Droessler's cut of Arkadin

[Terry]

There's at least an announcement on the Criterion site, though no release date. It lists the running time as 105 minutes.

I have not seen the reconstructed version, but have heard some things through the grapevine which I may as well throw out here for the sake of discussion. Hopefully someone who has seen it can help.

First, I hear that lots of little clips of footage have been added throughout the film. That is fine in itself, but I hear that the quality of the footage is not so good - the visual quality, due to age or damage or whatever. That sounds like Franco's Don Q. Well, at least I know to expect it.

Second, I have heard concerns over the cutting, that the new cutting looked poor, even as though done by someone without talent! I guess there would be a problem with trying to introduce the new clips throughout the film, but it sounds as though the solution was less than it might have been.

Third, I hear the sequence in Mexico has been re-edited in order to change the order of the scenes. I'm not sure why this would have been done, it is fine in both the release versions. I hope this isn't Ambersons all over again!

I don't know what sources Mr. Droessler had in way of a screenplay or continuity. Or how much was hunches and guesswork.

AT WORST it sounds like a cross between Franco's Don Quixote and RKO's version of Ambersons. Ouch! And if it isn't, then I will be delighted, as I am fearing (perhaps unrealistically) the worst.

[Jeff Wilson]

What I saw was not remotely close to Franco's botch job. It has, so far as I know, only been seen in a rough cut form, which may explain some of what you say. There really was not a lot of footage added to the film that I recall. Anyone expecting something with large amounts of material put back in will be disappointed.

[catbuglah]

There's a bootleg of Quijote on ebay - it's pretty decent image resolution - That is one train wreck of an editing job - interesting as an insight into Welles' work methods - i.e. Welles' raw footage without his editing input is kind of underwhelming - although there's so many cool elements to Quijote - it's the movie I'd most like to see finished - but it looks so rough that I don't know if anybody could finish it unless there's an extensive amount of Welles memos in existence. (Lot of cool shots with plants and bushes in the foreground that are similar to Treasure Island, by the way). Would be a challengeing project, to do something decent with Quijote - Mr. Droessler seems to be someone who could accomplish such a task in a creditable manner.

[Terry]

The running time is 6 minutes longer in the Locarno cut (according to the Criterion site.) That is a LOT, especially if it consists mostly of small clips.

Okay, if that one was a rough cut, that would be an explanation for the cutting. But I am expecting the reconstruction to be more "academic" than polished, like the Schmidlin cut of TOE is. That's fine, I just want to know about it ahead of time and be prepeared.

What's the release date for the Criterion set? I wannit!!!!!!!!!!

:p

I am especially looking forward to a better copy of the Corinth version of Arakadin (my VHS copy is Nth-generation and terrible) and the commentaries by Naremore and Rosenbaum and whatever Callow has to say, as they are all pretty interesting writers. Also, I want to see what the 3rd Harry Lime radio show they included is (beyond Man of Mystery and Blackmail Is a Nasty Word.)

My copy of Don Q is a VHS off ebay (from that Opie guy.) It looks allright. I'm sure it was mostly a creation of Jess Franco in dialogue and editing and sequence, that he didn't have a script to work from - just Cervantes and the footage available to him, less to work with than Droessler had.

[Roger Ryan]

The rough cut I saw of the "Comprehensive Version" (as Criterion calls it) is easily the best version of the film out there in terms of dramatic continuity and impact. As Jeff points out, there isn't a lot of new footage added; most of the changes (and I would call them improvements) involve reworking the flashback structure to help clarify some of the action and transitions. The story simply makes more sense in this version without losing the oddness that Welles was obviously going for. I believe most of these changes were based on analysis of all available footage and that there was some guesswork involved; I would have to believe that Mr. Droessler and Claude Bertemes will explain their approach in one of the DVD extras. Even in rough cut form, the quality of the footage looked no worse to me than the print of "Confidential Report" that plays every once in a while (only the "Mr. Arkadin" title card footage looked shabby, but that's only about 3 sec. in length). As I understand it, the entire project was remastered in New York a few months back for its Criterion issue and a couple of alterations and some fine tuning were accomplished at that time.

In the end, if you don't like it, there's still two other versions of "Arkadin" included in the Criterion release and that's a pretty amazing turn of events for a lesser Welles film formerly reduced to public domain junk releases.

EDIT - Store Hadji, I don't consider the "Comprehensive Version" to be "academic" at all; it collects all the scenes from the different existing versions and edits them together in a fashion that makes sense. No title cards or stills are used to bridge supposed lost sequences. In that respect, it plays more like the "Touch of Evil" restoration than the "Greed" restoration (keeping to the Schmidlin analogy).

[Terry]

most of the changes (and I would call them improvements) involve reworking the flashback structure to help clarify some of the action and transitions

You're a-fearing me, Roger! That sounds too much like dumbing it down, which is what already happened with Confidential Report! What's the point of a Welles film if you don't have to be an active viewer and "meet it half way?"

I'm sure I'll like the reconstruction. And 6 minutes does seem like a lot to me, though I don't know how many seconds (or minutes) of unique footage you get simply from comparing the two release versions.

God, the Greed reconstruction - that thing is absolutely fantastic and perfectly watchable. I agree that it should seem more "academic" than it is, what with all the stills used, but the end result was marvelous.

Don't forget the other Schmidlin reconstruction: "Elvis - That's the Way It Is." Also great.

[tonyw]

I was unable to attend Locarno but a summary of the proceedings on the Washington D.C Film Society site pllus comments by Joseph McBride in an email makes me very hopeful concerning this restoration. By next year, maybe the glitches may be ironed out by digital renovation. Perhaps the earlier version may resemble those 8mm and 9.5mm mm copies of Abel Gance's NAPOLEON before Kevin Brownlow finally restored them for the theatrical version?

Finally, I hope that Roger's reconstruction of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS may lead to Munich working on a similar type of restoration. A lot of material needs wider distribution so lets hope that the copyright problems and obstruction by "She who can not be named" will soon be solved.

[Roger Ryan]

most of the changes (and I would call them improvements) involve reworking the flashback structure to help clarify some of the action and transitions

You're a-fearing me, Roger! That sounds too much like dumbing it down, which is what already happened with Confidential Report! What's the point of a Welles film if you don't have to be an active viewer and "meet it half way?"

I don't mean to cause undue alarm. Having seen the reconstructed "Arkadin" just once, I can't talk specifics, but it didn't strike me as a "dumbed-down" version at all. In fact, doesn't "Confidential Report" retain the flashback structure (which Welles clearly wanted) whereas the U.S. release of "Mr. Arkadin" removes it altogether? Almost all the films Welles lost control on wreck the continuity in some way by eliminating crucial scenes or jumbling the running sequence. My opinion is that the new "Arkadin" improves the film's continuity, which is different than saying the film has been made more linear (which is what the horrible original U.S. release attempted to do).

I guess we'll be able to resume this conversation in March, which is when the Criterion release is supposed to come out according to their website.

[Terry]

Confidential Report dumbed it down in terms mostly of the narration and in redubbing Bracco at the beginning (which Welles had done originally and someone else dubbed for CR.) The new narration and dialogue was pretty straightforward in just explaining what was going on. I would think that this was overseen by Dolivet after he had removed Welles from the project, which means that Welles probably didn't write the copy and Robert Arden got to work on the changes just like Joe Cotten did on Ambersons. Yes, the flashback structure was retained.

For the 'linear' US version, it honestly looks like someone took the full version and cut it on the kitchen table with a pair of scissors - it doesn't even look like they used a moviola. Everything with Guy telling the story to Zouk was simply chopped out and the other scenes scotch taped together, which is why the visual and audio jump so jaggedly at those points.

March, that's cool! I only saw "coming soon" on the Crierion site.