Hello All-
Very curious about the status of "Merchant". The scenes shown in "One Man Band" were fabulous. Anyone know just how much of this was shot? I looked it up in "This Is Orson Welles" and it only says the project was to be about an hour in length and something about the sound being lost or stolen (I think). But the clips from OMB looked like they were from a finished project. Anyone?
-Flint
Merchant of Venice
I recently got in contact with Peter Tonguette, author of the excellent piece about the Dreamers on the Senses of Cinema website. He said, that among the unfinished projects of Welles' that the Munich Filmmuseum have restored and assembled are the surviving fragement of Merchant (I imagine it was the clip shown in OMB) with the Shylock monologue Welles did years later in a trenchcoat.
Thanks Colwood!
Fantastic article. The other Welles piece by Jaime Christley was very good as well - and mentions that ALL the footage was shot for "Merchant" and that only the sound is missing on two reels. If this is the case, hopefully a shooting script can be found and perhaps a voice double can re-record Welle's lines.
-Flint.
Fantastic article. The other Welles piece by Jaime Christley was very good as well - and mentions that ALL the footage was shot for "Merchant" and that only the sound is missing on two reels. If this is the case, hopefully a shooting script can be found and perhaps a voice double can re-record Welle's lines.
-Flint.
-
blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
the clips of merchant are indeed fabulous. in citizen welles it said the sound was done but welles, courting disaster, was storing the sound in the back seat of his car, from where they were stolen.
some clips from merchant also turned up in a documentary about sheakespeare that showed on bravo. those clips were in better shape than the ones in OMB.
and flint's suggestion would certainly work for any of us; so much of what we love in welles is visual, the sound hardly matters. i love don q, and that whole audio is disposable.
some clips from merchant also turned up in a documentary about sheakespeare that showed on bravo. those clips were in better shape than the ones in OMB.
and flint's suggestion would certainly work for any of us; so much of what we love in welles is visual, the sound hardly matters. i love don q, and that whole audio is disposable.
-
blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
-
blunted by community
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:24 am
-
Sir Bygber Brown
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:17 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Yes, i've seen the Merchant clip - and i agreed. It was one of the main things which got my blood rushing in One Man Band - what a tantalising treat! Welles is fantastic as Shylock, both in the TV film, and later in the monologue. And those are real tears in the monologue!
You may remember me from such sites as imdb, amazon and criterionforum as Ben Cheshire.
-
Sir Bygber Brown
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:17 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Just watching the Merchant clip again. Woe is me! This could have been as great as Touch of Evil! This would rank among my favourite Welles works if only an agreement could be made about putting together as much footage as possible. It breaks my heart every time the film reel runs out at the end of the scene! (an excellent touch, whosever idea that was!)
You may remember me from such sites as imdb, amazon and criterionforum as Ben Cheshire.
-
Sir Bygber Brown
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:17 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
Jedediah Leland
- Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:51 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
Re: Merchant of Venice
Now here's an interesting development.
Like most people, I'd assumed that when Welles said he left the workprint reels in the back of his car, and that two of the three reels were stolen after the one solitary preview screening for Oja Kodar and her mother in Rome, that this had happened in Rome.
But apparently not. It may have been elsewhere in Europe, possibly Salzburg.
As we know, Welles stormed out of Italy in March 1970 after his affair with Kodar was covered by an Italian tabloid. This is what his editor in Rome, Mauro Bonanni (who worked on The Merchant of Venice) says:
Welles can't have gone back to Rome to view the film with Kodar's mother after this. The screening in Rome must have happened first. So the last time the Merchant of Venice workprint was sighted would have been in Salzburg in March/April 1970, when Welles had it handed to him. Which means the theft either happened then, or slightly later. That might also explain why he was storing it in his car - he was literally homeless, between houses, having shunned Italy, and in the middle of contemplating his imminent return to the USA later in the year.
Does anyone want to contact the "Lost and Found" department in Saltzburg?
Like most people, I'd assumed that when Welles said he left the workprint reels in the back of his car, and that two of the three reels were stolen after the one solitary preview screening for Oja Kodar and her mother in Rome, that this had happened in Rome.
But apparently not. It may have been elsewhere in Europe, possibly Salzburg.
As we know, Welles stormed out of Italy in March 1970 after his affair with Kodar was covered by an Italian tabloid. This is what his editor in Rome, Mauro Bonanni (who worked on The Merchant of Venice) says:
Mauro Bonanni wrote:Mauro Bonanni: When, in March of '70, came out the news of his affair with Oja Kodar he was in slow motion angry and said: "You Italians! You Italians!"And I did not understand what he meant. He then explained: in practice, the article said that "while Paola Mori was suffering, Welles made merry at the Hilton with Oja Kodar." But the photos of Welles and Kodar had not been made at the Hilton as we were led to believe. They were made right there where we filmed. Welles pointed to the bricks that were seen in the background of the photo and you could tell very well that they were those of [the villa] Safa Palatino. In short, the responsibility for this story belongs to Rizzoli, the magazine. Welles was a scoop they had done.
So Welles left immediately?
Mauro Bonanni: That morning he came to tell me that, at 10:30, he had already woken up both Oja and Nina. He had canceled the room at the Hilton for three or four days and slept in the dressing room of Safa Palatino . . . Then he went to an apartment Anglo-American and remained there for another ten days. Then he left.
He had not taken anything away?
Mauro Bonanni: No, then the other stuff I did with him I sent to Salzburg.
Was Don Quixote among the things that you brought there?
Mauro Bonanni: No, there were all the episodes of the CBS special, including “The Merchant of Venice”, which at that point was almost finished. It was mixed and everything, even with the music of Lavagnino. I think Lavagnino, given the close working relationship and friendship he had with Welles, had not wanted to be paid. So Welles had given him all his drawings and miniatures.
Why did you not also bring Don Quixote?
Mauro Bonanni: Because Welles was afraid of the train journey. In fact, to bring all that CBS material I had had to travel by train at night. It was all illegal material, since at the time, to be able to travel, the film had to be stamped, for example, with the emblem of the Italian Republic; both the beginning and end of the film.
Welles can't have gone back to Rome to view the film with Kodar's mother after this. The screening in Rome must have happened first. So the last time the Merchant of Venice workprint was sighted would have been in Salzburg in March/April 1970, when Welles had it handed to him. Which means the theft either happened then, or slightly later. That might also explain why he was storing it in his car - he was literally homeless, between houses, having shunned Italy, and in the middle of contemplating his imminent return to the USA later in the year.
Does anyone want to contact the "Lost and Found" department in Saltzburg?
Re: Merchant of Venice
Great news! Restoration of Merchant to be shown at Venice Film Festival!:
http://www.wellesnet.com/merchant-of-ve ... -festival/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/v ... ost-813819
Italian article by Alessandro Aniballi:
http://quinlan.it/2015/08/07/sul-ritrov ... di-welles/
Translation:
THE DISCOVERY OF THE WELLES MERCHANT OF VENICE
After Too Much Johnson, the association of Friuli Cinemazero announced the discovery of another mysterious unfinished Welles, The Merchant of Venice, dating back to 1969. The film will be screened at the Lido in it’s world premiere.
The mysteries around the unfinished work of Welles continue to be far from over. At least, however, compared to a few years ago, something of this material is coming slowly to light. After the momentous discovery of Too Much Johnson, Cinemazero has found in its archives a large part of the material of the Merchant of Venice, a medium-length film that Welles conceived between 1968 and 1969 as an episode of a special for the American television station CBS, entitled initially Around the World with Orson Welles and then simply Orson's Bag. A special that also included episodes set in Vienna, London and other European cities.
So far, only a few minutes, deposited at the Munich Film Museum, of the Wellesian version of The Merchant of Venice had been seen in public; for example, at the 2005 Locarno Film Festival. One was still technically not able to make a precise assessment of the project from these fragments of Welles in the role of Shylock.
But now, thanks to the discovery of the archive Cinemazero, you can see 30 minutes from a total of 40 (the total duration is shown in the appendix of volume I, Orson Welles, edited by Jonathan Rosenbaum ) and so we can - and must - better contextualize the scope of this short feature within the filmography of Welles. We are convinced that the importance of the Merchant is not to be underestimated, because it is technically the last - at least chronologically - Shakespearean rendition of the author of Citizen Kane, after Macbeth, Othello and Falstaff.
Therefore, in accordance with the Cineteca del Friuli, - along with the Munich Film Museum and with the collaboration of the Cineteca di Bologna and the Cinémathèque Française (in whose archives were found other fragments of the film) - Cinemazero has promoted a restoration of the film, which will be screened in its world premiere at the 72nd edition of the Venice Film Festival. Besides this opportunity, what better venue to see this material for the first time?
Yet, even if designed after the Othello (which will also be screened for the first time at the Lido in the original Italian) as a new tribute to Venice, the Merchant is an episode in the CBS special which was quite eccentric. In fact, in other episodes Welles is staged mainly in the role of himself and speaks in the car with the purpose of illustrating and explaining to the public the characteristics, virtues and vices of each city which he happens to be visiting. For example, the episode Spying in Vienna is built so.
The same thing does not happen in The Merchant of Venice, where instead a fictional appearance clearly prevails rather than documentary and/or "investigation" television. However, based on what he told Mauro Bonanni, who in addition to Don Quixote, also edited parts of this CBS special, Welles in the first few frames of the film would come into the scene in his shoes, and then transform into Shylock before our eyes. It appears - again according to the words of Bonanni - that at the very beginning of the Merchant, Welles arrives in a Venetian street which is set up as a kind of makeshift dressing room outdoors, and here puts on the costume and makeup of Shylock, as he speaks of the importance of this character and its characteristics within the work of Shakespeare. From that point on, you would then enter the fiction, with the Jew usurer Shylock demanding the pound of flesh from the merchant Antonio, and meanwhile being fooled by his daughter Jessica.
That said, being still a medium-length film, it is absolutely certain that Welles has drastically cut some parts of the original play. It seems in particular that he eliminated the character of Portia, and with her all the moments from the comedy of errors as well. We do not know whether such a revision of the text was made by Welles by necessity or by choice (according to reports on the English Wikipedia, it seems that Oja Kodar did not feel able to step into the shoes of Portia, because at that time she did not know quite well enough the language of the Bard), the fact is that in this way Welles’s Merchant of Venice - also based on the few minutes seen in the past thanks to the Munich Film Museum - should be transformed radically, thus moving itself from the status of comedy, as conceived by Shakespeare, to that of tragedy, the center of which is Shylock only. An operation that, perhaps, may not deviate too much from what Welles had done previously in the presence of the character of Falstaff, who became the protagonist of that film of the same name.
But all this will checked at the next edition of the Venice Film Festival pre-opening on September 1, when The Merchant of Venice will be screened, before 'Othello.
http://www.wellesnet.com/merchant-of-ve ... -festival/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/v ... ost-813819
Italian article by Alessandro Aniballi:
http://quinlan.it/2015/08/07/sul-ritrov ... di-welles/
Translation:
THE DISCOVERY OF THE WELLES MERCHANT OF VENICE
After Too Much Johnson, the association of Friuli Cinemazero announced the discovery of another mysterious unfinished Welles, The Merchant of Venice, dating back to 1969. The film will be screened at the Lido in it’s world premiere.
The mysteries around the unfinished work of Welles continue to be far from over. At least, however, compared to a few years ago, something of this material is coming slowly to light. After the momentous discovery of Too Much Johnson, Cinemazero has found in its archives a large part of the material of the Merchant of Venice, a medium-length film that Welles conceived between 1968 and 1969 as an episode of a special for the American television station CBS, entitled initially Around the World with Orson Welles and then simply Orson's Bag. A special that also included episodes set in Vienna, London and other European cities.
So far, only a few minutes, deposited at the Munich Film Museum, of the Wellesian version of The Merchant of Venice had been seen in public; for example, at the 2005 Locarno Film Festival. One was still technically not able to make a precise assessment of the project from these fragments of Welles in the role of Shylock.
But now, thanks to the discovery of the archive Cinemazero, you can see 30 minutes from a total of 40 (the total duration is shown in the appendix of volume I, Orson Welles, edited by Jonathan Rosenbaum ) and so we can - and must - better contextualize the scope of this short feature within the filmography of Welles. We are convinced that the importance of the Merchant is not to be underestimated, because it is technically the last - at least chronologically - Shakespearean rendition of the author of Citizen Kane, after Macbeth, Othello and Falstaff.
Therefore, in accordance with the Cineteca del Friuli, - along with the Munich Film Museum and with the collaboration of the Cineteca di Bologna and the Cinémathèque Française (in whose archives were found other fragments of the film) - Cinemazero has promoted a restoration of the film, which will be screened in its world premiere at the 72nd edition of the Venice Film Festival. Besides this opportunity, what better venue to see this material for the first time?
Yet, even if designed after the Othello (which will also be screened for the first time at the Lido in the original Italian) as a new tribute to Venice, the Merchant is an episode in the CBS special which was quite eccentric. In fact, in other episodes Welles is staged mainly in the role of himself and speaks in the car with the purpose of illustrating and explaining to the public the characteristics, virtues and vices of each city which he happens to be visiting. For example, the episode Spying in Vienna is built so.
The same thing does not happen in The Merchant of Venice, where instead a fictional appearance clearly prevails rather than documentary and/or "investigation" television. However, based on what he told Mauro Bonanni, who in addition to Don Quixote, also edited parts of this CBS special, Welles in the first few frames of the film would come into the scene in his shoes, and then transform into Shylock before our eyes. It appears - again according to the words of Bonanni - that at the very beginning of the Merchant, Welles arrives in a Venetian street which is set up as a kind of makeshift dressing room outdoors, and here puts on the costume and makeup of Shylock, as he speaks of the importance of this character and its characteristics within the work of Shakespeare. From that point on, you would then enter the fiction, with the Jew usurer Shylock demanding the pound of flesh from the merchant Antonio, and meanwhile being fooled by his daughter Jessica.
That said, being still a medium-length film, it is absolutely certain that Welles has drastically cut some parts of the original play. It seems in particular that he eliminated the character of Portia, and with her all the moments from the comedy of errors as well. We do not know whether such a revision of the text was made by Welles by necessity or by choice (according to reports on the English Wikipedia, it seems that Oja Kodar did not feel able to step into the shoes of Portia, because at that time she did not know quite well enough the language of the Bard), the fact is that in this way Welles’s Merchant of Venice - also based on the few minutes seen in the past thanks to the Munich Film Museum - should be transformed radically, thus moving itself from the status of comedy, as conceived by Shakespeare, to that of tragedy, the center of which is Shylock only. An operation that, perhaps, may not deviate too much from what Welles had done previously in the presence of the character of Falstaff, who became the protagonist of that film of the same name.
But all this will checked at the next edition of the Venice Film Festival pre-opening on September 1, when The Merchant of Venice will be screened, before 'Othello.
-
Jedediah Leland
- Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:51 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
Re: Merchant of Venice
This evening I saw Stefan Droessler for the first time, when he presented one of his Welles clip compilations at the BFI in London. I managed to catch him for a few minutes afterwards in the foyer, and asked him about the forthcoming Merchant of Venice reconstruction, which he confirmed he's supervising; he says editing is ongoing, and they'll only just finish it in time before the 1st September premiere in Venice.
Before anyone shoots me down on the details, I'm just setting down what he told me - some of it was entirely at odds with what I'd previously understood about the project!
Firstly, he said that the film was always meant to be four reels long (not three, as I'd previously understood). The current nine-minute reel that's been doing the rounds (and which was screened tonight) is the second reel of the film, which explains its abrupt beginning.
The first reel has been found, intact, with sound.
The third reel has been found, but has no sound.
Droessler insisted that the fourth reel was never filmed - something Oja confirmed to him, apparently. To elaborate, Welles's pared-down version of The Merchant of Venice focuses entirely on the story of Shylock, missing the trial scene altogether, and concluding with Shylock giving his "hath not a Jew eyes?" speech. When the first and third workprint reels went missing, Welles had not filmed the fourth reel, and still intended to do so.
For the missing sound on the third reel, Droessler said that he had a problem; he didn't want to put it together with subtitles, because he said that the whole point of a Shakespeare film is in the quality of the spoken word, and so ten minutes of silence wouldn't work. Nor, he said, would Oja Kodar permit "somebody else to dub Orson's voice". Accordingly, what he's done (and he interjected "and I know some Wellesian purists are going to hate this!") is synched the film to Welles's 1939 gramophone recording of The Merchant of Venice. "With digital trickery you can do this, and it works very well". He conceded that the voices still noticably differ in the 1939 recording from the 1969 film - Welles's own voice in the earlier recording is deeper, as he worked harder to sound like an old man, and he didn't adopt the same accent as in 1969 - but Droessler says that with all the dialogue being taken from Shakespeare, and with the same lines being used in both the 1939 recording and the 1969 film, that apparently it works quite well.
For the missing fourth reel, he decided against using one of the takes of Welles doing the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech in France and Spain in the 70s in a trenchcoat, saying that it would have been disconcerting to jump from the heavy atmosphere of the Venetian period piece to a modern-setting speech with road and air traffic clearly audible in the background.
(And having seen those 1970s takes tonight, I'm inclined to agree with him on that point. Incidentally, he confirmed that he has half an hour of 1971 takes shot against the French sunset during the making of La Décade prodigieuse, and a quarter of an hour of 1973 takes shot at dawn in Spain when scouting for TOSOTW locations, including at least one full take of the speech in each setting. But for those who haven't seen the reels, I should confirm that most of the material is made up of flubbed takes, usually with background traffic or someone walking past in shot.)
Instead, for the fourth reel, he's going to keep running the 1939 recording of Welles going into his "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech over a still-frame of Welles in his 1969 Shylock make-up, since Droessler says "I felt it would be too confusing to come in with a *third* Orson Welles voice for Shylock in the same half-hour."
He also confirmed that he now has a complete screenplay for the first time: "Until I had that, I had no idea how Welles was going to fuse together those first three reels with closing on the Shylock speech, but now I understand."
For the soundtrack, Droessler confirmed that he has a complete recording of the one and only performance of the score by Lavagnino which is being used for the reconstruction, and that Lavagnino made notes around the time of the performance, on how the music should be integrated with the film; notes which Droessler has used. Lavagnino's notes confirm that at the time of the recording, Welles still had not shot the fourth reel, but that he had some ideas around that, and had discussed them with Lavagnino.
The final running time of the Droessler restoration is projected to be 36 minutes. He said the quality of the picture would be "much, much better than what you see in the [workprint] reel tonight", which suggested to me (though he didn't directly say so) that they'd be cutting the restoration from the surviving negative material, since the discovery of the workprint reels means they now know what pattern to cut to.
That was a huge amount of new information! Droessler rattled through the whole situation in 5-10 minutes, and I've jotted this down on the train straight after listening to him!
Before anyone shoots me down on the details, I'm just setting down what he told me - some of it was entirely at odds with what I'd previously understood about the project!
Firstly, he said that the film was always meant to be four reels long (not three, as I'd previously understood). The current nine-minute reel that's been doing the rounds (and which was screened tonight) is the second reel of the film, which explains its abrupt beginning.
The first reel has been found, intact, with sound.
The third reel has been found, but has no sound.
Droessler insisted that the fourth reel was never filmed - something Oja confirmed to him, apparently. To elaborate, Welles's pared-down version of The Merchant of Venice focuses entirely on the story of Shylock, missing the trial scene altogether, and concluding with Shylock giving his "hath not a Jew eyes?" speech. When the first and third workprint reels went missing, Welles had not filmed the fourth reel, and still intended to do so.
For the missing sound on the third reel, Droessler said that he had a problem; he didn't want to put it together with subtitles, because he said that the whole point of a Shakespeare film is in the quality of the spoken word, and so ten minutes of silence wouldn't work. Nor, he said, would Oja Kodar permit "somebody else to dub Orson's voice". Accordingly, what he's done (and he interjected "and I know some Wellesian purists are going to hate this!") is synched the film to Welles's 1939 gramophone recording of The Merchant of Venice. "With digital trickery you can do this, and it works very well". He conceded that the voices still noticably differ in the 1939 recording from the 1969 film - Welles's own voice in the earlier recording is deeper, as he worked harder to sound like an old man, and he didn't adopt the same accent as in 1969 - but Droessler says that with all the dialogue being taken from Shakespeare, and with the same lines being used in both the 1939 recording and the 1969 film, that apparently it works quite well.
For the missing fourth reel, he decided against using one of the takes of Welles doing the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech in France and Spain in the 70s in a trenchcoat, saying that it would have been disconcerting to jump from the heavy atmosphere of the Venetian period piece to a modern-setting speech with road and air traffic clearly audible in the background.
(And having seen those 1970s takes tonight, I'm inclined to agree with him on that point. Incidentally, he confirmed that he has half an hour of 1971 takes shot against the French sunset during the making of La Décade prodigieuse, and a quarter of an hour of 1973 takes shot at dawn in Spain when scouting for TOSOTW locations, including at least one full take of the speech in each setting. But for those who haven't seen the reels, I should confirm that most of the material is made up of flubbed takes, usually with background traffic or someone walking past in shot.)
Instead, for the fourth reel, he's going to keep running the 1939 recording of Welles going into his "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech over a still-frame of Welles in his 1969 Shylock make-up, since Droessler says "I felt it would be too confusing to come in with a *third* Orson Welles voice for Shylock in the same half-hour."
He also confirmed that he now has a complete screenplay for the first time: "Until I had that, I had no idea how Welles was going to fuse together those first three reels with closing on the Shylock speech, but now I understand."
For the soundtrack, Droessler confirmed that he has a complete recording of the one and only performance of the score by Lavagnino which is being used for the reconstruction, and that Lavagnino made notes around the time of the performance, on how the music should be integrated with the film; notes which Droessler has used. Lavagnino's notes confirm that at the time of the recording, Welles still had not shot the fourth reel, but that he had some ideas around that, and had discussed them with Lavagnino.
The final running time of the Droessler restoration is projected to be 36 minutes. He said the quality of the picture would be "much, much better than what you see in the [workprint] reel tonight", which suggested to me (though he didn't directly say so) that they'd be cutting the restoration from the surviving negative material, since the discovery of the workprint reels means they now know what pattern to cut to.
That was a huge amount of new information! Droessler rattled through the whole situation in 5-10 minutes, and I've jotted this down on the train straight after listening to him!
Re: Merchant of Venice
Not intending to shoot you down, but to point out a the usual blatant contradiction by Oja Kodar:
From the interview with Oja Kodar in THE UNKNOWN ORSON WELLES:
[
Droessler insisted that the fourth reel was never filmed - something Oja confirmed to him, apparently. To elaborate, Welles's pared-down version of The Merchant of Venice focuses entirely on the story of Shylock, missing the trial scene altogether, and concluding with Shylock giving his "hath not a Jew eyes?" speech.
From the interview with Oja Kodar in THE UNKNOWN ORSON WELLES:
Interviewer: Doesn't that mean that the film wasn't quite finished?
Oja Kodar: If you want to put it that way the complete film wasn't finished because the final scene in the courtroom, with or without Portia, hadn't been shot yet.
Interviewer: But the screened version included the Shylock monologue?
Oja Kodar: Yes, the monologue was definitely included. And it's a big pity it no longer exists. It was shot in Asolo, in Eleanora Duse's villa that I already mentioned.
[
-
Jedediah Leland
- Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:51 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
Re: Merchant of Venice
Indeed, it's an inconsistency.
Mind you, she could be confusing what was and wasn't filmed in that villa; it looks like an awful lot of material was. I recognised the room that doubles for an English club in the "Four Clubmen" sketch in "London" is clearly the same villa interior seen in several shots of The Merchant of Venice.
Mind you, she could be confusing what was and wasn't filmed in that villa; it looks like an awful lot of material was. I recognised the room that doubles for an English club in the "Four Clubmen" sketch in "London" is clearly the same villa interior seen in several shots of The Merchant of Venice.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest