Truth or Fiction: The TOE Job

[Clive Dale]

Did this happen this way.
Universal approached Heston to star in Touch of Evil, and said "We've got Welles."
Heston thought they meant to direct and said "You've got Welles?, I'll do it!"

[colwood]

In the documentary "Reconstructing Evil" that was to have been included on the TOE dvd, Heston says that he was reading the script and said that for the film to work, it would depend on the director. The studio said they didn't have one but that Orson Welles was playing the heavy. Heston said, he's a pretty good director, why don't you have him direct. To which the studio immediately called Welles and offered him the job which he took.

[jaime marzol]

for no money. they didn't pay him any extra to direct, which goes to show you how down and out welles was at that time. it's incredible that as much as he was kicked around, he never gave up. he continued to struggle, to put out films that in their day were considered junk and a waste of his talents.

[catbuglah]

it's incredible that as much as he was kicked around, he never gave up.

That's the big point of solace and inspiration for me in regards to Welles' trials and tribulations - He could have had the career of a Hitchcock if he wanted to - or any number of successful careers in acting, writing, politics, etc... But he chose to always doggedly remain true to his own (impossibly idealistic, perhaps) convictions and also could have walked away from directing and producing at any time, retired, but he stuck with it, literally until his last breath... He had balls of steel! :angry:

There's another version, I believe, about TOE, where apparently Welles asked a Universal producer to give him the worst script that they've got, and he'll make a movie of it..

[jaime marzol]

albert zugsmith was the producer. some say it's not true, some say both the heston theory, and zugsmith theory are true. meaning zugsmith promoting welles to direct was eased along by heston wanting welles to direct. very possible.

[Terry]

Which came first in the fiasco of TOE's postproduction, Universal removing Welles from postproduction because they didn't like what he'd cut of it, or Welles going down to Mexico to shoot Don Quixote which left Universal asking Charlton Heston if he knew where Welles was?

In one case Welles was barred from the film, said screw this and left to work on another project (probably with the funds he'd just been paid for acting.) In the other Welles abandons yet another picture (rightly or wrongly affirming his bad reputation) to go work on something else. I've never believed that he abandoned any of his pictures. I certainly never bought the "fear of completion" theory. I just wonder if we've ever discovered as to which came first, the door or the Don.

He abandoned Ambersons and Journey into Fear because he had been pressured into going down to Rio. He thought he'd have some say in how both those films were completed, but no - thank you Charles Koerner. If it's true that RKO were able to buy him out of his original contract and take away his right to final cut because he was broke after the commercial failure of Kane, well, that sucks and didn't help his other RKO projects any. He abandoned Macbeth because he had been hired to star in Black Magic, leaving Richard Wilson behind to deal with Republic, who wanted an Americanized soundtrack and twenty minutes cut from the film (which Welles was somehow able to accomplish later - did he work on it in Europe or come back to the States?) Louis Dolivet took Arkadin away from him. Was it for drinking or unprofessional behaviour or taking too long on the cutting? I don't remember why. Then the Touch of Evil situation.

I don't know what my point is. Welles' reputation wasn't that good, and it seems sometimes he might have deserved it to some degree.

[jaime marzol]

welles would never abandon a picture. one of his great downfalls was that he never turned his back on a project. he was happy to tinker with any film for a year before it's ready for release, like he did in kane. every director, including hawks, huston, ford, von sternberg and 35 others i can't think of right now, when they were finished directing, they went on to another picture while the post production guys did their work. welles leaves, and it's the fear of completion theory, or some other bull crap story.

welles was high strung, frenetic, impetous, and lacking in people skills, but he would never walk away from a film unless it was ripped out of his hands, he was fired, sued, or barred from the studio. from what i read, the only time he can be faulted for leaving a film, was MACBETH. MACBETH was an experiment, he was paid almost nothing, republic was being difficult, so he split.

[Roger Ryan]

As I've mentioned before on this site, there's some interesting correspondence between Richard Wilson and Welles archived at the Charles K. Feldman reading room on the American Film Institute campus in Los Angeles where the fate of "Macbeth" is discussed. Wilson warns Welles that if he doesn't return to the states to take charge of the re-editing, he will lose control the same way he did on "Ambersons" and "Lady From Shanghai". Welles replies, at one point, that he has three more days shooting left on "The Third Man" and after that he'll make arrangements to return to the U.S. to re-edit "Macbeth". We know that Welles himself cut out 20 minutes from the film (at the studio's request), so "Macbeth" is actually one of the only cases where Welles regained control of a film during the post-production stage ("Journey Into Fear" possibly being another example).

[jaime marzol]

did welles come back to america to re-edit MACBETH? i thought at that time he was a fugitive from the IRS. i remember reading somewhere that there was talk of MACBETH being sent to europe for welles to finish it.

[Roger Ryan]

Jaime- it's been a few years since I read the correspondence, so I can't say for sure. I was under the impression that Wilson was asking Welles to return to the U.S., but I don't remember Welles discussing IRS issues as a reason for him not to do so (he cited his work commitments as the reason - "The Third Man" stood out in my mind, but I believe he also referenced "Black Magic" and his "Cyrano" project with Korda). It seems odd that Republic would ship the negative overseas for Welles to work on it, but that's a possibility, I guess. Does anyone else know more about this?

[Eve]

Maybe this helps a bit, although it's only a summing up of Brady's and Heylin's reports:

1. first release
After the end of the twenty-one-day shooting Welles took off for Europe.
"The film was held up in a long and painstaking editing job. Once again, as with 'Ambersons', Welles was called upon to help with the editing while overseas, and long, confusing cables and copies of the prints were exchanged." (Brady)
Heylin reports that Republic "sent the unedited footage and a cutter to Rome (on November 25, 1947) so that Welles could supervise the "final cut", as specified in his contract. It would be the following March before the cutter returned, carrying what Welles had considered a "rough cut" having provided the cutter with a list of further changes he required made before the film's long awaited debut." (Heylin)
Brady upon Republic's plans for release:
"They decided to hold off on a full-scale release of the movie, planning instead to launch a test campaign, trying out various promotional approaches in three or four key American cities.
Although the film has, at first, been promised for release by December 1947, it was not in shape by that time. In fact, it was not until September 1948 that Republic, with many misgivings about the prerecorded sound track and the long distance editing job, saw the film entered in the Venice Film Festival ..."
The reviews, especially in France were generally favorable. He says that Welles "believed in his film", even though Republic had cut the film "by almost half an hour to 107 minutes".

2. developments leading to the second version:
Brady reports that "the difficulty began" when the movie was released "in a handful of cities, including Boston and Salt Lake City, in October 1948" (bad reviews, complaints about the "poor quality" of the sound track and the "incomprehensible" Scots burr, ...)
"Republic decided that the Scots accent had to be excised beore they would release the film in the United States. In July of 1949, with Welles in Europe, they called on Wilson to redub in American English. For the next nine months Wilson rerecorded most of the dialogue, having to recall the entire cast for the project (Welles was not available at first, Wilson eventually received his loopings when Welles found time to do them in London.)" "The surgery involved sixty-five percent of the sound track. What was worse, the film was tightened even further, this time down to eighty minutes.
This improved version - in which Welles was, according to Wilson, "bitterly disappointed" - was released, after many delays, in September 1950 and finally reached New York in the December of that year, three and a half years after the twenty-one-day whirlwind shooting."

Welles replies, at one point, that he has three more days shooting left on "The Third Man" and after that he'll make arrangements to return to the U.S. to re-edit "Macbeth". We know that Welles himself cut out 20 minutes from the film (at the studio's request), so "Macbeth" is actually one of the only cases where Welles regained control of a film during the post-production stage ("Journey Into Fear" possibly being another example).

Was Welles really "that" involved with the '20 minute cut' concerning the second 'version'?
about "The Third Man" - I only do know that the shooting (of Welles' scenes) in Vienna took place in December 1948. Does anybody know if he did return to the U.S. in 1949 or 1950 (referring to "Macbeth")?
At least it was obviously not a question of 'regaining control' in the second post-production stage ...
Does anybody know if Brady's account that the film was cut "by almost half an hour to 107 minutes" is correct (on another page he mentions that the Salt Lake City-production did run about 95 minutes)?

[Roger Ryan]

Eve - Your post brought back some memories of the Wilson/Welles correspondence I read. I believe that Wilson was indeed relating to Welles that he was in the process of redubbing "Macbeth" and that he needed Welles participation in this. It's quite possible that Welles re-dubbed his part in London after completing the three days of shooting for "The Third Man" (a sewer set was built in London and portions of the climatic scene were shot there, right?). At the same time, Wilson was warning Welles that Republic wanted further cuts and asked him to take some kind of initiative in this so the project wouldn't end up like "Ambersons" and "Shanghai". I had read before that Welles "directed" the cutting of two reels himself (Leaming's biography? Bogdanovich's book?), even though he opposed doing it. Perhaps he didn't have much input into this after all. I had simply forgotten that Welles was doing an initial cut of the film in Europe (I can imagine a studio like Republic would be geeked out by that!). Despite Wilson's request for Welles to return to the U.S., it seems logical that Welles never did. I apologize for my faulty memory confusing matters.

[Eve]

Roger Ryan - it is in "This is Orson Welles":

PB: You did the cutting on "Macbeth" in Italy while you were acting in "Black Magic"?
OW: Yes. Then they asked me to take out two reels and I did - but I cut out the two reels, they didn't. I thought they shouldn't have been cut out, but I'm the one who cut it! Not some idiot back at home."

concerning "The Third Man" - I have to apologize for my faulty memory too: Welles arrived on the November, 18 1948 in Vienna and appeared at the Shepperton studios on January, 17 1949.
Although he did return to the U.S. in spring of 1948 (Leaming) to do further work on "Macbeth", he apparently didn't so concerning the work on the second version (Leaming says that he "was hardly about to return to the U.S. ...").

[Roger Ryan]

I'm wondering if that "July, 1949" date is correct regarding the request for overdubbing. If Welles' long cut of "Macbeth" was ready by September, 1948 and Republic began select screenings in October (resulting in the negative American press), why would they wait until the next July before asking Richard Wilson to re-dub the dialogue? If that decision was made earlier (early November, '48?), it would make more sense with the correspondence I read. Wilson would have had roughly two months of starting the re-dubbing process and trying to secure Welles' participation. When Welles responded that he had three more days on "The Third Man", I'm fairly certain he was referring to the Shepperton Studio shoot in mid-January, 1949. As I remember it, he promised Wilson he would make time to "loop" his re-recorded lines for "Macbeth" after "The Third Man" was wrapped. This would gel with Brady's description of Welles' "looping" being done in London (late January/early February '49?).

Of course, I could be remembering it all wrong (it's been over 11 years since I read the Wilson/Welles letters). I guess someone needs to pay a visit to the AFI archives (Jaime?) and take note of the dates on the correspondence.