Locarno Wrap-Up

[R Kadin]

Although discussion about ordering the Festival's "Other Side of the Wind" book actually appears in another thread, it seems thematically consistent to report the following here:

As Stefan Droessler has indicated, the Festival's organizers are open to selling copies (be sure to order the bi-lingual version unless your French is up to the task). I am advised that the cost to Canada is 58 Swiss Francs, including delivery. That's about $56 in my currency and around $47 in US Dollars.

The email address to contact is info@pardo.ch

[Jeff Wilson]

Here's a link to an article from The Independent published last week, which discusses the Locarno and the ongoing struggle over Welles' films.

Independent article

[Eve]

going back to THE DEEP ...

Store Hadji

There's certainly enough interest in The Deep to make it commercially viable (and I hope some distributor shares that view) but if those in control of it (Oja, I guess) feel it is a poor example of Welles' output, might they hold it back rather than tarnish his reputation as a director?

I read in a recent article that Stefan Droessler said that there was indeed strong interest concerning further work and a 'final' release of
THE DEEP but that eventually no contract could be signed because Oja Kodar demanded 'too much' money ... and that he couldn't tell if there will ever be a chance for it in the future ...
is this true?

[Jeff Wilson]

That's what I was told, that Oja was the main impediment to something more being done with it.

[R Kadin]

Speculation, of course (perhaps unfounded), but it's not impossible to imagine Oja attempting to use commercial interest in The Deep as a lever with which to obtain completion funds for The Other Side of the Wind.

Then again, we all have bills to pay; can't begrudge people that.

[Christopher]

What emerged in Locarno during the workshop devoted to THE DEEP was the lack of a sound track for large portions of the workprint. Surely the difficulty of duplicating the original voices at this late stage and the poor quality of sections of the workprint pose significant problems in finishing THE DEEP for commercial release. Personally, I do not feel THE DEEP is one of Welles's finer efforts, and I doubt that he himself saw it as anything but a thriller that he hoped would have box office appeal and bring in some badly needed bucks.

[R Kadin]

An odd remedy, maybe, but why not simply have the film dubbed into other languages and do what can be done, affordably, to enhance the image quality in the compromised sections? (Yes, I realize that sound effects and a score will also have to be looped in.) And sell it as an unfinished work-in-progress; retain just enough of its rough textures, alternate takes and unrefined cuts to give the audience the experience of looking over the Master's shoulder at the Movieola as the editing process is in its final stages. Compared to today's over-produced film fare, it might offer a refreshing and exciting change, no? And I think Welles, with his Brechtian bent, might have seen some potential in this slightly deconstructionist approach. After all, in his mind he was always finishing and refinishing his work.

It needn't cost a whole lot to accomplish - especially since, if it were released in English, there'd probably be a need to sell it to the European market to turn a profit, anyway - making the prospect of dubbing almost inevitable. By turning the tables in this fashion, distributors on The Continent could give the film's resurrection a sexy, saleable, Euro-centric cachet.

In turn, the North American art-house market is likely to be far more receptive to an English-subtitled version of a high-quality French, Italian or Spanish dub than it would be to some (bound to be ill-fated) salvage attempt on a reportedly very uneven English-language original. Sub-titling would cost almost nothing, so a limited North American release (especially one that coasts off the proceeds of a possibly more vibrant European one) might be economically viable.

It would also limit the film's appeal to that smaller subset of the North American audience which is predisposed to cut a "new" Welles curiosity some slack - while, mercifully perhaps, keeping it off the radar of the mainstream critics who might otherwise be tempted to savage it for failing to satisfy whatever overheated up-front expectations with which they decide to burden it.

So what if it's a potboiler, a lesser effort? It's still a Welles, which means there's going to be good stuff in it, somewhere. Let Bogdanovich at it to help bring those parts to the fore (his Cat's Meow experience being a perfect entree to the material) and we might even be pleasantly surprised at the result.

We've still got Oja around to do her lines, at least. As for the rest of the cast, even Welles himself, there's a very robust roster of multi-lingual voice talent available capable of turning in fine performances.

Unless, of course, the thing's really so bad that it hasn't even got the kind of longshot odds that, at a bare minimum, the above strategy would need..?

[mteal]

So what if it's a potboiler, a lesser effort? It's still a Welles, which means there's going to be good stuff in it, somewhere

I'm sure most Welles fans would agree with that, and that something, anything should be done to make THE DEEP available to those who want to see it. Franco's DON QUIXOTE may be a poor excuse for a Welles film, but there is good stuff in it, and it's certainly better then what we had before, which was nothing but rumors and hearsay. I'd rather have a film that can be watched, no matter how flawed or incompetent. My guess is that Welles chose not to finish THE DEEP because he couldn't figure out how to make the film measure up to his high artistic standards. But as you said, RKadin, it's still a Welles film, and it should still be incorporated into the record somehow, even if only thru a documentary, like IT' ALL TRUE.

BTW, can anyone give anymore info or detailed descriptions of those dream sequences that Welles supposedly added to the film later on?

[Roger Ryan]

The "dream sequences" shot for "The Deep" featured only Michael Bryant and Oja on their boat. The editing created a couple interesting effects with sudden surreal spatial changes. As I recall, in one medium shot Bryant reaches out, almost touching Oja's nude back. The scene cuts to a close-up of Oja turning around followed by a cut to a long shot revealing that Bryant is actually some distance away from her. Another brief angle/reverse angle sequence shows a close-up of Bryant smiling at Oja. The scene cuts to a close-up of Oja smiling back, but when the camera cuts back to Bryant, he is covering his suddenly bloodied face with his hands. Another scene shows Oja swimming nude as Bryant starts up the boat's motor and pulls away, leaving her floundering in the ocean alone. This is followed by an alternate version where Bryant pulls Oja back on board the boat and the two sail off together.

Since these scenes were apparently kept separate from the existing workprint(s), and did not logically fit in with the rest of the action, Stefan Droessler chose to place some of the "dream" footage at the beginning of the workprint reconstruction and some at the end. This was his decision since I don't believe Welles left any instructions indicating placement.

[Eve]

My guess is that Welles chose not to finish THE DEEP because he couldn't figure out how to make the film measure up to his high artistic standards.

PB: Yet on The Deep you told me you purposely set out to make something you thought might be more appealing to -
OW: You're getting a bit close to the bone, Peter. My hope is that it won't turn out to be an art-house movie. I hope it's the kind of movie I enjoy seeing myself.

As Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote in the same book - there were several reasons why THE DEEP didn't get finished - and there's no reason to doubt that.

Having seen the Filmmuseum's rough cut now twice - in 2002 with more retakes than in the print shown in 2005 - I seriously doubt that any attempt to 'turn' the film into a somewhat conventional 'finished' state would do any good and probably only hurt ... because there's still so incredibly much to be done in nearly every aspect of production (editing, dubbing, soundtrack, music) - and who could be the one responsible for such an enterprise? - When even Oja Kodar said in the interview published in The Unknown Orson Welles that at the time of THE DEEP she wasn't yet that involved as she would become later ...
... an ignorant inquiry, but ... why not "simply" try to cut alternate versions of scenes/repeated takes/shots and try the best to add subtitles to those passages without dubbing? There's certainly enough for imagination at the present state ...

[mteal]

Eve, I envy you and others who have at least been able to see this footage. Unless more material shows up, it sounds like a documentary may be the best route for THE DEEP workprint.

Thanks much for the dream sequence descriptions, Roger.

[Eve]

from the 1982 Bill Krohn - interview ...

OW: ... The picture actually had a beginning and an end, but it's too poor. It shows its poverty, and it looks like a TV movie, I think, but it's terribly well acted. By Jeanne Moreau and by everybody. And I think I'm very funny in it, I think it's the funniest part I've ever played. Sean Connery owns the rights at this moment. He bought them from me, but his time will be pretty soon and I'll try to sell 'em to somebody else. They were not the rights to the movie, but to the story. I 'll take the money, and ...
BK: ... use it for something else.
OW: Yes, I'm tired of it now. I would hate to go back on the ocean and make it a more important movie. The leading man is totally bald now, everbody's old ... . (Laughs)
...
BK: A real departure for you at that time, also.
OW: Oh, yeah, it seemed to be tremendously. I had to do something that I could sell, that would make money. It was a good story, and I bought the story, and since than people have been trying to buy it back from me. I'm grateful for that.

Well ...

[Harvey Chartrand]

Back in 1983, Welles joked, "The leading man is totally bald now, everybody's old..."
Twenty-two years later, the leading man is dead. Michael Bryant (who played John Ingram in THE DEEP) died in 2002.
Jeanne Moreau (cast as Ruth Warriner) is still going strong at 77 and has no intention of retiring. She was recently interviewed on Radio-Canada while attending the Montreal International Film Festival. Moreau mentioned Welles during the interview. She said she would work with him whenever possible, because he was "a king in exile."
Moreau could still rerecord her dialogue for THE DEEP, but her voice is of course quite different today than it was 37 years ago. She's a very heavy smoker and her voice is huskier than before.
It always comes down to money, though. Why would anyone spend millions of dollars restoring/assembling the footage from THE DEEP, with its limited commercial potential?
These days, hardly anyone remembers star Laurence Harvey (whom Welles cast as villain Hughie Warriner). In fact, Welles himself is being forgotten by new generations of filmgoers and filmmakers.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on...

[Eve]

In fact, Welles himself is being forgotten by new generations of filmgoers and filmmakers.

Oja Kodar said a similar thing not so long ago (from the 'Independent' article): "Kodar bemoans the relative obscurity into which Welles is sinking. "People don't know him these days. You meet 19-year-olds and they have no idea. They have to search their memories. Citizen Kane - they ask, 'what was that?'"

Yes, it is true ... but on the other hand what could one expect???
Who exactly is remebered by those "19-year-olds" and "new generations of filmgoers"?
Perhaps a handful of celebrities and people like Chaplin and Hitchcock ...
And speaking of "filmmakers" - I doubt that seriously - in my opinion they mostly lack the courage and/or the talent and/or they don't get the opportunity.
If Welles' work "is forgotten" this is only true in case we are talking about everyday 'society' - if one shows interest in art (terrible expression), than, of course, there's no way "avoiding" him. And I think that a large part of this is due to the fact, that his work is still ahead of time - and will always be in some way - it is timeless, but on a different level like Chaplin's. His art is not exactly easy to 'get at' - think of the many times most people here have seen one of his films - because they are so incredibly rich in so many ways. And still another thing: Welles was an 'aristocrat' (not only) in terms of his work - far away from Chaplin and Hitchcock ... and our society.

Jeanne Moreau - this is the only time I am grateful to David Thomson, for having introduced me to those words-:
He is like a destitute king - because there is no kingdom that is good enough for him ...

So what's left - I guess helping somehow to built one ...

[R Kadin]

Let's not be too quick to despair, folks: surf over to the "Kate Bush" thread on the board and see what I mean...