Don Quijote
-
Jedediah Leland
- Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:51 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
Re: Don Quijote
Curses, I spent half an hour writing an epic reply to this, and just lost the lot! No time to rewrite just now, but great post - I hadn't considered there being two halves of the workprint in different hands!
Re: Don Quijote
Jedediah:
I am looking forward to the reconstruction of your lost epic post. Don't feel bad about it; that's very Wellesian, very Don Quixote!
One of the mistakes I made in attempting to determine what happened to the Don Quixote work print was subconsciously picturing one long reel of edited footage. Of course, no such thing exists, ever. Standard film reels contain ten minutes of footage. The Don Quixote work print was never one reel, it was many reels. To be exact, as cutters Marie Dubus and Dominique Engerer Boussagol noted, "Don Quixote...was a film edited...The film is there in 10 or 11 reels or something like that."
Jonathan Braun, the last cutter to work on DQ, stated that "the film had pretty much been cut already." He's adamant about that; DQ was "close" to being releasable. "We would have had to clean up some stuff...There were passages that just felt draggy and it wasn't propelling along the way it should...I actually tried to encourage him because I honestly wanted something to be finished that I was working with him on. And this one felt like one of the closest things."
We can date the context of these observations to the early 80's, because Braun was cutting The Dreamers, and had been asked to cut The Cradle Will Rock, a project put into motion around 1984. Given the proximity of these observations to Welles's untimely death in 1985, I find it hard to believe that Welles had drastically altered his plans for DQ during this period. Welles was tweaking, detailing, not taking an entirely new approach.
We know that Welles had pulled apart reels, because Braun says so: "I know we had to do a little bit of a restoration process on it. Because opening up these splices...the film would fall apart."
This being said, we have solid testimonial evidence of 10 or 11 reels, roughly 110 minutes of footage, edited by Welles. Yet Oja only turned over 40 minutes of edited footage to Costa Gravas, and to Jess Franco. Where is the other 60-70 minutes? Welles couldn't have chopped it up that badly; Braun would have mentioned it. Welles could have destroyed it, but that makes no sense. Why carry this stuff around for 15 years, tinker with it, then destroy 3/4's of it just when he announces that he is moving forward in earnest, contacting original editor Mauro Bonanni, who had half the negative in Rome, and Susan Cloutier, who had the rest. Logic would tell us that, by calling in the negative, Welles was ready to go. The final cut was pretty much set.
Welles didn't destroy things; he lost things, or things were stolen, but destroy? No. Not his style. In today's parlance, Welles was a film hoarder. So what happened?
Sometimes I think we've all been victims of the ultimate Wellesian hoax, the big con. Oja is in on it. Beatrice too. Here's how it goes. Welles hated what others had done to his films. He hated producers. He went to elaborate lengths during his life to make sure that no one but him could cut his films. Why should things be different after his death? He willed Oja his uncompleted projects and told her, "do what you like with them after I die. Show them. Sell them. Take their money. But never let them put them together, put my name on them, and say they are Orson Welles's films. They won't be. They wouldn't let me finish my movies in life, don't let them finish them after I'm gone. "
What was it that Orson said? "My how they'll love me when I'm dead." We will never see completed versions of Welles's uncompleted projects because it is too late. Welles is dead. Oja is showing us the wreckage. What THEY did. What might have been, had Welles not been screwed over at every turn. Hints. Shadows. Clues. But a posthumous Orson Welles film? Never.
Good for her.
I am looking forward to the reconstruction of your lost epic post. Don't feel bad about it; that's very Wellesian, very Don Quixote!
One of the mistakes I made in attempting to determine what happened to the Don Quixote work print was subconsciously picturing one long reel of edited footage. Of course, no such thing exists, ever. Standard film reels contain ten minutes of footage. The Don Quixote work print was never one reel, it was many reels. To be exact, as cutters Marie Dubus and Dominique Engerer Boussagol noted, "Don Quixote...was a film edited...The film is there in 10 or 11 reels or something like that."
Jonathan Braun, the last cutter to work on DQ, stated that "the film had pretty much been cut already." He's adamant about that; DQ was "close" to being releasable. "We would have had to clean up some stuff...There were passages that just felt draggy and it wasn't propelling along the way it should...I actually tried to encourage him because I honestly wanted something to be finished that I was working with him on. And this one felt like one of the closest things."
We can date the context of these observations to the early 80's, because Braun was cutting The Dreamers, and had been asked to cut The Cradle Will Rock, a project put into motion around 1984. Given the proximity of these observations to Welles's untimely death in 1985, I find it hard to believe that Welles had drastically altered his plans for DQ during this period. Welles was tweaking, detailing, not taking an entirely new approach.
We know that Welles had pulled apart reels, because Braun says so: "I know we had to do a little bit of a restoration process on it. Because opening up these splices...the film would fall apart."
This being said, we have solid testimonial evidence of 10 or 11 reels, roughly 110 minutes of footage, edited by Welles. Yet Oja only turned over 40 minutes of edited footage to Costa Gravas, and to Jess Franco. Where is the other 60-70 minutes? Welles couldn't have chopped it up that badly; Braun would have mentioned it. Welles could have destroyed it, but that makes no sense. Why carry this stuff around for 15 years, tinker with it, then destroy 3/4's of it just when he announces that he is moving forward in earnest, contacting original editor Mauro Bonanni, who had half the negative in Rome, and Susan Cloutier, who had the rest. Logic would tell us that, by calling in the negative, Welles was ready to go. The final cut was pretty much set.
Welles didn't destroy things; he lost things, or things were stolen, but destroy? No. Not his style. In today's parlance, Welles was a film hoarder. So what happened?
Sometimes I think we've all been victims of the ultimate Wellesian hoax, the big con. Oja is in on it. Beatrice too. Here's how it goes. Welles hated what others had done to his films. He hated producers. He went to elaborate lengths during his life to make sure that no one but him could cut his films. Why should things be different after his death? He willed Oja his uncompleted projects and told her, "do what you like with them after I die. Show them. Sell them. Take their money. But never let them put them together, put my name on them, and say they are Orson Welles's films. They won't be. They wouldn't let me finish my movies in life, don't let them finish them after I'm gone. "
What was it that Orson said? "My how they'll love me when I'm dead." We will never see completed versions of Welles's uncompleted projects because it is too late. Welles is dead. Oja is showing us the wreckage. What THEY did. What might have been, had Welles not been screwed over at every turn. Hints. Shadows. Clues. But a posthumous Orson Welles film? Never.
Good for her.
-
Le Chiffre
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2078
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
Re: Don Quijote
Thanks for the info, Mido and Jedidiah. Mido, you imagine Welles thinking,
But nobody stopped Welles from finishing DON QUIXOTE. That was a decision he made himself, for whatever reason. According to the McBride book, Welles told Bill Krohn in 1984 that he “scrapped 10 reels of DON QUIXOTE” in the early 70’s because of the US landing on the Moon, which Welles said ruined his concept.
Here’s Wiki:
But John F. Kennedy announced the US’s intention of a Moon landing way back in 1961, so it could hardly have been a surprise to Welles. Did he expect that we would not land on the Moon after spending 8 years and billions of dollars preparing for it? And yet, after spending even more years then that putting his Quixote film together, all of a sudden Welles felt it was ruined because of something the whole world knew was going to happen? This really doesn’t make sense. Rather, I find myself hoping that Jonathon Rosenbaum is right when he says that Welles planned several different films from the Quixote footage. Whether he completed any of them or not (and whether we'll ever see any completed versions if he did) is another matter, but it makes more sense then destroying a film you’ve worked on obsessively for many years because we landed on the Moon. That seems almost laughable to me.
It’s more plausible that he may have declined for personal reasons to ever allow the finished film to be shown publicly, which has happened before (Jerry Lewis’ THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED, for example). Welles’s will stipulated that wife Paola Mori was to get all the FINISHED films that Welles owned, while Oja was to get all the UNFINISHED works. In line with Rosenbaum’s assertion (and Jedediah's suggestion #7), I like to think that Welles may have given the completed Quixote to Paola and Beatrice, while giving all the footage for the uncompleted Quixote essay film of the 80’s to Oja. By making two Quixotes – one finished, one unfinished – Welles could have satisfied both of the women in his life, as well as satisfying his own desire to keep working on it right up until the end of his life.
They wouldn't let me finish my movies in life, don't let them finish them after I'm gone. "
But nobody stopped Welles from finishing DON QUIXOTE. That was a decision he made himself, for whatever reason. According to the McBride book, Welles told Bill Krohn in 1984 that he “scrapped 10 reels of DON QUIXOTE” in the early 70’s because of the US landing on the Moon, which Welles said ruined his concept.
Here’s Wiki:
“Welles himself explained,
"I keep changing my approach, the subject takes hold of me and I grow dissatisfied with the old footage. I once had a finished version where the Don and Sancho go to the Moon, but then [the United States] went to the Moon, which ruined it, so I scrapped ten reels [100 minutes]. Now I am going to make it a film essay about the pollution of old Spain. But it's personal to me."
However, he never filmed any of the footage necessary for this later variation.”
But John F. Kennedy announced the US’s intention of a Moon landing way back in 1961, so it could hardly have been a surprise to Welles. Did he expect that we would not land on the Moon after spending 8 years and billions of dollars preparing for it? And yet, after spending even more years then that putting his Quixote film together, all of a sudden Welles felt it was ruined because of something the whole world knew was going to happen? This really doesn’t make sense. Rather, I find myself hoping that Jonathon Rosenbaum is right when he says that Welles planned several different films from the Quixote footage. Whether he completed any of them or not (and whether we'll ever see any completed versions if he did) is another matter, but it makes more sense then destroying a film you’ve worked on obsessively for many years because we landed on the Moon. That seems almost laughable to me.
It’s more plausible that he may have declined for personal reasons to ever allow the finished film to be shown publicly, which has happened before (Jerry Lewis’ THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED, for example). Welles’s will stipulated that wife Paola Mori was to get all the FINISHED films that Welles owned, while Oja was to get all the UNFINISHED works. In line with Rosenbaum’s assertion (and Jedediah's suggestion #7), I like to think that Welles may have given the completed Quixote to Paola and Beatrice, while giving all the footage for the uncompleted Quixote essay film of the 80’s to Oja. By making two Quixotes – one finished, one unfinished – Welles could have satisfied both of the women in his life, as well as satisfying his own desire to keep working on it right up until the end of his life.
Re: Don Quijote
Mteal:
Thank you for your post. Your suggestion that Welles may have left a so-called completed version of DQ to Paola and Beatrice, and the rest to Oja is ingenious enough to be true, if anything can be true in Welles's bewildering magical universe. I do, however, have a few observations to make.
While no one stopped Welles from finishing DQ, he was severely thwarted at least three times. CBS cancelled funding for the original television production after viewing the rushes, and Mexican producer Oscar Dancigers pulled out of the subsequent feature version, leaving Welles in tears. Later, in the early 60's, the powers that be at state run Television Espagnola scotched a complicated deal proffered by Welles and Juan Cobos that would have let Welles finish DQ in Spain.
That DQ became an intensely personal project for Welles, funded by himself, and beholden to no one, would have made him that much more insistent that only he know how to assemble it, not less. In fact, editor Mauro Bonanni has stated that Welles deliberately mislabeled cans of DQ footage, so that only he would know what was what. I see no reason for this strategy to have changed in the years up to Welles's death.
That statement by Welles that he destroyed a version of DQ called Don Quixote Goes to the Moon would be telling, except that the story is a fake, another typical piece of Welles misdirection. Welles told Jonathan Rosenbaum in 1972 that the "Moon" title was a "put on", and that DQ was nearly finished. That story could be a put on as well, except that it more nearly accords with the facts as we know them. So does Bonanni's assertion that there is only one version of DQ, as against Rosenbaum's belief, based on little or no palpable evidence, that there are many. There certainly were many conceptions of DQ, but we really only have evidence of one completed version, that Welles tinkered with for years, but did not substantially alter.
I just rewatched the Franco version of DQ, and it is worse than I remembered. It really does seem as if Franco was working with "trash" that Welles had left lying around, as Bonanni claimed. Did Oja sell the Spanish government trash on purpose, or did she not know the difference?
Interestingly, there is a lot of the "moon" footage in that Franco trash.
By all accounts the footage of DQ shown under Oja's own auspices, from the period just after Welles's death until the Spanish sale, was of much higher quality than that which turned up in Franco's cut. Turns out it was Oja who first donated much of DQ to the French Cinematheque, in 1986; it was from this footage that Costa Gravas made the assembly that was shown at Cannes shortly after. Strangely, the Cinematheque has retained this footage to this day, despite the fact that all DQ footage was supposedly sold to the Spanish government in 1992. Given the horrible quality of the footage that showed up in Franco's version, much of which overlapped what was shown at Cannes, I suspect the Cinematheque just duped what they had, turned that over to the Spaniards, and kept the better quality originals.
Again, oddly, when (some of?) the DQ footage held by the Cinematheque was shown at Locarno in 2005 (seen and described by Roger Ryan on this thread), several of the Patty McCormack scenes were included. Those scenes were not included in the 1986 Costa Gravas assembly, despite coming from the same (?) source. Oja must have forbade their use in 1986 as she had in 1992, but this confirms that Welles had those scenes in his possession, lending more credence to the Audrey Stainton/Mauro Bonanni version of events.
In an earlier post, I showed how Oja was being obtuse in her insistence that the Patty McCormack footage not be used, because Welles wanted to reshoot those scenes with daughter Beatrice.
Perhaps obtuse was not the right word. Does "deliberately deceptive" sound better?
Thank you for your post. Your suggestion that Welles may have left a so-called completed version of DQ to Paola and Beatrice, and the rest to Oja is ingenious enough to be true, if anything can be true in Welles's bewildering magical universe. I do, however, have a few observations to make.
While no one stopped Welles from finishing DQ, he was severely thwarted at least three times. CBS cancelled funding for the original television production after viewing the rushes, and Mexican producer Oscar Dancigers pulled out of the subsequent feature version, leaving Welles in tears. Later, in the early 60's, the powers that be at state run Television Espagnola scotched a complicated deal proffered by Welles and Juan Cobos that would have let Welles finish DQ in Spain.
That DQ became an intensely personal project for Welles, funded by himself, and beholden to no one, would have made him that much more insistent that only he know how to assemble it, not less. In fact, editor Mauro Bonanni has stated that Welles deliberately mislabeled cans of DQ footage, so that only he would know what was what. I see no reason for this strategy to have changed in the years up to Welles's death.
That statement by Welles that he destroyed a version of DQ called Don Quixote Goes to the Moon would be telling, except that the story is a fake, another typical piece of Welles misdirection. Welles told Jonathan Rosenbaum in 1972 that the "Moon" title was a "put on", and that DQ was nearly finished. That story could be a put on as well, except that it more nearly accords with the facts as we know them. So does Bonanni's assertion that there is only one version of DQ, as against Rosenbaum's belief, based on little or no palpable evidence, that there are many. There certainly were many conceptions of DQ, but we really only have evidence of one completed version, that Welles tinkered with for years, but did not substantially alter.
I just rewatched the Franco version of DQ, and it is worse than I remembered. It really does seem as if Franco was working with "trash" that Welles had left lying around, as Bonanni claimed. Did Oja sell the Spanish government trash on purpose, or did she not know the difference?
Interestingly, there is a lot of the "moon" footage in that Franco trash.
By all accounts the footage of DQ shown under Oja's own auspices, from the period just after Welles's death until the Spanish sale, was of much higher quality than that which turned up in Franco's cut. Turns out it was Oja who first donated much of DQ to the French Cinematheque, in 1986; it was from this footage that Costa Gravas made the assembly that was shown at Cannes shortly after. Strangely, the Cinematheque has retained this footage to this day, despite the fact that all DQ footage was supposedly sold to the Spanish government in 1992. Given the horrible quality of the footage that showed up in Franco's version, much of which overlapped what was shown at Cannes, I suspect the Cinematheque just duped what they had, turned that over to the Spaniards, and kept the better quality originals.
Again, oddly, when (some of?) the DQ footage held by the Cinematheque was shown at Locarno in 2005 (seen and described by Roger Ryan on this thread), several of the Patty McCormack scenes were included. Those scenes were not included in the 1986 Costa Gravas assembly, despite coming from the same (?) source. Oja must have forbade their use in 1986 as she had in 1992, but this confirms that Welles had those scenes in his possession, lending more credence to the Audrey Stainton/Mauro Bonanni version of events.
In an earlier post, I showed how Oja was being obtuse in her insistence that the Patty McCormack footage not be used, because Welles wanted to reshoot those scenes with daughter Beatrice.
Perhaps obtuse was not the right word. Does "deliberately deceptive" sound better?
Re: Don Quijote
I'd like to comment on Orson's will, because its contents are germane to this discussion, especially in light of mteal's suggestion that Welles divided DQ between Oja and Paola. Much of the following information about Welles's will comes from Joe McBride's What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?
It is commonly believed that Welles left his "estate", including the rights to Othello, to his wife Paola Mori, and his unfinished films to his companion Oja Kodar. This is a myth. Welles's will, dated 1982, left his Hollywood home, and its contents, to Oja. Paola got the remainder of Welles's properties, including their Nevada home, and his "pictures, paintings, works of art and other personal effects". His three children each received a bequest of $10,000. That's it.
In 1985, however, Welles signed a "Confirmation of Ownership Rights" affirming that Oja Kodar retained any and all available rights to the works they had done together, and that "Welles would never obtain or receive any interest in and to such rights". "Projects specified in the agreement included TOSOTW, The Dreamers, The Deep, DQ, The Orson Welles Show, One Man Band, Orson Welles Solo" and a bunch of written material, including The Big Brass Ring script. This document crystalized previous "oral agreements" between Oja and Welles. Welles did not will these things to Oja, she owned them before he died. They were always hers, officially at least from June 19, 1985, and unofficially from way before that.
People have always wondered why Beatrice was not disinherited after questioning Oja's ownership of TOSOTW, because Welles included a clause in his will stating that anyone who contested or attacked the will would have their interest in the estate revoked. This is why. Beatrice was not contesting the will; she was contesting a separate document, the "Confirmation", which was not part of the will.
Note what is not included in the above list of works owned by Oja: Magic Show, Filming Othello, Filming the Trial. Interesting, yes? More interesting is the inclusion of DQ. Why is DQ in there? Yes, DQ was unfinished, but it was more a "Paola" project than an "Oja" project. Oja was around for some of the DQ editing in Rome in the early 60's, but Mori, who Welles married in 1953, was around for most of the shooting. She's in it, for God's sake. Paola would not have had a problem with Oja owning any of those other projects, but I suspect she would have had a problem with Oja owning DQ.
We know that Paola Mori had "issues" with Oja after Welles's death, issues that were about to be legally resolved when Paola was killed in a freak auto accident. Paola could not have been contesting Welles's will; she was not disinherited. She must have been contesting the "Confirmation". What was she contesting? Ownership of The Big Brass Ring, or of The Orson Welles Show? I doubt it. But perhaps she was trying to pry loose DQ, the nearly complete work print of which had been collected in Rome by their daughter Beatrice in 1970, and brought to the U.S.
The Wikipedia page on DQ accurately mentions where the footage of DQ currently resides, but adds, mysteriously, that additional footage resides "in at least one other private collection".
What the hell does that mean?
Welles might have given Oja ownership of DQ because he did not want it shown after his death as a "completed" film had he not finished it by then, and released it himself, and because he trusted Oja to follow his wishes. In her address before the screening of DQ at Cannes in 1986, Oja admitted her reluctance to showing any of DQ to an audience. "I am a little worried about having agreed to show some extracts of Don Quixote which Orson never wished to show anybody before it was finished...But it was easy for me, thanks to the warm and friendly presence of Costa-Gavras, to give the Cinematheque, which Orson liked and respected, the negative of Don Quixote. It was much more difficult for me to accept that certain portions of the developed film should be shown on the occasion of this tribute." I see no reason not to take Oja at her word.
Oja has been pretty consistent, and insistent, that only 40 minutes of footage in her possession were edited by Welles, although she has cagily affirmed that "Orson had a very carefully worked out editing plan" that she turned over to Franco. If Oja is aware of the work print we have been discussing on this site, she is a very good...fabulist.
Beatrice, on the other hand, and very oddly, has been completely silent about DQ. One must ask why? Because Oja owns it? That hasn't stopped her interfering with TOSOTW, and she's gone after TOE and Kane, where she has even less standing. Oja swore we would never see an English language version of Franco's awful DQ cut, then a DVD shows up and not a peep out of Beatrice. Beatrice knows about the fabled work print, because she had it in her hands in 1970. After the Franco mess she should have been screaming from the rooftops.
Instead, nothing.
Doesn't make sense, unless there is more to this story than meets the eye.
I've mentioned Oja as being part of a Wellesian conspiracy to prevent people from making money off his image after his death, but it has been Beatrice who has been relentless in going after anyone who has tried to release an "Orson Welles Film". That was her beef with the restored TOE release, misleadingly labeled Welles's director's cut, and her interference with the Showtime/TOSOTW project, which she insists proceed as a documentary, and not as a Welles film. Beatrice did not raise a stink about the Arkadin reconstruction, because it was not advertised as a director's cut. She was somewhat troublesome over CHIMES, but so were a lot of other people, and now that the rights situation seems to have been cleared up a restoration is underway.
Beatrice may be staying quiet over DQ because Oja is not trying to release it as anything close to a finished work, and Oja might just be happy to play along for her own reasons.
Whatever the case, that work print exists, somewhere; I am convinced of it. Whether we'll ever see it remains to be seen.
It is commonly believed that Welles left his "estate", including the rights to Othello, to his wife Paola Mori, and his unfinished films to his companion Oja Kodar. This is a myth. Welles's will, dated 1982, left his Hollywood home, and its contents, to Oja. Paola got the remainder of Welles's properties, including their Nevada home, and his "pictures, paintings, works of art and other personal effects". His three children each received a bequest of $10,000. That's it.
In 1985, however, Welles signed a "Confirmation of Ownership Rights" affirming that Oja Kodar retained any and all available rights to the works they had done together, and that "Welles would never obtain or receive any interest in and to such rights". "Projects specified in the agreement included TOSOTW, The Dreamers, The Deep, DQ, The Orson Welles Show, One Man Band, Orson Welles Solo" and a bunch of written material, including The Big Brass Ring script. This document crystalized previous "oral agreements" between Oja and Welles. Welles did not will these things to Oja, she owned them before he died. They were always hers, officially at least from June 19, 1985, and unofficially from way before that.
People have always wondered why Beatrice was not disinherited after questioning Oja's ownership of TOSOTW, because Welles included a clause in his will stating that anyone who contested or attacked the will would have their interest in the estate revoked. This is why. Beatrice was not contesting the will; she was contesting a separate document, the "Confirmation", which was not part of the will.
Note what is not included in the above list of works owned by Oja: Magic Show, Filming Othello, Filming the Trial. Interesting, yes? More interesting is the inclusion of DQ. Why is DQ in there? Yes, DQ was unfinished, but it was more a "Paola" project than an "Oja" project. Oja was around for some of the DQ editing in Rome in the early 60's, but Mori, who Welles married in 1953, was around for most of the shooting. She's in it, for God's sake. Paola would not have had a problem with Oja owning any of those other projects, but I suspect she would have had a problem with Oja owning DQ.
We know that Paola Mori had "issues" with Oja after Welles's death, issues that were about to be legally resolved when Paola was killed in a freak auto accident. Paola could not have been contesting Welles's will; she was not disinherited. She must have been contesting the "Confirmation". What was she contesting? Ownership of The Big Brass Ring, or of The Orson Welles Show? I doubt it. But perhaps she was trying to pry loose DQ, the nearly complete work print of which had been collected in Rome by their daughter Beatrice in 1970, and brought to the U.S.
The Wikipedia page on DQ accurately mentions where the footage of DQ currently resides, but adds, mysteriously, that additional footage resides "in at least one other private collection".
What the hell does that mean?
Welles might have given Oja ownership of DQ because he did not want it shown after his death as a "completed" film had he not finished it by then, and released it himself, and because he trusted Oja to follow his wishes. In her address before the screening of DQ at Cannes in 1986, Oja admitted her reluctance to showing any of DQ to an audience. "I am a little worried about having agreed to show some extracts of Don Quixote which Orson never wished to show anybody before it was finished...But it was easy for me, thanks to the warm and friendly presence of Costa-Gavras, to give the Cinematheque, which Orson liked and respected, the negative of Don Quixote. It was much more difficult for me to accept that certain portions of the developed film should be shown on the occasion of this tribute." I see no reason not to take Oja at her word.
Oja has been pretty consistent, and insistent, that only 40 minutes of footage in her possession were edited by Welles, although she has cagily affirmed that "Orson had a very carefully worked out editing plan" that she turned over to Franco. If Oja is aware of the work print we have been discussing on this site, she is a very good...fabulist.
Beatrice, on the other hand, and very oddly, has been completely silent about DQ. One must ask why? Because Oja owns it? That hasn't stopped her interfering with TOSOTW, and she's gone after TOE and Kane, where she has even less standing. Oja swore we would never see an English language version of Franco's awful DQ cut, then a DVD shows up and not a peep out of Beatrice. Beatrice knows about the fabled work print, because she had it in her hands in 1970. After the Franco mess she should have been screaming from the rooftops.
Instead, nothing.
Doesn't make sense, unless there is more to this story than meets the eye.
I've mentioned Oja as being part of a Wellesian conspiracy to prevent people from making money off his image after his death, but it has been Beatrice who has been relentless in going after anyone who has tried to release an "Orson Welles Film". That was her beef with the restored TOE release, misleadingly labeled Welles's director's cut, and her interference with the Showtime/TOSOTW project, which she insists proceed as a documentary, and not as a Welles film. Beatrice did not raise a stink about the Arkadin reconstruction, because it was not advertised as a director's cut. She was somewhat troublesome over CHIMES, but so were a lot of other people, and now that the rights situation seems to have been cleared up a restoration is underway.
Beatrice may be staying quiet over DQ because Oja is not trying to release it as anything close to a finished work, and Oja might just be happy to play along for her own reasons.
Whatever the case, that work print exists, somewhere; I am convinced of it. Whether we'll ever see it remains to be seen.
-
Roger Ryan
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:09 am
Re: Don Quijote
Just wanted to point out that DQ footage shown in Locarno in 2005 was promoted as simply being "rushes" or a collection of disconnected scenes (which it was). Since there was no attempt to show anything that resembled a completed work, I can't imagine the inclusion of the McCormack footage was going against anyone's wishes. For the record, one scene from Franco's assembly was screened at the festival (the scene with Paola and the motorcycle) in an attempt to be inclusive even though it was acknowledged beforehand that the Franco effort was a mess!
-
Le Chiffre
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2078
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
Re: Don Quijote
Here's an interesting page about Beatrice from DCairns' Shadowplay blog:
http://dcairns.wordpress.com/2008/05/07 ... /#comments
It also makes sense that, if Beatrice does possess the "nearly complete" workprint of DON QUIXOTE, she would want to keep mum about it; otherwise, Oja would make a legal claim, since according to Welles's will, it is Oja's property. And yes, this I would think would be especially galling to Beatrice, since as Mido says, DON QUIXOTE is clearly more a film from Welles's "Paola" period then from his "Oja" period.
Maybe Beatrice thought it would be a good strategic move to let the Franco DQ DVD be released in order to make Oja look bad, and indeed, Oja has received some of the blame for it.
http://dcairns.wordpress.com/2008/05/07 ... /#comments
“(Welles) left $10, 000 each to his three daughters from his three marriages while dividing the bulk of his estate between [Paola Mori] his third wife and his mistress of many years, Oja Kodar, with an additional provision that should Paola die, then all that remained of his estate should go to Oja.”
Paola contested the will, in large measure I believe because of the provision that upon her death everything would revert to Oja rather than to Beatrice. A hearing was scheduled for 14 August 1986. Two days before, on 12 August 1986, Paola was killed in an automobile accident a short distance from her home in Las Vegas. Oja Kodar got everything by default.”
I think it’s understandable that Beatrice Welles, having simultaneously lost a mother and been cheated of an inheritance by fate, might have conflicted feelings towards her father."
It also makes sense that, if Beatrice does possess the "nearly complete" workprint of DON QUIXOTE, she would want to keep mum about it; otherwise, Oja would make a legal claim, since according to Welles's will, it is Oja's property. And yes, this I would think would be especially galling to Beatrice, since as Mido says, DON QUIXOTE is clearly more a film from Welles's "Paola" period then from his "Oja" period.
Oja swore we would never see an English language version of Franco's awful DQ cut, then a DVD shows up and not a peep out of Beatrice. Beatrice knows about the fabled work print, because she had it in her hands in 1970. After the Franco mess she should have been screaming from the rooftops.
Instead, nothing.
Doesn't make sense, unless there is more to this story than meets the eye.
Maybe Beatrice thought it would be a good strategic move to let the Franco DQ DVD be released in order to make Oja look bad, and indeed, Oja has received some of the blame for it.
Re: Don Quijote
mteal:
Thank you again for a richly suggestive post, especially this tidbit:
That's so deliciously Machiavellian that I wish it were true.
I'm a little suspect of that info gleaned from Shadowplay. DCairns is a serious film guy, and I love his site, but his little post on Welles is so riddled with error that it makes me wonder, once again, if it is possible at all to speak or write of Welles authoritively. For instance, Cairns states that the restored Othello failed to include the spoken credits, but the 1955 American version, which forms the basis for the restoration, and for the Criterion LD, never included the spoken credits, found only on the 1952 French/European version. Cairns also states that the the restored version does not include the opening narration (which he seems to be confusing with the spoken credits); it does, as does the Criterion LD, seen now on YouTube. Beatrice technically did not halt restoration of TOSOTW; rather, she insisted that it be shown within a documentary about the production, rather than as an Orson Welles film.
This guy Tuska, whom Cairns quotes, and whom I have not read, is also fact challenged: it is not a "cinematographer" who holds a chunk of DQ, but the chief editor, Mauro Bonanni.
Tuska "believes" that Paola was contesting a provision in Welles's will declaring that, should she die, the remainder of Welles's estate would revert to Oja, but he's botched that all up. That provision, common in wills, likely refers to Paola predeceasing Welles; had that happened, Oja would have gotten it all, except for the bequests to Welles's three children. The idea that Oja would get the rest of Welles's estate after he died and after Paola died (which would have happened eventually) is absurd, a fact that Cairns notes and then ignores.
The proof for my "belief". First, Paola was not disinherited for contesting Welles's will, and never seemed to have been threatened with that provision. Second, Paola died before signing the new documents, and Oja did not inherit the remainder of Welles's estate. Paola's share passed to Beatrice, as it should have.
That the unflappable and indefatigable Kevin Brownlow passed on restoring DQ further supports Bonanni's contention that Oja had nothing but "trash" that was lying around, but there is one glitch to that story. Oja donated a big chunk of DQ material to the French Cinematheque in 1986, so that stuff would not have been in the "van" that Oja was driving around Europe (another new DQ tidbit that seems completely made up).
I used to think Beatrice has the DQ work print, but I can't figure out how she would have got it, as it was in Welles's possession, in LA, at the time of his death. My current belief is that Oja donated the work print to the Cinematheque in 1986, with the proviso that it not be shown in its complete form. She later sold the inessential DQ "trash" she had stored away to the Spanish government, not to make money off of Welles's name per se, but to get her mother out of war-torn Yugoslavia. I don't think Welles would have objected.
Thank you again for a richly suggestive post, especially this tidbit:
Maybe Beatrice thought it would be a good strategic move to let the Franco DQ DVD be released in order to make Oja look bad, and indeed, Oja has received some of the blame for it.
That's so deliciously Machiavellian that I wish it were true.
I'm a little suspect of that info gleaned from Shadowplay. DCairns is a serious film guy, and I love his site, but his little post on Welles is so riddled with error that it makes me wonder, once again, if it is possible at all to speak or write of Welles authoritively. For instance, Cairns states that the restored Othello failed to include the spoken credits, but the 1955 American version, which forms the basis for the restoration, and for the Criterion LD, never included the spoken credits, found only on the 1952 French/European version. Cairns also states that the the restored version does not include the opening narration (which he seems to be confusing with the spoken credits); it does, as does the Criterion LD, seen now on YouTube. Beatrice technically did not halt restoration of TOSOTW; rather, she insisted that it be shown within a documentary about the production, rather than as an Orson Welles film.
This guy Tuska, whom Cairns quotes, and whom I have not read, is also fact challenged: it is not a "cinematographer" who holds a chunk of DQ, but the chief editor, Mauro Bonanni.
Tuska "believes" that Paola was contesting a provision in Welles's will declaring that, should she die, the remainder of Welles's estate would revert to Oja, but he's botched that all up. That provision, common in wills, likely refers to Paola predeceasing Welles; had that happened, Oja would have gotten it all, except for the bequests to Welles's three children. The idea that Oja would get the rest of Welles's estate after he died and after Paola died (which would have happened eventually) is absurd, a fact that Cairns notes and then ignores.
The proof for my "belief". First, Paola was not disinherited for contesting Welles's will, and never seemed to have been threatened with that provision. Second, Paola died before signing the new documents, and Oja did not inherit the remainder of Welles's estate. Paola's share passed to Beatrice, as it should have.
That the unflappable and indefatigable Kevin Brownlow passed on restoring DQ further supports Bonanni's contention that Oja had nothing but "trash" that was lying around, but there is one glitch to that story. Oja donated a big chunk of DQ material to the French Cinematheque in 1986, so that stuff would not have been in the "van" that Oja was driving around Europe (another new DQ tidbit that seems completely made up).
I used to think Beatrice has the DQ work print, but I can't figure out how she would have got it, as it was in Welles's possession, in LA, at the time of his death. My current belief is that Oja donated the work print to the Cinematheque in 1986, with the proviso that it not be shown in its complete form. She later sold the inessential DQ "trash" she had stored away to the Spanish government, not to make money off of Welles's name per se, but to get her mother out of war-torn Yugoslavia. I don't think Welles would have objected.
Last edited by mido505 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Don Quijote
Roger:
Thank you for your clarification. I know that Locarno was long ago and far away, but could you clarify two additional points for me?
1) Were the "rushes" shown in good condition, visually, especially when compared to any of the footage that also appeared in the Franco version?
2) Did any of these "rushes" appear to be sequences edited by Welles?
I'd appreciate any help you can offer on this subject.
Now let's discuss Jonathon Braun.
Jonathon Braun was "Orson's last editor", according to Peter Prescott Tonguette. Braun worked on most of Welles's final projects, including The Dreamers, Magic Show, and TOSOTW, and would have been editor on The Cradle Will Rock, had it been made. He also did work on DQ, saw the fabled work print, and is adamant that DQ was nearly finished, needing only some tweaking and polishing.
Braun is still active in Hollywood, and is not a marginal figure; his listing at IMDB shows a number of decent if unexceptional editing and production credits.
Given what he knows, why hasn't Braun spoken out about DQ, and, more importantly, why has no one asked him?
Take the case of Jonathan Rosenbaum, called by some our "greatest living Welles scholar", whatever that means. Rosenbaum has written extensively about DQ, including an essay in 2005 entitled "When Will-and How Can-We Finish Orson Welles's Don Quixote". He has been relentless in his criticism of Franco's cut of DQ. He's traveled to several different European retrospectives of Welles's work to view footage of DQ, and has gone so far as to gain access to the holdings of the Filmoteca Espagnola. He has spoken with editor Mauro Bonanni, and viewed much of Bonanni's footage. He's personally aquainted with Oja, and has spoken to her on the subject.
As our "greatest living Welles scholar", Rosenbaum must have read Tonguette's book at some point after it was published in 2007. Even if he doubted Braun's veracity, would it not make sense to get in touch with him, a relatively easy task I should think, and ask the following:
1. Did Welles actually possess a fairly complete version/work print of DQ when you cut
it together?
2. If so, can you describe it, scenes, story, conception?
3. You say that DQ was almost ready for release. Was Welles planning on using the Patty
McCormack footage, or had he revisioned the film since 1970?
4. Given that a nearly complete work print existed of DQ at Welles's death, why do you think
the Franco version is so awful?
5. Just before he died, Welles contacted Susan Cloutier, who held a portion of the DQ negative,
and editor Mauro Bonanni, who held the rest, evidently with the intention of finishing DQ. Did
you know about this, and were you involved?
6. What do you think happened to that work print after Welles died?
If not Rosenbaum, why not McBride? Or Heylin? Or Tonguette himself? This is important stuff, a real scoop for a "Welles scholar" All you have to do is pick up the phone.
Or are they all silent for a reason?
I am begging anyone who reads this forum, who has connections in Hollywood, or connections to connections in Hollywood, to try and contact Jonathon Braun and ask him these vital questions. The answers would clear up a lot.
Thank you for your clarification. I know that Locarno was long ago and far away, but could you clarify two additional points for me?
1) Were the "rushes" shown in good condition, visually, especially when compared to any of the footage that also appeared in the Franco version?
2) Did any of these "rushes" appear to be sequences edited by Welles?
I'd appreciate any help you can offer on this subject.
Now let's discuss Jonathon Braun.
Jonathon Braun was "Orson's last editor", according to Peter Prescott Tonguette. Braun worked on most of Welles's final projects, including The Dreamers, Magic Show, and TOSOTW, and would have been editor on The Cradle Will Rock, had it been made. He also did work on DQ, saw the fabled work print, and is adamant that DQ was nearly finished, needing only some tweaking and polishing.
Braun is still active in Hollywood, and is not a marginal figure; his listing at IMDB shows a number of decent if unexceptional editing and production credits.
Given what he knows, why hasn't Braun spoken out about DQ, and, more importantly, why has no one asked him?
Take the case of Jonathan Rosenbaum, called by some our "greatest living Welles scholar", whatever that means. Rosenbaum has written extensively about DQ, including an essay in 2005 entitled "When Will-and How Can-We Finish Orson Welles's Don Quixote". He has been relentless in his criticism of Franco's cut of DQ. He's traveled to several different European retrospectives of Welles's work to view footage of DQ, and has gone so far as to gain access to the holdings of the Filmoteca Espagnola. He has spoken with editor Mauro Bonanni, and viewed much of Bonanni's footage. He's personally aquainted with Oja, and has spoken to her on the subject.
As our "greatest living Welles scholar", Rosenbaum must have read Tonguette's book at some point after it was published in 2007. Even if he doubted Braun's veracity, would it not make sense to get in touch with him, a relatively easy task I should think, and ask the following:
1. Did Welles actually possess a fairly complete version/work print of DQ when you cut
it together?
2. If so, can you describe it, scenes, story, conception?
3. You say that DQ was almost ready for release. Was Welles planning on using the Patty
McCormack footage, or had he revisioned the film since 1970?
4. Given that a nearly complete work print existed of DQ at Welles's death, why do you think
the Franco version is so awful?
5. Just before he died, Welles contacted Susan Cloutier, who held a portion of the DQ negative,
and editor Mauro Bonanni, who held the rest, evidently with the intention of finishing DQ. Did
you know about this, and were you involved?
6. What do you think happened to that work print after Welles died?
If not Rosenbaum, why not McBride? Or Heylin? Or Tonguette himself? This is important stuff, a real scoop for a "Welles scholar" All you have to do is pick up the phone.
Or are they all silent for a reason?
I am begging anyone who reads this forum, who has connections in Hollywood, or connections to connections in Hollywood, to try and contact Jonathon Braun and ask him these vital questions. The answers would clear up a lot.
-
LostOverThere
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:58 am
Re: Don Quijote
I don't have any Hollywood contacts, but I think we could all do our part to try and contact Jonathan Braun.
After a bit of research, I've found what appears to be his LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/dimwit
After a bit of research, I've found what appears to be his LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/dimwit
Re: Don Quijote
I have already reached out with him. I will obviously let you know what transpires.
-
Le Chiffre
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2078
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
Re: Don Quijote
Good luck, Ray. Those are good questions, Mido. I'd add a few more:
How is it that you came to work for Welles in the first place?
What was left to do in order to make Quixote complete?
Are you in possession of the work print?
If so, can I have a copy of it?
What do you think should be done with the material that remains?
How far did Welles get in his bid to make his "essay" film of Quixote?
Some of these questions may have been answered in Peter Tonguette's book, but that book is now out of print and hard to get a copy of. It would be nice to have a new interview with Braun. Good thinking, Mido. If anyone else can think of any pertinent questions, feel free to list them here. While we're tracking down Jonathon Braun, has anyone ever done an in-depth interview with Patty McCormack?
BTW, on page 239 of McBride's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ORSON WELLES, he says that Welles's workprint of DQ is held by the Cinematheque Francaise.
How is it that you came to work for Welles in the first place?
What was left to do in order to make Quixote complete?
Are you in possession of the work print?
If so, can I have a copy of it?
What do you think should be done with the material that remains?
How far did Welles get in his bid to make his "essay" film of Quixote?
Some of these questions may have been answered in Peter Tonguette's book, but that book is now out of print and hard to get a copy of. It would be nice to have a new interview with Braun. Good thinking, Mido. If anyone else can think of any pertinent questions, feel free to list them here. While we're tracking down Jonathon Braun, has anyone ever done an in-depth interview with Patty McCormack?
BTW, on page 239 of McBride's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ORSON WELLES, he says that Welles's workprint of DQ is held by the Cinematheque Francaise.
Re: Don Quijote
Mteal:
I now believe that the fabled workprint, or what's left of it, resides at the Cinematheque Francais.
I had previously entertained, and then dismissed that idea, for reasons outlined in previous posts, but the thread of logic we have been painfully following leads inevitably to Paris.
Franco, and the Spaniards, either never got that material, donated by Oja around 1986 soon after Welles's death, or only received incomplete, bad quality dupes.
I had been led astray by eyewitness testimony reporting that footage exhibited by the Cinematheque was grossly incomplete, although of excellent quality.
I now believe, again for reasons outlined above, that this "incompleteness" was deliberate.
I have just read through Drossler's "The Unknown Orson Welles". In his notes on DQ, Drossler states that "SCENES FROM DON QUIXOTE contains all the sound segments and some (my bold) silent sequences of a work print of DON QUIXOTE which was preserved by the Cinematheque Francais in 1996 as well as outtakes from earlier states of the project."
It's there. Let's see if Jonathon Braun can tell us what's on it.
I now believe that the fabled workprint, or what's left of it, resides at the Cinematheque Francais.
I had previously entertained, and then dismissed that idea, for reasons outlined in previous posts, but the thread of logic we have been painfully following leads inevitably to Paris.
Franco, and the Spaniards, either never got that material, donated by Oja around 1986 soon after Welles's death, or only received incomplete, bad quality dupes.
I had been led astray by eyewitness testimony reporting that footage exhibited by the Cinematheque was grossly incomplete, although of excellent quality.
I now believe, again for reasons outlined above, that this "incompleteness" was deliberate.
I have just read through Drossler's "The Unknown Orson Welles". In his notes on DQ, Drossler states that "SCENES FROM DON QUIXOTE contains all the sound segments and some (my bold) silent sequences of a work print of DON QUIXOTE which was preserved by the Cinematheque Francais in 1996 as well as outtakes from earlier states of the project."
It's there. Let's see if Jonathon Braun can tell us what's on it.
-
ToddBaesen
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Don Quijote
Mido, thanks for pointing out the "Confirmation of Ownership Rights" affirming that Oja Kodar retained any and all available rights to the works she and Welles had done together.
What would be very interesting is to see a copy of Welles's complete will, as well as the confirmation of ownership rights document. I've only seen a summary of Welles's will, and was always puzzled as to why Oja didn't counter-sue Beatrice, who by contesting Oja's rights of ownership, seemed to be opening herself to be completely revoked from Welles's will!
But the confirmation of ownership rights document seems to explain this. In any case it would be fascinating to see Welles actual will to determine how much Beatrice has been contesting is actually based on the facts in the will itself. What is sad, is if Palo Mori had lived, I doubt that she would have contested Oja's rights of ownership to the extent that Beatrice has done. However, something else I find very strange is whether or not Palo Mori and Oja Kodar really were ever scheduled to meet and settle their differences over the Welles estate the very day after Palo died in Las Vegas. I remember reading that report in Palo's obituary in VARIETY, so I assumed it was true, but Oja Kodar herself has said the story is completely untrue, and such a meeting was never scheduled to take place!
Likewise, hearing the different sides claim what rights they have, is very much based on who is doing the talking. It looks like the best account of the will is the one Joe McBride gives on page 211-214 in his book, but even that is only a summary. Having the entire will would certainly make Welles intentions crystal clear to most "independent" readers, although any will would certainly be open to final decisions that would have to be made in a court of law.
As to Oja obtaining the final rights to DON QUIXOTE, the reason it would seem Beatrice never challenged that, is simply because Oja had the work done in Europe, out of the reach of Beatrice. Oja herself said she was so appalled with the Jess Franco cut of DON QUIXOTE, she would never give her consent for it to be released in America, so it's rather strange that IMAGE ENT. finally put it out on DVD. Sadly, Beatrice did not try to stop that release, as it is the one time I would have certainly agreed with her!
Perhaps finishing THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND might also be done in Europe, forgetting about any of the American rights for the moment. By getting the money to finish it and shown only in Europe, presumably Beatrice would not be able to demand that it only be done as a "documentary. This would also make sense if the negative and other material is all still being held in a lab vault in Paris. The problem, of course, is that no European backers appear willing to put up the $4 million needed to complete the film.
Maybe, like in ARGO, Oja can go back and try to find the $4 million from some rich Iranian or Saudi Arabian backers?
What would be very interesting is to see a copy of Welles's complete will, as well as the confirmation of ownership rights document. I've only seen a summary of Welles's will, and was always puzzled as to why Oja didn't counter-sue Beatrice, who by contesting Oja's rights of ownership, seemed to be opening herself to be completely revoked from Welles's will!
But the confirmation of ownership rights document seems to explain this. In any case it would be fascinating to see Welles actual will to determine how much Beatrice has been contesting is actually based on the facts in the will itself. What is sad, is if Palo Mori had lived, I doubt that she would have contested Oja's rights of ownership to the extent that Beatrice has done. However, something else I find very strange is whether or not Palo Mori and Oja Kodar really were ever scheduled to meet and settle their differences over the Welles estate the very day after Palo died in Las Vegas. I remember reading that report in Palo's obituary in VARIETY, so I assumed it was true, but Oja Kodar herself has said the story is completely untrue, and such a meeting was never scheduled to take place!
Likewise, hearing the different sides claim what rights they have, is very much based on who is doing the talking. It looks like the best account of the will is the one Joe McBride gives on page 211-214 in his book, but even that is only a summary. Having the entire will would certainly make Welles intentions crystal clear to most "independent" readers, although any will would certainly be open to final decisions that would have to be made in a court of law.
As to Oja obtaining the final rights to DON QUIXOTE, the reason it would seem Beatrice never challenged that, is simply because Oja had the work done in Europe, out of the reach of Beatrice. Oja herself said she was so appalled with the Jess Franco cut of DON QUIXOTE, she would never give her consent for it to be released in America, so it's rather strange that IMAGE ENT. finally put it out on DVD. Sadly, Beatrice did not try to stop that release, as it is the one time I would have certainly agreed with her!
Perhaps finishing THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND might also be done in Europe, forgetting about any of the American rights for the moment. By getting the money to finish it and shown only in Europe, presumably Beatrice would not be able to demand that it only be done as a "documentary. This would also make sense if the negative and other material is all still being held in a lab vault in Paris. The problem, of course, is that no European backers appear willing to put up the $4 million needed to complete the film.
Maybe, like in ARGO, Oja can go back and try to find the $4 million from some rich Iranian or Saudi Arabian backers?
Todd
-
Roger Ryan
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:09 am
Re: Don Quijote
mido505 wrote:Roger:
Thank you for your clarification. I know that Locarno was long ago and far away, but could you clarify two additional points for me?
1) Were the "rushes" shown in good condition, visually, especially when compared to any of the footage that also appeared in the Franco version?
2) Did any of these "rushes" appear to be sequences edited by Welles?
I'd appreciate any help you can offer on this subject.
Sorry for replying so late to this request. Although I think the notes in THE UNKNOWN ORSON WELLES have already answered this, I can attest that the QUIXOTE footage shown at Locarno was in excellent condition, not even comparable to the footage shown in Franco's version (which, to be fair, was projected from a DVD copy). I should clarify that "rushes" is probably the wrong term to use for what was presented. What I saw was a series of roughly-edited scenes with and without audio. When I say "rough", I mean that much of it felt very loose in that there were multiple takes present or that you would see the actor (primarily Tamiroff) break character before the shot would end. This is the way Welles worked, by the way. He would assemble the best takes and roughly cut them together, sometimes with alternate versions present so he could choose which one he liked best later. Of course, this could qualify as a "workprint", but for it to be something close to "completed", everything would need to be tightened up and the unused takes would need to be deleted from the reels (not to mention a sufficient audio track would need to be developed). Some of the footage seen from THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND is like this as well: duplicate action and a general looseness to scenes that would have been tightened up later. Another example would be the workprint for THE DEEP which runs about two hours, yet contains approximately 30 minutes of duplicate/alternate material that would not be present in a released film. Having said this, I would say that all of the QUIXOTE footage screened in Locarno appeared to be assembled by Welles. A scene where Sancho Panza finds Quixote in a cage felt the most complete of anything shown, but even this scene had Welles himself dubbing all of the dialog. Is this something he would have wanted for a final product or was this still at an intermediate stage?
In short, the QUIXOTE footage shown at Locarno was an entertaining collection of snippets from the film, but it was not even close to representing anything that told a story. If memory serves, the sound footage showed Welles talking with McCormack on a hotel patio and in a horse-drawn carriage (only McCormack's lines were dubbed) and the scene where Panza finds Quixote in a cage. Silent footage included the celebrated movie theater scene (where Quixote attacks the screen), Quixote being "attacked" by an army of sheep, Quixote taking a bath on a rooftop (with a "Don Quixote" beer ad billboard visible in the background), Quixote and Panza stopping on a street to look in a store window selling televisions (as I recall, there was space left for insert shots to show what they saw on the TV screens, but this was not shown), Panza looking into the window of a automobile and seeing Welles himself who appears surprised to see him (a very nice POV shot follows as we watch Panza growing smaller in the rear window as the car drives away) and lots of takes of Tamiroff as Panza dancing/playing with children and entertaining onlookers in what looks like spur-of-the-moment improvised footage. Apart from the aforementioned "cage" scene, the movie theater scene was the most tightly-edited of all the QUIXOTE footage shown.*
* I've revised this post a few hours after writing it to correct a few things I initially misremembered.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest