely anticipating of a whole series of reflections that take foot only a few decades after.

Ma Too Much Jonhson, ai di là di tutte le considerazioni già fatte, sembra avere anche una – sia pur esile – coerenza narrativa. In qualche modo – e crediamo inconsapevolmente – il film arriva a dilatare e “essenzializzare” il fil rouge classico delle comiche anni ’20: la meccanica dell’inseguimento, per l’appunto, che – preso il via dalla scena in casa dell’amante – prosegue per tutto il resto del film, con una grandissima variazioni di toni, luoghi e set. In tal senso, protagonisti assoluti della pellicola sono due attori, Joseph Cotten e Edgar Barrier (che rivedremo nel cinema wellesiano in Macbeth), che interpretano rispettivamente il ruolo del finto Johnson e del marito cornificato. Cotten, in particolare, sia detto en passant, dimostra una verve e una capacità acrobatica che per certi aspetti appare all’opposto di tutta la sua carriera successiva, sempre declinata secondo una linea della rigidità, sia fisica che psicologica. E anche qui – nell’esasperazione del percorso dei due protagonisti – pare di leggere, sia pure con un po’ d’esagerazione, la classica dinamica del cinema wellesiano, quella di mettere a confronto due antagonisti, nell’idea insomma del percorso dello scorpione e della rana raccontato in Mr. Arkadin. Con la differenza essenziale che in Too Much Johnson i due sono mossi da istinti primari e non sono costruiti su alcuna meccanica psicologista; sono, insomma, dei puri vettori dell’azione.

But “Too Much Johnson”, to all the considerations already made, also seems to have a - albeit organic - narrative coherence. In some way - and we believe unconsciously - the film arrives to dilate (widen) and "essenzializzare" the thread of classic comedy of the years '20: the mechanics of the pursuit, in fact, that - taking the track from the scene in the house of the lover - continues for the whole of the rest of the film, with a huge variations in tone, places and set. In this sense, the absolute protagonists of the film are two actors, Joseph Cotten and Edgar Barrier (who we will later see in cinema Wellesiano in “Macbeth”), that interpret respectively the role of the fake Johnson and her husband cornified. Cotten, in particular, both said en passant, demonstrates a verve for acrobatic skills which, in some respects appears opposite of his whole later career, which always declined according to a line of rigidity, both physical and psychological. AND even here - in the exasperation of the path of the two protagonists - it seems to read, albeit with a little exaggeration, the classical dynamics of cinema Wellesiano, that of comparing two antagonists, in the idea so the path of the “Scorpion and the Frog” story in Mr. Arkadin. With the essential difference that in “Too Much Johnson” the two are driven by instincts primary and are not built on any mechanical psychology; they are, in short, the pure vectors (direction providers) of the action.

Certo, come ha notato Cherchi Usai nell’intervista che ci ha rilasciato, non si può parlare di vero e proprio ritmo in Too Much Johnson, vista la sua natura di film incompiuto. Forse una sola sequenza – indubbiamente la più bella del film – presenta un montaggio definitivo: è proprio quella che si svolge nella camera da letto dell’amante di Cotten/Johnson. Qui, la dinamica comica arriva dalla presenza in scena di una pianta le cui foglie continuano a sbattere sulla testa di Cotten, distogliendolo dall’atto sessuale. Ma visto che, ovviamente, non si vede nulla dell’atto – anzi, è tutto suggerito e i due rimangono sostanzialmente vestiti – Welles gioca con un montaggio elusivo e con tagli rapidissimi e sbalorditivi, cambiando ripetutamente punto di vista. Una sequenza che, con il suo montaggio modernissimo, sembra clamorosamente anticipare l’ardita estetica della scena di sesso di Una storia immortale (1969), una sensazione che forse è confermata dal fatto che lo stesso Welles – secondo le prove verificate da Cherchi Usai – ha rimesso mano al montaggio del film negli anni Sessanta, ma solo per uno o due giorni (e quindi il grosso del lavoro doveva essere già stato fatto all’epoca).

Certainly, as Cherchi Usai noticed in the interview that we issued, there can be no talk of a true pace for “Too Much Johnson”, because of the unfinished nature of the film. Perhaps one sequence - undoubtedly the most beautiful in the film - has a final fitting: it is precisely the one that takes place in the bedroom of the lover of Cotten/Johnson. Here the comic dynamic comes from the presence on the stage of a plant whose leaves continue to beat on the head of Cotten, detaching it from the sexual act. But given that, of course, he is not seen in the act - indeed, all is suggested and the two remain substantially clothed - Welles plays with an elusive mounting, and with fast cuts and stunning, repeatedly changing point of view. A sequence which, with its modern mounting, seems to blatantly anticipate the bold aesthetics of the sex scene of “A Story Immortal” (1969), a feeling that perhaps is confirmed by the fact that the same Welles - according to the verified evidence from Cherchi Usai - had put his hand to the assembly of the film in the Sixties, but only for one or two days (and then returned to the bulk of the work that had to already be done at the time).

Almeno un’altra sequenza di Too Much Johnson, infine, merita di entrare tra i picchi del cinema wellesiano (oltre a tutta una serie di inquadrature e di mini-sketch a tratti strabilianti), quella dei cappelli. Il marito geloso, infatti, ha a disposizione una foto di Cotten/Johnson in cui si vede quasi solamente l’attaccatura dei capelli. Preso perciò da una follia predatoria, comincia a togliere il cappello a chiunque incontri per strada, sperando di cogliere sul fatto il famigerato Johnson. Da qui – ma la sequenza non ha un montaggio definitivo, il che la rende, se possibile, ancora più divertente – si sviluppa tutta una dinamica di variazioni sul tono – in particolare per le diverse e bizzarre espressioni dei passanti “denudati” del copricapo – che è sia una precisissima riscrittura del meccanismo delle gag delle comiche cui Welles guarda, sia una operazione che “trascende” il modello. Infatti, la durata della sequenza è tale da offrire una varietà quasi infinita di soluzioni (quasi allo stesso modo dei cambiamenti di vista nella sequenza dell’atto sessuale), ma – ed è anche qui la sua grandezza – si chiude con diverse riprese dall’alto che mostrano Edgar Barrier furioso, disperato e circondato da centinaia di cappelli ormai privi del loro proprietario. Uno scarto di tono che fa ascendere il momento a una surreale – e a suo modo drammatica – visionarietà.

At least one other sequence of Too Much Johnson, also deserves to enter between the peaks of the cinema Wellesiano (in addition to a whole series of shots and mini-sketches of amazing lengths), the one of the flats. The jealous husband, in fact, he's got a photo of Cotten/Johnson in which can be seen almost only the hairline. Taken with a madness predatory, he begins to remove the cap from anyone he meets on the street, hoping to seize on the fact that it is the infamous Johnson. From here - even though the sequence does not have a final fitting, which makes it, if possible, even more fun - it develops a whole dynamic range of variations on the tone - in particular for the different and bizarre expressions of the passersby "stripped" of their headgear - which is both an accurate rewriting of the mechanism of the comedy gag which Welles sees, and also an operation that "transcends" the template. In fact, the duration of the sequence is to provide a nearly endless variety of solutions (almost in the same way as the change of view in the sequence of the sexual act), but - and it is even here its greatness - closes with several times from the top that show Edgar Barrier furious, desperate and surrounded by hundreds of hats now deprived of their owner. One difference of tone that makes the moment ascend to a surreal - and in its own way, dramatic unrealism.

Si potrebbe parlare ancora di Too Much Johnson, ma servirebbe senz’altro una seconda visione. A questo proposito, siamo curiosi di sapere come verranno organizzate le prossime proiezioni pubbliche del film. La più ravvicinata è quella che si tiene proprio oggi, mercoledì 16, al George Eastman House. Ma qui, come del resto è successo a Pordenone per Le Giornate del Cinema Muto, vi sarà senz’altro Cherchi Usai a fare da cerimoniere e da commentatore. Tutte le informazioni fondamentali alla comprensione del film sono infatti state esposte dallo stesso Cherchi Usai nel corso della proiezione, un’operazione che è parsa simile a quella che si usava nel cinema giapponese muto con la presenza della figura del benshi a commentare il film (una tradizione unica che, tra l’altro, è stata riproposta proprio quest’anno alle Giornate del Cinema Muto). Le prossime – e si spera numerose – proiezioni del film come avverranno? Forse, l’unica possibilità sembra essere quella di far precedere Too Much Johnson da brevi didascalie che spieghino l’eccezionalità del suo caso. Ma, chissà, si potrebbe anche provare a lasciarsi andare al suo flusso visivo, senza alcun bisogno di commenti. Comunque è ancora troppo presto per dirlo. Si tratta infatti di una storia tutta da scrivere e speriamo di darne conto prossimamente.

We might still speak of “Too Much Johnson”, but it would have to be after a second vision. In this regard, we are curious to know how we will organize the next public viewings of the film. The closer is that which is held today, Wednesday 16, the George Eastman House. But here, as with the rest of what happened in Pordenone for the Days of the Silent Cinema, there will certainly be Cherchi Usai to do the ceremonies and serve as commentator. All the basic information to the understanding of the film was exhibited by the same Cherchi Usai in the course of the projection, an operation that seemed similar to that used in Japanese silent cinema with the presence of the figure of the benshi to comment on the film (a unique tradition that, among other things, was presented this year at the Giornate del Cinema Muto). For the next - and it is hoped many - projections of the film, perhaps, the only possibility seems to be the one to precede “Too Much Johnson” by short captions to explain the exceptional qualities of his case. But, who knows, you could also try to let go of its visual flow, without the need for any comments. However, it is still too early to tell. It is in fact a whole history to write, and we hope to reflect this situation soon.

[Roger Ryan]

Thanks mteal for the translation!

http://variety.com/2013/film/internatio ... 200751887/

In the above review by Variety, there is the suggestion that footage feels more like outtakes than unedited rushes with the hypothesis that a different print of selected takes may have existed at one time. Not having seen the film myself, I can't comment on this idea. However, if TOO MUCH JOHNSON ever gets a home video release, I'm wondering if there should be an attempt to edit down the multiple takes. I imagine it's a bit disruptive to the flow of the action to watch multiple takes of the same set-up. Ideally, there could be a polished version with only the best takes edited together in a logical manner utilizing intertitles and a score plus the complete 66 minutes unedited as a separate program.

[Le Chiffre]

Glad you enjoyed the translation, Roger. I'm still tweaking it, and if any of our Wellesnet friends out there speak Italian and would like to offer suggestions or corrections, feel free.

As for Variety's suggestion that the TMJ footage consists of outtakes, Allesandro (if I'm understanding him correctly) seems to imply that one sequence seemed almost fully edited, and that he thought Welles may have done this himself in the late 60's, around the time he was working on The Immortal Story. Of course, that's all speculation, but Welles did say he wanted to edit it for Cotton as a birthday present.

If anyone does edit the footage into a tight narrative, I hope they'll consider using Paul Bowles "Music For a Farce" as the soundtrack. It's a delightful piece, which was on Youtube, but now appears to have been taken down, unfortunately. Excerpts though, can be heard at this page:
http://myfreemp3.eu/music/Paul+Bowles


Here's an excerpt from a Bowles biography called PAUL BOWLES: A LIFE. Apparently, in order to do the TMJ score, Welles and Houseman called Bowles back from one of his exotic foreign excursions, the kind of excursions that would eventually lead to his most famous work, THE SHELTERING SKY:

[Wellesnet]

CBS News weighs in on "Too Much Johnson":

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162- ... n-decades/

[Wellesnet]

Very nice writeup in the New Yorker on the Nov. 25th NYC premiere:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... hnson.html

[Wellesnet]

"Too Much Johnson" will have it's West Coast premiere at Berkely:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=9190

[Wellesnet]

Thanks to Greg Boozell on Facebook. Joseph McBride writing for Bright Lights on TMJ. A great in-depth article, McBride does an amazing job of showing how seminal this little film was for the great Welles projects to come:

http://brightlightsfilm.com/too-much-jo ... 0W3iqgo63t

[RayKelly]

A few fleeting seconds are contained in a video clip on composing a soundtrack. It can be found on our main news page at http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=9925 or on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm_PEIY8ysg

[Roger Ryan]

The full TOO MUCH JOHNSON workprint has now been uploaded to the National Film Preservation Foundation site:

http://www.filmpreservation.org/preserv ... work-print

...as well as a delightful 30 minute attempt at editing the extant footage into a watchable short:

http://www.filmpreservation.org/preserv ... reimagined

[Le Chiffre]

Fabulous, thanks Roger! Amazing to see how the young Welles, with almost no filmmaking experience, had such a feel for the rhythms, timing, and special qualities of silent comedy. Just watching the rushes I found myself cracking up several times. And Joseph Cotton does some pretty breathtaking stuntwork! After seeing this, I realize what a shame it was that this unique experiment in film/theatre fusion never got to be seen and experienced as it was intended to be. I was impressed by how well the new piano score (not Paul Bowles's) complimented the film too.

Roger do you remember the guy that wrote about have seen the TMJ footage several years ago? He said he had seen it in the 1960's and wrote a detailed description. We suspected at the time that he was hoaxing, but I'd like to take a look at what he wrote just to make sure.

[Le Chiffre]

Never mind, I found it, by F Gwynplaine MacIntyre:

In the mid-1960s, I met Orson Welles while I was working for Lew Grade's ITC television organisation. Welles wanted Grade's backing for a film or TV project, and he was very eager to ingratiate himself. I had heard a rumour that 'Citizen Kane' was not actually Welles's film debut, and that he had directed some short films before 'Kane'. When I asked him about this, he graciously arranged for me to screen two brief films which he had directed pre-'Kane'. One of these was 'Too Much Johnson'.

Before I describe this movie, let me explain its source. 'Too Much Johnson' was originally an 1890s stage farce written by and starring William Gillette, an actor-playwright now remembered only for having written the first play about Sherlock Holmes. The main character in 'Too Much Johnson' is Augustus Billings, an American businessman who travels to Cuba with his wife and his termagant mother-in-law Mrs Batterson. Also aboard the steamship are a hot-tempered Frenchman and his wife, and some dim-witted Canadians. En route, Billings's wife discovers an embarrassing letter in his possession. To avoid divulging the truth, Billings claims that the letter was written by a Mr Johnson (who doesn't actually exist). In Cuba, the Billings party encounter an American named Joseph Johnson. Mrs Billings and her mother assume that this man is the author of the letter. Comic complications ensue ... but they're not very funny and certainly not believable.

Now, the film: the footage that Welles made (and which he allowed me to screen) was NOT a film version of Gillette's play. (His film ran only two reels, whilst Gillette's farce is a full-length play.) Nor is it an incomplete or abbreviated version of the stage play. Welles told me that he and the Mercury Theatre players had intended to stage a production of Gillette's play, directed by Welles. (I'm not certain if this production ever actually took place.) As an innovation, Welles and his cast filmed some bridging material, which would have been projected onstage during the scene changes. Welles cheerfully admitted that he had shot these sequences as an entree to Hollywood, in order to persuade the movie-studio executives that he could handle the disciplines of film direction.

Bearing in mind that this footage was never meant to be a complete film, it consists of several brief unlinked scenes. We see Joseph Cotten, Ruth Ford and the very funny Mary Wickes boarding a gangway at a wharf. (There's supposed to be a large ocean liner berthed just out of frame, but there obviously isn't; the quay is clearly too small -- and in water too shallow -- to harbour an ocean liner.) We also see the Frenchman and his wife (Edgar Barrier, Arlene Francis) in an unconvincing 'shipboard' sequence. We see some shaky hand-held footage of Joseph Cotten rushing about in the 'Cuban jungle', but the local flora don't look remotely tropical ... and Cotten's clothing, as well as his lack of perspiration, indicate that this footage was shot well north of the Tropic of Cancer. Welles told me that these scenes were filmed in Connecticut, but he didn't recall precisely where and I'm not even certain that he was being truthful. (During the same conversation, Welles told me that he had been a personal friend of Bram Stoker ... who in fact died three years before Welles was born.) None of the distinctive traits of 'Citizen Kane', such as Gregg Toland's depth-of-focus shots, or Welles's ceiling compositions, are in evidence here.

Welles also permitted me to see a brief clip of silent-film footage, shot mostly out of focus, consisting of some blurry close-ups of Joseph Cotten grinning outdoors in three-quarter view, a hand tugging a door-pull, and a brass bell spinning on a pavement. These clips seemed to be the result of Welles larking about with a camera, rather than increments of any sort of coherent film narrative. Judging from Cotten's appearance, and the general ineptitude of Welles's direction, these shots were filmed many months before 'Too Much Johnson' ... and they probably constitute Welles's debut as a film director.

The footage which I saw on this occasion has very little entertainment value except as a curiosity, and no significance except as a footnote to Welles's career ... and perhaps as a reminder that even geniuses have to start out completely ignorant of their disciplines. 'Citizen Kane' is definitely a masterpiece, but none of that genius is on offer in these film clips.

[Roger Ryan]

If it wasn't obvious before, it's clear now that "F Gwynplaine MacIntyre" fabricated the whole account. His sketchy scene descriptions all managed to be inaccurate; there isn't even a "shipboard sequence" between Barrier and Francis, "unconvincing" or otherwise. He spends more time describing THE HEARTS OF AGE while pretending not to know what it is.

Alas, MacIntyre killed himself before he could truly watch the TOO MUCH JOHNSON footage. I applaud Professor Scott Simmon's editing job and Michael D. Mortilla's attentive piano score which brings the footage to life in a way that is hard to appreciate simply looking at the rushes.

[Le Chiffre]

It's great that we now have the real footage to make MacIntire's fake account obsolete. There are plenty of instances where Welles seems to be experimenting with deep focus, and the Cuba shots don't look shaky or hand-held. MacInitire actually does have a Wiki page, which states:

MacIntyre reviewed dozens of older and silent motion pictures, including a large number of lost films which he claimed to have seen under circumstances the details of which he could not reveal. Some silent film critics and fans believe the reviews to be elaborate jokes; others have accused MacIntyre of muddying the historical record by publishing fake reviews.

John Houseman was one of the duelers on the cliff, and in RUN THROUGH he criticizes Welles for constantly being careless with his actors' safety, always asking Houseman and the other dueler to get closer to the edge of the cliff, for example. One can see why now: he was going for the kind of visual stroke that Ingmar Bergman would later make famous in THE SEVENTH SEAL, and would become a Welles signature as well, in films like CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT and DON QUIXOTE.

Also a quick nod to the unintentional "Decasia" effect seen in the scene where the jealous husband knocks off everyone's hat in the street. From what I've read, the lab worked miracles with the badly damaged reel and it was well worth it.