THE DEEP

[JMcBride]

I received a helpful correction from another scholar
about the Variety item I cited in this chain of posts
about when Welles's THE DEEP began shooting (as DEADLY CALM).

It turns out the Variety item I found actually
appeared on January 31, 1968, and correctly
indicated that Welles was editing footage
from the 1967 shoot. Evidently when I found
the clipping in the Academy Library, it may
have been mistakenly listed as a 1964 Variety item.

There were two periods of shooting by Welles,
1967-69.

For Welles scholars, Wellesnet is the place to be!

[tonyw]

Joe, You really should make a bidDon't you live near the Pacific and you're right about wellesnet.com

[Joe G]

It's a shame The Deep hasn't been completed. From what I have read it wouldn't take a lot to finish it. Who knows maybe Netflix might take an interest in it. I thought Frank Marshall, Peter Bogdanovich, Filip Jan Rymsza, Bob Murawski and the rest of the team did a great job on The Other Side of the Wind.

[Le Chiffre]

I think they should get Richard Linklater to do an "Apollo 10 1/2" on what survives of the DEEP footage.

[JasonH]

This has been a terrific thread to re-read.

I think what's most interesting about THE DEEP is how it can be reconciled with the "I'm a whore as an actor so I can be pure as a director" mantra. Before his Hollywood exile, Welles certainly took what he more or less considered gig work as a director with THE STRANGER and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, but once he was into his independent era he seems to have stayed consistent with that lofty idea of making movies based on his own interests rather than external ones.

Obviously, Welles wanted commercial success for all of his movies, but THE DEEP seems a special case due to his candor about it being a conscious attempt to make a "hit" movie, an agenda he seems to have gotten vocal about after CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT. I would doubt that Welles would have proceeded with THE DEEP if it didn't genuinely appeal to him on some level, but the mercenary motives underpinning the project may help to explain why he seemed content to abandon it in his own lifetime, contrasting with DON QUIXOTE - his garage movie that he was always tinkering with - and THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND - which by all accounts he very much wanted to finish but was thwarted by the well-documented legal, financial and logistical issues.

My read is that what Welles wanted out of THE DEEP was largely dependent on being able to turn it around in a reasonable timeframe. When it encountered the traditional Wellesian production issues that bled into the new decade and he shifted to WIND as his priority, the latter became much more desirable as a comeback movie than the former, as he more or less spells out in the 1976 profile Charles Higham did for The New York Times:

“As for The Deep,'” he continued, “well, I'd prefer to let everybody speculate about ‘The Deep'.” A few minutes later Welles added: “You have to understand this about ‘The Deep.’ The‐ picture has no date. There's no reason to release it. The hold‐up is entirely financial. The fact of the matter is the picture is five minutes short and so we need a prologue. And I need 150 G's or so to make that.” A few minutes later Welles called back: “There are two things I should add about ‘The Deep’ First, the [investment] money was all mine, although there was a private investor who has been paid back by now. Second, ‘The Deep’ has been delayed because it is really; just a very frivolous piece of light entertainment. I haven't had a film on the screen for a long while and did not want to return to the screen with a trivial little thing like that. I want to make my return with ‘The Other Side “

Calling it "trivial," in combination with previously quoted remarks in which he denigrated the production as looking made-for-television, is telling. As is the fact that he did not include it among the "two major projects" that were unfinished in a latter-day interview.

[RayKelly]

Calling it "trivial," in combination with previously quoted remarks in which he denigrated the production as looking made-for-television, is telling. As is the fact that he did not include it among the "two major projects" that were unfinished in a latter-day interview.

I watched the workprint at a MoMA screening a decade ago and think "trivial" and "looking made-for-television" are accurate. It might have made made a fabulous ABC Movie of the Week back in the 1970s.

[JasonH]

My dream for THE DEEP - which I'm sure I'm just plagiarizing from somebody upthread - is a disc release of the Munich reconstruction alongside a contextualizing, feature-length documentary. Haven't figured out who's cutting the check for it, but it's what I'd like to see.

[jbrooks]

I've seen "One Man Band" numerous times since its initial release in the late 1990s. But I just noticed today -- in a Youtube clip excerpt -- something I'd never noticed before. In the film, there's a rough-cut trailer/promotional piece for "The Deep," which features Welles narrating (apparently in a narration addressed to and for Charleston Heston, who Welles hoped would help promote the film). In the narration, Welles states that the film takes place in the Pacific Ocean where the main characters are sailing up the west coast of Africa on their way to the Mediterranean. And "One Man Band"'s narrator tells us that the "Adriatic Sea" stood in the for the "Pacific." But that's some surprisingly poor geography by Welles and the producers of "One Man Band." It can't be the Pacific. The ocean off the west coast of Africa is the Atlantic. (And the ocean off the east coast of Africa is the Indian).

Of course, it was just a small slip by Welles in a recording not intended to be made public. But I find it amusing that the "One Man Band" producers didn't catch it and repeated the mistake. And I'm also amused that it took me almost 30 years to notice.

[Le Chiffre]

I had never noticed that before either. That's funny. Maybe Welles was undecided about where he wanted the story to take place and got mixed up. I suppose it doesn't really matter where it's set since it's all water, but Charles Williams' novel clearly sets the action in the middle of the Pacific, somewhere between the Panama Canal and Tahiti (presumably John and Rae's intended destination).

I watched (THE DEEP) workprint at a MoMA screening a decade ago and think "trivial" and "looking made-for-television" are accurate. It might have made made a fabulous ABC Movie of the Week back in the 1970s.

I'll bet it would have. I once heard a movie writer say a similar thing about F FOR FAKE. Had it played as a TV film (PBS might have been perfect) instead of a theatrical release, it probably would have gotten a much better reception and had a more positive impact for Welles' career.

[Clooburg2]

There's very little news regarding this movie outside of the few screenings done since the early aughts. Maybe I'm just reiterating what has been said, but I really would love to see any of the boutique labels to release the workprint with little alteration. From what I gather The Deep was somewhat complete since there were two workprints... idk I hold out hope that a company like Indicator, or Criterion, or maybe even Kino at taking a shot at it... I've seen discussion in this thread about unfinished aspects, but I also don't expect many to want it to be "finished"... idk i'll take anything... I myself have been on a Orson marathon, only just finished the Stranger. I do have quite a ways to go and three cuts of Arkadin to watch hehe, but The Deep intrigues me, and it'd be nice to add anything to the list. I know The Other Side of the Wind itself was a well intentioned attempt to make an extremely unconventional movie "work"... but from what I gather here, the Deep isn't nearly that compromised, just some key audio/visual issues due to its incompleteness. Maybe I'm just preaching to the choir, but it is 2025, and those MOMA screenings were a decade ago... someone's gotta do something eh, I hope.

[Alan]

Just wanted to add that I agree: The Deep is one of the 'missing' films (along with The Merchant of Venice) which I would really love to see, in whatever state. I was all ready to head to Paris for their forthcoming retrospective, as they highlighted The Deep in their promotion, but unfortunately they're not showing the full 120min workprint (which was shown at MOMA), just 17min of highlights as part of a 1.5hr 'programme' (https://www.cinematheque.fr/seance/43637.html)

Incidentally, they are showing The Merchant of Venice in full in seems, 35min (https://www.cinematheque.fr/seance/43634.html).

[Clooburg2]

Just wanted to add that I agree: The Deep is one of the 'missing' films (along with The Merchant of Venice) which I would really love to see, in whatever state. I was all ready to head to Paris for their forthcoming retrospective, as they highlighted The Deep in their promotion, but unfortunately they're not showing the full 120min workprint (which was shown at MOMA), just 17min of highlights as part of a 1.5hr 'programme' (https://www.cinematheque.fr/seance/43637.html)

Incidentally, they are showing The Merchant of Venice in full in seems, 35min (https://www.cinematheque.fr/seance/43634.html).

Oh poor The Deep, how long will they hold you in chains; however I hope you get to enjoy The Merchant of Venice. Not to randomly aside but learning as much about Welles as I have in the past few weeks, it's made me want to attempt French again, really loved that country when I visited. However there's not a whole lot I could tell you yet in that graceful and gravelly lingua.

[Roger Ryan]

Keep in mind, the two-hour work print of The Deep contains about a half-hour's worth of multiple takes. These are inserted throughout the running time making it difficult to follow the plot as you're constantly seeing take after take of the same action before things move along. This combined with the fact that the footage is largely silent (voice dubbing had not begun in earnest) results in something that is much closer to watching daily rushes edited together than any kind of coherent feature.

I agree that it should be available but it's not a lost jewel in my opinion.

[Alan]

Thanks for your comments Roger, I really appreciate details. I was not aware of just how rough an assembly the workprint is. I'm under no illusion that this is a lost masterpiece (or anything close, Welles himself was rather disparaging about it) but I have a certain excitement about seeing it. I blame my viewing of the One Man Band documentary in my youth!

[Roger Ryan]

Thanks for your comments Roger, I really appreciate details. I was not aware of just how rough an assembly the workprint is. I'm under no illusion that this is a lost masterpiece (or anything close, Welles himself was rather disparaging about it) but I have a certain excitement about seeing it. I blame my viewing of the One Man Band documentary in my youth!

Yes, 17 minutes of highlights from The Deep workprint is much more digestible for a retrospective of this kind. I really hope to see the Munich Filmmuseum's reconstruction of The Merchant of Venice one of these days as that definitely is an attempt to create a complete short film of what Welles shot from what I've heard.