immortal ending change
I've finally read Dinesen's Immortal Story. Realized OW changed the ending: in the film, Orson has Clay die, but in the book he just falls asleep. This is important because Virginie is getting revenge for her father, who committed suicide years before after Clay took his house and business when he needed only 300 pounds. Virginie then charges 300 pounds for her part making the sailor story come true. But also Clay wants an heir: in the Dinesen's story, Clay wants an heir to maintain his fortune, and to frustrate the relatives back home who are waiting for him to die. If he dies the night of the story, then this plan has failed, as he has no heir and has not changed his will. But OW has Clay die, thereby frustrating his goal, and depriving Virginie of reclaiming her family home and a large fortune. I can't imagine why Welles did this, unless to provide a heavier ending, with a possible reference to Kane's snow globe being dropped by the dying character.
Also, Mr. Clay's first name was not known in the original story. The film indicates his first name is Charles, just like Charles Foster Kane. And he switches the setting from Canton to Macao, which the sailor in The Lady From Shanghai called the wickedest city on earth. Obviously, Welles was using Dineson's story to make a film about himself, rather then merely illustrating the story.
There's certainly lots worthy of note in your comment, Lucy.
For example, Clay attempts to direct the story's proceedings just as Welles is directing the film, making him every bit the Peeping Tom that Clay becomes during the bedroom scene. In part, then, is the death to which Welles subjects him retribution for his - and Welles' - sin of voyeurism? Is the Midwestern propriety that would have surrounded Welles in his youth thereby surfacing, almost literally with a vengeance?
And perhaps by "offing" Clay, Welles also offers the audience the ready-made sacrifice it instinctively craves for committing, in its own once-removed way, the same offense - thus implicating every spectator in a manner that Dinesen's plot does not.
If so, then, more than merely making a film about himself, Welles would have made a film about us all. I invite you to be the judge.
For example, Clay attempts to direct the story's proceedings just as Welles is directing the film, making him every bit the Peeping Tom that Clay becomes during the bedroom scene. In part, then, is the death to which Welles subjects him retribution for his - and Welles' - sin of voyeurism? Is the Midwestern propriety that would have surrounded Welles in his youth thereby surfacing, almost literally with a vengeance?
And perhaps by "offing" Clay, Welles also offers the audience the ready-made sacrifice it instinctively craves for committing, in its own once-removed way, the same offense - thus implicating every spectator in a manner that Dinesen's plot does not.
If so, then, more than merely making a film about himself, Welles would have made a film about us all. I invite you to be the judge.
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Another connection to Macao comes up in a strange little Lewis Gilbert picture: FERRY TO HONG KONG (1959). Despite the title, the picture is about Captain Hart (Welles) and his trouble with a drunken Mr. Conrad (Curt Jurgens) on a journey from Hong Kong to Macao. (The film was, it is true, made in Hong Kong.)
The title and general plot remind me of that peculiar, obscure play, Passenger to Bali, which Welles picked for a Mercury Theater Radio production, among very distinguished company. It involves a captain's attempts to get a kind of evangelist off his ship. My memory of the show is that they put in at several ports. Macao may have been one of them. Not only that, but Welles produced the show again for one of his later radio series.
The idea of Macao, as an intellectual or emotional trigger, must have been on his mind much of his life.
Certainly, the way Welles' parents lived their lives, the way they reared Welles, must have enraged the more upright members of early 20th Century Midwestern small town society.
The way efforts of old men to maintain economic, political and sexual power over others is no doubt a major Welles' theme, perhaps the major one.
Good discussion.
Lucy's remarks are very perceptive
Glenn
The title and general plot remind me of that peculiar, obscure play, Passenger to Bali, which Welles picked for a Mercury Theater Radio production, among very distinguished company. It involves a captain's attempts to get a kind of evangelist off his ship. My memory of the show is that they put in at several ports. Macao may have been one of them. Not only that, but Welles produced the show again for one of his later radio series.
The idea of Macao, as an intellectual or emotional trigger, must have been on his mind much of his life.
Certainly, the way Welles' parents lived their lives, the way they reared Welles, must have enraged the more upright members of early 20th Century Midwestern small town society.
The way efforts of old men to maintain economic, political and sexual power over others is no doubt a major Welles' theme, perhaps the major one.
Good discussion.
Lucy's remarks are very perceptive
Glenn
To clarify:
Actually, Welles doesn't call Mr. Clay "Charles" in the Immortal Story: the character is only referred to as "Mr. Clay" by name. Virginie does refer to a "Charlie", but she is talking about her boyfriend, who works for Mr. Clay (this is the same as in the story).
I think the confusion might stem from the fact that a) Virginie asks about Clay immediately after talking about "Charlie" (she asks:" and what about the old man?") and b) in "This is Orson Welles" Bogdanovich refers to Clay as "Charlie" (probably for the reason I've just outlined) and Welles corrects him with a false memory of his own; he says 'It's "Charles", nobody ever called him "Charlie"....'
Again, I think the most significant change is Clay's dying , thereby denying the possibilty of creating an heir (as he surely had not had time to make a new will: he probably would have had to marry Virginie, as one can't leave one's property to an individual not yet born). Also, and interestingly, it the clerk to whom the sailor gives the shell, asking that it be given to Virginie. Welles, of course, has the sailor give it to Clay, who drops it as he dies, quite possibly a homage to himself (Welles) dying as Kane and dropping the snow globe.
Actually, Welles doesn't call Mr. Clay "Charles" in the Immortal Story: the character is only referred to as "Mr. Clay" by name. Virginie does refer to a "Charlie", but she is talking about her boyfriend, who works for Mr. Clay (this is the same as in the story).
I think the confusion might stem from the fact that a) Virginie asks about Clay immediately after talking about "Charlie" (she asks:" and what about the old man?") and b) in "This is Orson Welles" Bogdanovich refers to Clay as "Charlie" (probably for the reason I've just outlined) and Welles corrects him with a false memory of his own; he says 'It's "Charles", nobody ever called him "Charlie"....'
Again, I think the most significant change is Clay's dying , thereby denying the possibilty of creating an heir (as he surely had not had time to make a new will: he probably would have had to marry Virginie, as one can't leave one's property to an individual not yet born). Also, and interestingly, it the clerk to whom the sailor gives the shell, asking that it be given to Virginie. Welles, of course, has the sailor give it to Clay, who drops it as he dies, quite possibly a homage to himself (Welles) dying as Kane and dropping the snow globe.
Return to “Mr. Arkadin, The Trial, The Immortal Story”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest