Alternate "Journey Into Fear" Edit Discovered

[Terry]

Ditto! I'll move the Matthews bathrobe speech to where it belongs. Would that be right before Howard speaks with Mueller about accepting his plan? Any other translocated scenes to move around? I wondered if Kuvetli had left and returned - I just didn't know the logistics of the pilot boat, how far and fast it needed to travel. So Gogo is some sort of pimp? I missed that totally. So that's his racket, a man of putting on the business. I wondered about the pick-ups too. I think Banat is seen spying on Howard at the same moment he's supposed to be dragged into a card game by Gogo. Another continuity puzzler is when Josette announces that Gogo is probably asleep - about 100 seconds after we saw him awake and dressed. Is Josette trying to allay Howard's nerves or imply that Gogo is narcoleptic?

[Roger Ryan]

Yes, Howard meets Mathews in his bathrobe immediately after secretly meeting with Kuvetli. This was originally one long sequence where Mathews and Howard are then interrupted by Josette who is trying to arrange a tryst with Howard in Batumi. Then the two of them are interrupted by Mueller who leads Howard to the outside walkway and asks about Kuvetli.

There aren't any other significantly transposed scenes, just all those awkward inserts that disrupt continuity. I feel the climatic shoot-out on the hotel ledge was botched in editing by cutting a few moments of Howard hiding out in someone else's room. I commend Stefan on his re-editing of this sequence in the Munich Filmmuseum's reconstruction; his reworking of the existing shots clarified the action and improved the sequence.

[Glenn Anders]

Roger: Your observation might be seen by some as an embarrassment to Welles' reputation as an editor because, according to Simon Callow in Hello Americans, upon his return from South America, Welles spent most of his limited time allowed by Koerner on JOURNEY INTO FEAR with that final sequence.

He says that, though Welles was working effectively "with one hand tied behind his back," this sequence "remains the most successful in the film." (p 161)

Glenn

[Terry]

What, the last scene, with Howard writing the letter? Or the chase around the building ledge? I like the magic show and most of the stuff on the boat better than that. The captain laughing at Howard is my favourite sequence.

Welles himself said he didn't learn how to edit until he got to Europe, and thought the first reel of Othello, which he personally cut, was weak. He wasn't an accomplished editor in 1942. He didn't have time or the power to do much with JIF, and he said in later interviews the film was good before it had everything that didn't advance the plot taken out. He was limited to a running time of 68 minutes and told what he could of the story within that time.

I don't think Welles mastered editing until The Trial. He certainly hadn't as of 1956, when he overlaboured Portrait of Gina. No bigee, just whoever thought of Welles' reputation being based upon his editing skills during one borrowed weekend in 1942?

[Roger Ryan]

Roger: Your observation might be seen by some as an embarrassment to Welles' reputation as an editor because, according to Simon Callow in Hello Americans, upon his return from South America, Welles spent most of his limited time allowed by Koerner on JOURNEY INTO FEAR with that final sequence.

He says that, though Welles was working effectively "with one hand tied behind his back," this sequence "remains the most successful in the film." (p 161)

Glenn

I think I mentioned this in the "Hello Americans" thread, but the hotel ledge climax was untouched by Welles with the exception of removing the last twenty seconds where Stephanie chides Howard, who is still perched on the ledge, after Banat falls to his death. Callow's statement is misleading or simply inaccurate, depending on how you read it.

In addition to writing and directing the very last scene in the hotel bar, Welles re-edited the film's first reel to shorten it and add the Cotten voice-over. By making the body of the film a flashback told from the perspective of Howard, he then needed to remove the encounter between Haki and Stephanie by necessity (it was the only scene found in the Aug. '42 edit that the character of Howard could not have related). Other editing changes were attempts to return the story back to its original conception and/or to better establish character.

Overall, I think Welles' re-editing is quite competent even if I disagree with the flashback/narration device he decided to use. However, I do dislike how abruptly he reveals the murder of Kuvetli, a scene that plays much more effectively in the Aug. '42 edit.

[Glenn Anders]

I'll go with you, Roger. You usually seem to have the goods.

When will we be able to see Droessler's edit on this side of the water? I wonder.

Glenn

[Terry]

We need to see his 2-hour restoration of THE DEEP and however long FILMING THE TRIAL is as well. Maybe a showing in NYC, Chicago and LA would allow most of us to get to it.

Mr. McBride wrote that Oja mailed 1.8 TONS of unreleased Welles stuff to Munich. Holy Gods, but is that a treasure.

[Terry]

Wow, moving that scene with Howard and Matthews makes a huge difference. It solves the continuity problem of how it is Mr and Mrs Matthews appear fully dressed in the saloon moments after Howard has seen them berobed and going to bed. It also gives weight to Howard's line about knowing what a nasty day it will be tomorrow (since he's already been informed he will catch typhus and is dreading having to deal with Mueller and Banat in the morning.) Even without the stills, which will help a lot more, just a few editorial changes improve what's left of the film considerably.

Roger, you mentioned that Stefan did a re-edit on Howard hiding from Banat in the hotel room. Can you clarify what he changed? I was looking at it and couldn't see much to do with it, except perhaps break it in half and have it sandwich the shot of Banat passing by the window outside. I'm not even sure that would help, though it does seem as though something is wrong with the pacing at that point.

Another thing that is irking me is that terrible music in the scene where Howard sits on the bed and dumps the bullets out of his gun. The music for that whole scene is bad and the music editing is even worse. I'll try temping in ambient engine throb from other scenes and see how it plays without the music.

[Roger Ryan]

Roger, you mentioned that Stefan did a re-edit on Howard hiding from Banat in the hotel room. Can you clarify what he changed?

I would prefer not to go into details regarding this, but allow Stefan's work to speak for itself when it becomes more widely available.

[Le Chiffre]

Welles definitely intended for Howard and Stephanie's relationship to be strained. In the previously-mentioned ending Welles scripted in Rio, Howard and Stephanie are last seen bickering about each other's indiscretions.

Callow's HELLO AMERICANS reports that, in the Ambler novel, Howard Graham is the kind of guy that Stephanie would never have married if he didn't have a large salary, so that could partially explain why she might be susceptible to Haki's womanizing charms.

Welles himself said he didn't learn how to edit until he got to Europe...He wasn't an accomplished editor in 1942. He didn't have time or the power to do much with JIF

Callow also asserts that Welles had little to do with the editing of LADY FROM SHANGHAI, so if true, it's likely that he didn't do much editing on JOURNEY either. But then, I believe the project was suggested by RKO, so Welles probably never intended to take it as personally or as seriously as the other films of the time. Which is reflected in the fact that he and Joseph Cotton co-wrote the screenplay, even though Cotton had no screenwriting experience. Moreover their work was tampered with, and "between wartime censorship, industry censorship, expert pomposities and studio panic, the film was severely challenged to maintain any sort of identity...". All this undoubtedly changed the tone of the Mercury's attitude toward the production, which is probably why "All in all, it has the feeling of a party about it, a high-spirited jape.."

[Roger Ryan]

...it's likely that he didn't do much editing on JOURNEY either.

I would say Welles had nothing to do with the editing of the May '42 preview version nor the Aug. '42 early release version (if only because he was in South America for the majority of that time). But I have to think that he did oversee the Oct. '42 re-edit that resulted in the version released the following February. Since he scripted Cotten's narration and the new ending scene, it makes sense that Welles also determined the shape of that final version.

I agree with Callow's summation of the whole enterprise, although sadly, I don't think the finished film is nearly as good of a "jape" as it might have been.

[Le Chiffre]

No, it's not. I think JOURNEY is reasonably entertaining, with some very good moments, and valueable in the sense that it's the only film record of the Mercury Theatre in their "lighthearted" mode. Yet, I find it hard not to agree to some extent with Pauline Kael, who said that it seems 'fey and half-hearted'. The original version might have had more oomph (unfortunately we'll probably never know), but they had already taken alot of the spice out of the screenplay too.

Here are some less-then-flattering but interesting trimmings from Charles Higham's RISE AND FALL OF AN AMERICAN GENIUS. Higham says Welles, while shooting Ambersons, was so thrilled by the MY FRIEND BONITO footage shot by Norman Foster in Mexico that he decided to appoint him as co-director on the film. Foster had shot much of BONITO while not only battling dysentery, but also facing terrible weather, camera trouble, governmental red tape, and bandits constantly threatening the crew. But after Pear Harbor was bombed and Welles was asked to go to Rio, he revised his schedule and decided to rush JOURNEY INTO FEAR ( a project imposed on him by RKO) into production.

Higham:
"Just when he should have gone to Joseph Breen and told him that Mercury was appointing Norman Foster the official director of MY FRIEND BONITO, he foolishly recalled Foster from Mexico. Instead of giving JOURNEY INTO FEAR to another director, he insisted that Foster take it over.

"Much as he loved Orson, Foster was angered, shocked, and maddened by this disastrous mistake to the day he died. MY FRIEND BONITO was firmly on it's way to being a masterpiece, while JOURNEY INTO FEAR was a badly written jumble, devoid of artistic merit. Foster had never had a chance to prepare it or to read the script. Stopping MY FRIEND BONITO in mid-production meant that all the weeks of agonizing work- the sicknesses, the delays, and the great artistic acheivement, were discarded like a toy tossed aside by an impetuous child. Foster made embarrassed explanations to the members of his Mexican network and left the country he loved with the tatters of the unfinished work in his hands.

"The day after Foster returned to Hollywood, December 23, MY FRIEND BONITO was officially cancelled for an indefinite period. A bad-tempered and irritable Foster began work on JOURNEY INTO FEAR. He directed without enthusiasm.

[Terry]

Did Higham interview Foster, or is that his own interpretation?

The released clips of BONITO look great, but I never thought that it was going to be a feature - just a short and part of the original version of what became IT'S ALL TRUE. Further, Foster was only second unit director, which doesn't necessarily qualify for being able to handle actors. But, I think he handled the actors in JIF extremely well, though I don't know which scenes he directed and which Welles did. Had Welles been able to complete IT'S ALL TRUE, it's unlikely Foster would have directed any more of BONITO anyway, unless for some reason there was more second unit work to do. Or, if Welles had given him the entire segment to complete, it would still have only been a segment. Had Welles not been dismissed by Koerner, he may have produced more films directed by Foster.

It's interesting how Welles' name disappears from the credits of JIF, comparing the EU and later US versions; originally it was "A Mercury Production by Orson Welles," "Screenplay by Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten," and though Welles' credit as actor was still last in the list, it was in a large font which dwarfed the rest of the cast. Probably it was part of the "Showmanship in place of Genius" campaign that saw to the name 'Welles' being deleted and minimized.

[Roger Ryan]

It's interesting how Welles' name disappears from the credits of JIF, comparing the EU and later US versions...Probably it was part of the "Showmanship in place of Genius" campaign that saw to the name 'Welles' being deleted and minimized.

Maybe, but I suspect Welles asked for his name to be removed as producer and co-writer after seeing the horribly chopped up Aug. '42 release version and only being given two weeks to "fix it"!

[Le Chiffre]

Did Higham interview Foster, or is that his own interpretation?

That's a good question, and Higham's book doesn't have footnotes, so I can't answer it. But such a striking (and not implausible) assertion could and should be confirmed one way or the other- by Higham himself, if possible. I wonder how one would go about contacting him to find out.