The Stranger

[Roger Ryan]

O.K., I think I understand what Store Hadji's original question was about: yes, Welles ordered some drastic cuts prior to the first preview, but as Carringer points out, he did this without having seen the completed 131 min. version since there was not sufficient time to ship that version to him. The 131 min. cut is the one the cutting continuity is based on (and, in turn, Carringer's reconstruction). It is basically the same as the rough cut Welles and Wise were working on in February, 1942, but finished with effects, etc. Welles was having second thoughts on the project after leaving for Brazil and requested the entire middle portion be removed and replaced with a new scene of George finding Isabel unconscious (this would immediately follow George confronting Isabel about Eugene's letter and lead directly to the family waiting outside Isabel's room while she lays on her death bed). This version didn't play well in Pomona, so at Schaefer's request, Wise reinserted most of the cut footage for Pasadena where it got a slightly better response.

[Store Hadji]

I think Welles made that "big cut" before the boos at Pomoma - at least that's what I get from the Carringer essay. And if the "mirrored ladder" structure was the original "gimmic" of the screenplay, Welles completely abandoned that structure in his "final" cut (which was at least final in terms of fulfilling his contract with RKO at the time.) I agree with Jaime that a restored Ambersons should be based on the (apparently) lost original screenplay - and include all the scenes he shot - even those which didn't make the March 12th version. That wonderful low-angle shot of George with Isabel in deep focus on the stairway, with the full ceiling above him - I couldn't bear to leave out a shot like that. And if there were day and night "tree" scenes, I'd want them both in to maintain the ladder structure - that structure itself being as great an example of Welles' genius as any I can think of. And I'm disinclined to think of the Pomona cut as Welles' version - even if it apparently was. Since he really didn't have the chance to work with Wise and the RKO labs during all of the post-production, I think the "final" version was different than it would have been. So I allow myself to second-guess Welles in this case. I hope that doesn't make me just another member of the committee butchering Ambersons - but there's just something about that film and those scenes which are so sublimely precious and beautiful that I can't bear the thought of any of them being left on the cutting room floor. And some of the transitions in the release version are a bit confusing - in particular the kitchen scene (with the strawberry shortcake) always left me scratching my head and wondering just where I was in the continuity - it took a lot of concentration to suss out that this took place after George had returned to school and had graduated. But wasn't a shot a George's diploma supposed to be in there - right after a shot of Wilbur's tombstone? The diploma shot would have made all the difference. And I guess it was in both the March 12 and Pomona versions - so it was just a bad cut on RKO's behalf. I seem to remember something about the scene with Wilbur's coffin being reshot - was the original version a subjective first-person shot with the point of view inside the coffin, with the mourners passing by and gazing directly in the camera? I imagine that would have been a heck of an affecting scene.

Sorry there's so much more to say on Ambersons than The Stranger. I wish the South American sequence had survived.

And no, I'm not hot for Endora - though the Margot Lane-era Aggie was pretty hot.

[Roger Ryan]

Carringer feels that Welles' "big cut" would have hurt "Ambersons"; Heylin feels it would have improved the film. I tend to side with Carringer on this one. But who knows what Welles would have done ultimately? Not having read the entire shooting script, I can't say for sure, but I doubt there were two "tree" scenes between Eugene and Isabel. The existing "tree" scene was shot in a studio with a backdrop. At the point when the photograph of Welles doing his rabbit trick was taken, I'll bet the main lights for the set were turned off. The flash from the still camera illuminated the three principals sufficiently, but quickly fell off, giving the impression the photo was taken at night. You say Cotten's necktie changed for the actual shooting? That's because Orson's rabbit relieved himself on the one pictured .

[Roger Ryan]

I seem to remember something about the scene with Wilbur's coffin being reshot - was the original version a subjective first-person shot with the point of view inside the coffin, with the mourners passing by and gazing directly in the camera? I imagine that would have been a heck of an affecting scene.

Welles did request the ending cemetary shot be dropped from this scene and a tag added showing Erskine Sanford and cohort shot against a parlor wall commenting on the fate of Wilbur Minafer. The tag was shot, but done outside against an empty sky (giving the impression that the two are looking down at Wilbur's grave). After the previews, the line of mourners was trimmed down at the beginning to eliminate Mrs. Johnson whose appearance reportedly caused laughter. I don't believe there was ever an alternate version shot with a more subjective camera.

[mteal]

Carringer feels that Welles' "big cut" would have hurt "Ambersons"; Heylin feels it would have improved the film. I tend to side with Carringer on this one.

Absolutely. I find it difficult to even speculate what Welles was thinking when he ordered the "big cut". I can only guess that he was either under alot of pressure to shorten the film by any means necessary, or that he got cold feet about the Oedipal nature of some of those scenes.

And some of the transitions in the release version are a bit confusing - in particular the kitchen scene (with the strawberry shortcake) always left me scratching my head and wondering just where I was in the continuity - it took a lot of concentration to suss out that this took place after George had returned to school and had graduated. But wasn't a shot a George's diploma supposed to be in there - right after a shot of Wilbur's tombstone? The diploma shot would have made all the difference.

Again, I agree totally. As Carringer put it, without the diploma shot in there, the viewer assumes that the kitchen scene takes place right after Wilbur's funeral. Very confusing. Why they cut the diploma is beyond me, but I believe it was Welles himself who ordered it cut. Hermann had even written music for it.

[ToddBaesen]

Orson Welles was intensely interested in the fate of Nazi war criminals, along with the war crimes they had committed, as can be witnessed by his work on THE STRANGER and his many comments in his columns in The New York Post circa 1945.

Now, having just seen Tom Cruise in VALKYRIE and THE READER, both of which hark back to the Nazi atrocities of WW II, it is interesting to note that VALKYRIE evokes Fritz Lang, while the far better film, THE READER recalls Alain Resnais and his brilliant work on NIGHT AND FOG. VALKYRIE has nothing to do with Welles work on THE STRANGER, but THE READER seems to echo some of the ideas Welles was exploring way back in 1946...

As Bernhard Schlink who wrote the novel THE READER notes, "If you love someone who is guilty, do you become entangled in their guilt? And can we choose who we love?"

Obviously this question goes right to the heart of Welles own work on THE STRANGER, but it is done much more movingly in Stephen Daldry's film version of the novel. Bernhard Schlink goes on to note, "It would be simple if the people who commit monstrous crimes were always monsters. But sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are just ordinary people: Our neighbors, our lovers, our teachers and our friends."

Of course this perfectly describes what Welles intended in his portrait of the Nazi war criminal Franz Kindler, who manages to get the daughter of a Supreme Court Justice (Loretta Young) to fall in love with him and actually marry him! But back in 1946, we can presume that Welles was forced to compromise in showing that an unrepentant Nazi could ever have any redeeming qualities or even a trace of humanity. In this regard, I'd highly recommend THE READER to all discerning film viewers, since for me, it's a beautiful companion piece to Welles's own thoughts and ideas as presented in THE STRANGER.

In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that the book's author Bernard Schlink, or the screenwriter of the movie, David Hare were influenced by Welles film.

In any case, THE READER is quite a wonderful movie. It's beautifully acted, with standout performances from Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, Lena Olin, Bruno Ganz and most impressively, a young German newcomer, David Kross. Plus it's full of highly charged erotic sex sequences! It's also gorgeously shot on locations in Germany by Roger Deakins and Chris Menges, and sharply edited between four different time periods by Claire Simpson.

[ToddBaesen]

There is an interesting piece by Gerald Peary in The Boston Globe on THE STRANGER and the "restored version" that played in Mass. recently:

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/article ... _stranger/

Mr. Peary notes that THE STRANGER is supposedly the only Welles film to make a profit, but I wonder if that is actually true. I just read that TOUCH OF EVIL made $1.4 million in 1958, which would certainly not make it a huge hit, but not a big flop either, as it's budget was around $900,000.

The truth is most people don't know what they are talking about when quoting box-office numbers from 50 years ago. As an example, I've read numerous articles and books that say Hitchcock's TORN CURTAIN was both a financial and critical bomb. That is certainly untrue, because according to the figures reported in Variety, TORN CURTAIN was actually Hitchcock's second biggest box-office hit! The film starred Paul Newman and Julie Andrews both big draws at the time, so even though it was badly received critically, it returned nearly $7 million in rentals to Universal in 1966. PSYCHO made about $11.5 million in 1960. So was TOUCH OF EVIL, a film that had the star power of Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Orson Welles and Marlene Dietrich really return less than $1 million to Universal? It would be interesting to see some credible data on the original box-office for TOUCH OF EVIL, rather than guess-work and speculations.

[Lance Morrison]

That article wasn't too bad actually. Makes me want to see a nice print of the film. Heck, for that matter, I guess I need to look into procuring a decent DVD of it! It's been a long time since I've seen it--completely forgot it had Robinson in it, whom i've recently seen in SCARLET STREET and WOMAN IN THE THE WINDOW. (Good films, but they make me glad Welles wasn't been so amiable towards the studios as Lang)

My interest is piqued, Mr. Baesen. It does indeed seem highly unlikely that such a movie as ToE could not at least break even. Of course, I can hardly believe LfS wasn't successful either....but a movie with so many stars? Welles myths envelop Welles reality--American myth of the declining artist, romantic myth of the misunderstood one.

[Glenn Anders]

Lance: As I've often debated with Todd Baesen [Mr. French, in a corner, pleading with us to lower our voices], the answer to your question may lie in the old concept of "Studio Overhead." Like any hired accounting agency practice, the concept was manipulated to accommodate a client's interests. Toddy tends to demand absolutes, but in Old Hollywood, before the Supreme Court divested the Studios of their theater chains, and for some time afterwards, "Overhead" could mean pretty much what the Moguls and Executive Producers wanted it to mean.

Like much in the present discussion, we've been around this Monkey Puzzle Tree before.

But I agree with Toddy and others that THE STRANGER is a much better film than critics or even Orson Welles considered it to be. Welles' assessment was based on what he had hoped the film to be.

Think about his concept of "The Fourth Reich." Present day corporatists and fascists, some of them direct descendants of those who put Hitler in power, have accomplished in America since the end of World War II what Welles warned nieve American citizens against. This powerful, largely undiscussed faction drove the Cold War, and the other illegal "wars" which followed, to create an ascendant political and military apparatus in our nation, one that Franz Kindler could only have dreamed of!

[tonyw]

It is an underrated film, especially when one views it in association with the original screenplay. I've run it in my Welles class and noted its key associations with film noir that Welles excelled in. As Glenn points out, its historical relevance is by no means dated.

[RKadin]

And not to be forgotten was Welles' use of concentration camp footage that, previously, had been censored for display to the American public. No doubt "The Stranger" was the first time for many in the audience to be confronted with one of the War's - and history's - greatest atrocities.

[mteal]

The first time they were confronted with filmic evidence. Screenwriter Ben Hecht and other activists had been writing about the Holocaust since 1943, but they were basically ignored.

[tonyw]

The film also paints an indirect damning indictment of a New England community that either simply does not want to kn ow or has brushed aside such ugly evidence and wishes to continue its former, Walden-like existence. Kindler's appearance restores historical time to that community with a cengeance, a motif that remains even in the version we have before us.

[Glenn Anders]

Right, Tony: As I think we have discussed before, THE MASTER RACE, released late in 1944, starring old Mercury Theater member, George Coulouris, dealt with the possibility of "stay behind" Nazi units attempting to sabotage the Postwar recovery in a Belgian town. The more extraordinary NONE SHALL ESCAPE, directed by Andre De Toth, starring Alexander Knox and Marsha Hunt, and released in early February 1944 (meaning that it was shot in 1943), uses a flashback pattern from a prescient "UN Tribunal" after the War to show the evolution of a German schoolmaster, embittered by Germany's experience in World War I, into a Nazi officer exacting vengeance for his real and imagined grievances on the Polish town where he had worked. The film covers major events in the rise of Nazi power, including toward the end sequences of Jews being put on cattle cars bound for death camps (and a rebellion led by Rabbi in the climax). Originally a Hungarian film maker, De Toth had been a cameraman during the German invasion of Poland before his escape to England, late in 1939, and so he knew the background of what he presented.

Orson Welles extended the above theme in THE STRANGER. Thought farfetched at the time of its release in 1946, the film suggested what was actually going on in a series of eight U.S. Displaced Persons Acts placed into law between 1945 and 1950. Ostensibly designed to help a few thousand victims of Nazi and Fascist oppression, the Acts eventually accommodated hundreds of thousands of refugees, and our Intelligence agencies used the promise of these Acts for the possible granting of American Citizenship, ironically, to retain and reward large numbers of Nazis officers, soldiers, and agents in the fight against Communism in Germany, Italy, and Eastern Europe.

And so, Welles was showing in a dramatic theatrical context, perhaps beyond his direct knowledge, the entry into America of many Nazis, some of whom, like the individuals and groups who proved embarrassing to the Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush administrations, attained positions of considerable power and influence. The career of Senator Prescott Bush suggests that our whole drift to the Right in the last fifty years may have been presaged by THE STRANGER, despite Welles' hope that the American public would awaken to the threat which has now created "The Project for a New American Century," "The New World Order," and "The American Empire."

I sometimes reflect sadly that we have learned virtually nothing about geopolitical power during my entire lifetime.

[mteal]

I’ve never seen or even heard of NONE SHALL ESCAPE before, but it sounds like it’s well worth checking out. I’ll watch for it on TCM. I noticed on one website that it was mentioned along with another apparently similar film, ROGUES REGIMENT, which I’ve also never seen but looks interesting, with Dick Powell and co-starring ex-Mercury players Vincent Price and Edgar Barrier.

The Displaced Persons Acts you mentioned bring to mind the infamous “Operation Paperclip” of 1945, in which ex-nazi scientists were given political asylum in the U.S. and eventually helped to lay the intellectual foundation for NASA and the American space program. Meanwhile in Italy, as FADE TO BLACK shows, CIA officials were backing a coalition of ex-Fascists and Mafiosi into a new “Christian Democratic” party to combat the threat of communism.

And the rewarding of ex-Axis officers and soldiers wasn’t confined to Europe either. On one of his Commentaries radio programs, Welles notes with dismay how Japanese soldiers whom we had just defeated, were now being retained by the U.S. military to supress communist activity in Korea, likely one of the factors that would eventually lead to the Korean War.

Tony: Yes, that historical time motif is still there, but it was much clearer in the screenplay, with the tower clock equated with an all-seeing eye that suggests, for example, the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. It would be interesting to read Anthony Veillor's original script, to see what specific changes were made by Welles and John Huston for the final draft and if that motif was added by them or whether it was there already. But I think that touches on one of the reasons why Welles always downplayed the film's virtues. It's screenplay was not originated by him.