Don Quijote

[Store Hadji]

My guess would be it's the Franco cut as before (which fits the description on your link) and whoever mocked up the cover for Image did a terrible job on their research.

Or maybe it's a new reconstruction using the Auer and McCormack footage!

[mido505]

My understanding is that Oja Kodar controls the English language rights to the Franco cut and has forbidden its release in the U.S.. Not sure how this could have gotten by a Beatrice challenge either. Something has got to be up.

[ToddBaesen]

If this is the awful Jess Franco version, obviously it should not be seen, and in an ironic twist, hopefully Beatrice and her lawyers will stop it!

[The Night Man]

The synopsis seems to describe the Franco disaster (does it run 115 minutes?), but the cover art suggests something more along the lines of a documentary examination of the whole project, a la "It's All True". Dare we hope?

[Roger Ryan]

The synopsis seems to describe the Franco disaster (does it run 115 minutes?), but the cover art suggests something more along the lines of a documentary examination of the whole project, a la "It's All True". Dare we hope?

Yes, the running time corresponds with Franco's version (as does the 1992 release date). The cover art was obviously put together by someone who checked the IMDb page for about thirty seconds, but did not actually view the film.

[The Night Man]

Yes, the running time corresponds with Franco's version (as does the 1992 release date).

If it is the Franco version then Oja must have relented. But it remains to be seen whether it will get past Beatrice's watchdogs; she's managed to queer other (and bigger) deals at the eleventh hour.

And if it actually appears on the market I guess I'll break down and buy it (finally), although I'm loathe to validate such a fiasco by giving them good money for it.

[mido505]

Is anyone in touch with Jonathan Rosenbaum? He might know something.

[tonyw]

I've just sent him an email now.

[tonyw]

Jonathan replied to me and mentioned that a French DVD of DON QUIXOTE mentions Patty McCormack on the cover credits by mistake but is the Franco version and is probably the one scheduled for release. Other Patty material exists in the archives, some seen, others unseen.

[mido505]

Thanks, tonyw!

[robertdavidmonell]

Someone above writes that Franco's version shouldn't be seen. As bad as the footage looks, as poorly integrated as the dubbed voices are, and no matter who disagrees with the editing, it should indeed be seen for illustrative, historical purposes as well as a kind of progress report. I recently went to the Syracuse Universty Library of VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS l to view and discuss Beatrice Welles authorized OTHELLO, to explain to them the problems with that version. But one must nonetheless see it in order to reject it. I don't want to see any Orson Welles material suppressed. Of course the scene in the cinema featuring Patty McCormack is already on YouTube and could be incorporated as a bonus feature. No DVD company can or will release a disc without the Rights Holder's permission. I was thinking of the comment of Cocteau's biographer that THE TESTAMENT OF ORPHEUS (1960) is a film which should have never been made. There are some who disagree with that. It would be interesting to examine, especially in relation to Cocteau's commentary on, and artistic relationship to, the work of Welles.

[mido505]

You are, of course, correct Robert. The Franco version of DQ is now, for better or for worse, part of Wellsian history; an irrevocable element in the Wellsian Saga, as it were; a saga in which failure, dashed hopes, betrayal, arrogance, animus, and good old fashioned incompetence play as profound a role in the narrative as brilliance, talent, success, loyalty, triumph, and glory. Nothing should be suppressed. If someone finds the uncut Ambersons tomorrow, do we destroy the release version, the viewing of which reduced old Orson to tears? Do we boycott the release of a new TOE disc because it contains the shortened studio cut? What about the incomprehensible public domain print of Mr. Arkadin? Or the trimmed and redubbed Macbeth? Beatrice's Othello was the first version of that masterpiece that I was able to see, and it took my breath away. We may quibble over details, but Orson's vision and technique are so powerful that they completely transcend the trims, butcheries, and other offenses to art and artist. For years, the awful American Arkadin was the only version available to me, so it holds a special place in my heart. I'll take it all, the good, the bad, and the horrific, because its part of who Orson was, and is. Bring it on!

[tonyw]

Perhaps certain members could alert Beatrice as to the forthcoming appearance of DQ? This will be one instance where her interference would be most welcome.

[Tony]

The question is this: would an Image DVD of Franco's cut, which does incorporate nothing but Welles footage, some of it raw, some of it edited by Welles, some of it from a documentay he made in Spain, plus about 10 or 15 minutes of Welles's voice doing both the Don and Sancho, plus some images of a windmill which Franco put in, would this DVD be betterthan nothing?

That's why I bought the Spanish version, and why I will buy the Image version, if it gets out. I also have some info that there might be a nice extra on the DVD, IF it gets out. And the possibility of a better edit than Franco's coming out anytime soon seems, shall we say, far off.

To suggest we contact Beatrice Welles in the hope to scotch this project seems to me somewhat perverse, although I understand where you are coming from, tonyw.

[ToddBaesen]

I'd certainly never try to suppress any artist from showing what I thought was bad art. And if you like to watch Jess Franco's own work, and call it wonderful, that's fine with me.

But I simply don't see how anyone can condone what Jess Franco has done to another artist's work, ("Just thrown it together" says Oja) and then have the gall to call it DON QUIXOTE de ORSON WELLES! This is in no way comparable to someone saying, Jean Cocteau should not have made TESTAMENT OF ORPHEUS because he thinks it's a terrible film. Cocteau is a great artist, so whether you like what he's done or not, of course he should be able to show it. But all indications point towards Welles never wanting to show DON QUIXOTE.


Here are some additional thoughts that I completely agree with, from:

ORSON WELLES AT WORK

By Jean-Pierre Berthome and Francois Thomas



THE FILMMAKER'S RIGHT NOT TO FINISH


Having failed to come to full fruition immediately - and Welles was possibly very close to it at the end of the first period in Mexico - Don Quixote was condemned to become the archetype of an unfinished Welles film, unfinished because it was unfinishable. This was a project that, having begun with no fixed script, was continually changing as the years went by. It started out as three of Don Quixote's adventures told to a twentieth-century girl, who visualized them in her own naive way. As the film progressed it moved away from its original form to become an essay on contemporary Spain and then, more generally, on the conflict between universal values and the realities of the modern world.

With Don Quixote, produced with greater independence from the industry's structures than any of his earlier films, Welles asserted the artist's rights over his work with a new clarity. The condition of exercising these rights was an acceptance of frugality. At that price the creator could experiment as he chose, changing his mind about his intentions. Welles is almost certainly alone among major filmmakers in having invented the means to allow himself to assert his full right not to show his work to the public until he judged the moment had come, even if that meant he never showed it at all.

The so-called completed version, hastily cobbled together in 1992 by Jesus Franco for a Spanish producer, with the title Don Quijote de Orson Welles, merely created a sense of regret that posterity does not always respect this right not to finish.