Franco's Don Quixote

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 10:24 pm

We've had some diametrically opposed views concerning Jess Franco's cut of Welles neglected footage. I love what he did, and the voice actors, and the music. I think the bullfight section is weak, with neither the Spanish vices or virtues being too well delineated and Sancho annoyingly bumbling about bothering everybody. But I'm grateful somebody finished the film, since Orson couldn't be bothered to. Fear of completion or sloth? (I don't mean that.)

jaime marzol · Post by **jaime marzol** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 3:41 am

...................

like you, store hadji, i also love Don Q, but i like welles' footage, i find very little to appreciate in what i can see franco did.

i don't know why, but i feel like franco sort of pissed on it.

from what i've read, welles never intended to finish it. he had the footage, and loved locking himself in his editing room and cutting, and recutting, having a blast. in audrey stainton's poignent article she writes that the film was like a child he didn't want to hold up for public scuitiny.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:39 am

Good heavens! I just saw, or rather fast forwarded through most, of Franco's butchering of Don Quixiote. What an embarrisment. It was beyond belief. I do remember some of the previous posts on this, but had no idea it was such a mockery. How did Oja let this happen? Doesn't she own all the footage, or is it Franco? Gadzooks! I actually found it depressing to hear the Horrible re-dubbing job and the dreadful state of the footage used, and the general shoddy way it was put together. Please tell me more as to how this happened. Also, does the sound track to the film exist at all?

Michael

tony · Post by **tony** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:15 pm

Oja and her team collected almost all the known footage, including some that Suzanne Cloutier had been holding onto, back c.1990 when they put this version together for a film festival. Welles had shot the film mostly from 57 to 61 (see Rosenbaum's timeline of OW's life in "This is OW") and had been editing DQ with Mauro Bonnani for about a year from April 69 to March 70 in Italy when a scandal broke in the papers about OW's affair with Oja (detailed in the Italian documentary "Rosabella"); Welles packed Oja off to America and closely followed with his family, to settle in Las Vegas. He never worked on the film again, though, encouraged by Cloutier in 1985 to finish it, he contacted Bonnani and arranged for Cloutier to ship her copy to America; Welles died with the film enroute (according to Cloutier in an extended tv interview for French Canadian tv for a broadcast of Othello). The Kodar team managed to track down most of the footage for their version, but they couldn't get their hands on footage held by Bonnani: this is because of something Welles mentioned to Kodar shortly before his death: he had decided to change the framing device for the film. Originally, OW is seen sitting in a park reading Don Quixote; a little girl, played by then famous Patty McCormick, comes up to him and asks him what he's reading; he tells her DQ, and proceeds to read her some passages. The movie we see is the movie as seen by the little girl: she becomes the heroine, Dulcinea, and gets involved in the story. For example, there is a sequence (described by Rosenbaum) where DQ and Sancho go to a movie theatre and the Don attacks the screen to kill the villain who is threatening the damsel in distress; the Don slashes the screeen to shreds.; Patty and her mom are in the theatre, watching.The Don and Sancho are seen in the modern world, and they are both voiced by Welles, as he is telling the story to the girl, and we see her imagining of the story. At some point in the 60's, Welles decided that he would reshoot the Patty McCormick scenes, using his daughter, Beatrice. (Of course, if they'd had Beatrice on their team in 1990, they would have gotten ALL the footage!) But this was never done as Beatrice quickly became too old, and OW decided to use an entirely new framing device, which he never seemed to get around to creating. So, in c. 1990, the Kodar team hired Jess Franco (a second unit director on Chimes, also known for soft-core) to put together a version of DQ for a film festival. Everyone handed over the footage they had, except Bonanni: he refused, on the grounds they were going to follow OW's late wish, as expressed to Oja, and excise anything having to do with Patty McCormick; the only problem was, they had no new framing device to replace it with, so they used some footage of OW from a documentary he made on Spain c. 64, "In the Land of Don Quixote".

Bonanni is interviewed in "Rosabella", and he looks surprisingly young, perhaps 45. But just what is he holding onto? In her beautiful article on Don Quixote in "Sight and Sound" (Autumn 88), Audrey Stainton, an assistant of Welles' from 58 to 59, describes a conversation with Bonanni, which begins at the point in 1970 where Welles had just decided to leave Italy as a result of the scandal:

"...Welles phoned to say he was sending his 16-year-old daughter Beatrice to collect the cut copy. Mauro met her in the late summer of 1971 (in Rome) where he helped her load Welles' big black suitcase containing the cut copy into the trunk of a silver-gray Austin Mini Minor.

Mauro assures me it was a complete film lasting one and a half hours. Some parts of it were not yet post-synched and some parts needed to be revoiced, because Welles had repeatedly changed his mind regarding the editing and inserted different close-ups that were out of synch. There was no music or sound effects. But all the principle photography had been completed; Fransisco Reiguera had finished shooting his part long before he died; and Welles had solved the problem of Dulcinea by a masterly combination of close-ups of Patty McCormick and long or half-concealed shots of a girl resembling her whom he had found in Spain.

According to Mauro, the only image lacking was one special effect: a newsreel shot of some spectacular up-to-date event, which Welles intended to add later to the screen of a television set that Sancho discovers in the plaza at Pamplona. Welles told Mauro that if he had added this in 1970, it would have shown the men landing on thre moon, but he preferred to wait, so that what was showing on the TV screen would be highly topical at the time the film was handed over for release.

...In the meantime,incredible as it may seem, he left the negative lying apparently forgotten in a Rome vault where, but for an extraordinary fluke, it would have suffered the fate of all abandoned material and been destroyed. Luckily, it so happened that Mauro's wife worked at the laboratory in question and in 1974 she caught sight of a letter to Anne Rogers, Welles' one-time secretary in London, informing her that as Mr. Welles had omitted to pay long overdue storage costs or communicate with them in any way, and as all efforts to trace him had failed, they were obliget to proceed with the routine destruction of the negative.

Alerted by his wife, Mauro rushed to the rescue, but without athorization he was not allowed to take charge of the negative, only to pay a cautionary deposit and postpone the destruction for three months. It took him all those three months to locate Welles, but in September of 1974 Welles sent a letter authorising him to take the negative into custody. Mauro has been guarding it ever since with loving care, along with the secret of it's whereabouts, shouldering the expense of its storage out of his own pocket all these years."

Jonathan Rosenbaum, in an interview with Lawrence French (posted on the old board, but possibly lurking somewhere on this board) had this to say:

" (Oja) had it written into the contract that they couldn't use any of the Patty McCormick footage. What was worse, was that Mauro Bonanni, the original editor of Don Quixote, who is in Rome, wanted to work on this and give his input, but they were not interested. Oja's reaction was "You've stolen all this footage, give it back." But Welles left the film with him, and Bonanni rescued it from being destroyed... Now, I think the obvious thing to do, is to put together a version with Bonanni as the editor. He was the original editor and he has some important sequences that are missing from DQ. But nobody seems interested in doing that."

As for Oja's final opinion of Franco: "I'd rather say he just threw it together...I wish Franco had a vision, but what we ended up getting from him has no vision at all." (From an interview with Lawrence French.)

Here's my two cents: put Walter Murch in charge of the project, as he has a proven track record in both editing and sound, and has also done the brilliant job on Touch of Evil (check out the great book "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the art of editing film") ; have Murch work with Bonanni, who has the negative, and who was the principal editor with Welles.

Then we might get something approximating Welles' vision of Don Quixote.

P.S.: Here's a link to an interview on this site with Rosenbaum which covers some material on DQ: http://wellesnet.com/rosenbaum_interview.htm

and here's a link to a Rosenbaum review of Gilliam's Quixote doc, with much material on Welles':

http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2003/0203/030221.html

colwood · Post by **colwood** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 2:04 pm

Tony, thanks for that incredibly thorough explanation on DQ. I had thought of buying the DVD when I came across Jeff's review of it here. I thought about asking what other's thought of it, but Michael beat me to the punch with this thread. Truly a shame about Franco's cut. Here's to hoping we may one day see something close to Welles' vision.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Thu Aug 14, 2003 1:15 am

Tony, thanks for your great and very detailed story of DQ. Amazing story! I appreciate your time in typing it in.

Colwood--my vote is to definitely NOT purchase this item. It's not worthy of even being in a Welles collection. Just my opinion.

Michael

Lance Morrison · Post by **Lance Morrison** » Thu Aug 14, 2003 1:38 am

wow, thanks for the description indeed, I had not learned a lot about DQ yet, as I have been trying not to learn about the unfinished works as I knew they would break my heart reading about them.....and of course this does, but it does sound like it was a brilliant film in the making, and heck the first framing device sounds like it worked just fine, classic Welles

blunted by community · Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

something in what tony posted aroused my interest. tony's post mentions 'a topical event that will be super-imposed on a tv screen.' on the regularly available version is there a scene with pancho in a tv repair shop, when he sees a modern fighter jet being shot down? one of my tapes has this, but suddenly i'm not sure if the other does. has any one seen this in their copy?

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:00 am

I'd heard so many depressing things about the Jess Franco attempt at assembling the Don Quixote footage. It was still fairly disheartening to see, but mainly because of the audio. Its always great hearing Welles' voice, so that was a main positive for me, and i loved the working in of Welles making a movie of Quixote - which afforded an opportunity to see Orson himself.

In the last half i marked down these things which impressed me. It was a bit like Macbeth - on the whole, the scottish accents were too offputting, but i found at least three or four great sequences and images in it.

1:04: Sancho earned some money as extra in movie.
1:12-1:22ish. letter "grab the fattest man, and don't be put off. They've got pleanty of money". shots through fence of Sancho in village when he doesn't know bulls are about to run through where he's standing. Bull fight. Sancho asking ppl where he can find a television.
1:23:38 shot panning up
Welles 1:25
1:27.50 - 1:29 Sancho finds Welles
1:30 Quixote and Sancho locked up in cage. Welles' voiceover.
1:33 sunset
1:36.55 great shot. Quixote having bath in barrell! Welles' voice.
1:39.50 shot
1:41 music +shot
1:42.50 singing. Sancho dancing.
1:45:50 verandah shots
1:47:25 alleyway marketplace shots.
1:49.50 "he's just recording our adventures. He's something like a magician." "hand me over to the devil"
1:51.05 Sancho looks at camera
1:51.11 Young Orson Welles behind camera when Quixote says "The evil lies in human beings for wanting to be slaves..."

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:57 am

I agree - a bit! There were many great parts in this cut of the film: Flashes of Orson's talent, lost in a mess. I've always thought that it should have been edited better - less is more and take care!!!

I can enjoy the first hour and (to an extent) the last 30mins - but after the first hour all 'magic' in the film drops and we're left watching a TV documentary-style 'flat' image of Sancho running around looking for Quixote - filler material.

But, as you say - there are some amazing shots which just jump out at you. The dubbing did take a bit of getting used too though.

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:55 am

Yes - i thought the television gag, which was only okay to begin with, went on way too long (like Cervantes' novel). After about five minutes of that, i started to think that Welles would have used about four of those cuts back to Sancho saying the same thing about the TV and gone on to another adventure. I started to think that (i know this is obvious to say) its unfair of us to see all this virtually raw footage, which looks like test footage - disregarding how its put together and the soundtrack problems. There's no way Welles would allow his name to go on Jess Franco's edit if he had a say in the matter!

The only moment i started to think: this is a beautiful Wellesian image, and "this could have been a great Welles movie" - was when Sancho first arrives in the village where the bulls are about to come through, and we see him through a fence.

I was never really entertained by Quixote and Sancho wandering about. I liked reading it in the book, for those chapters i did read of the book. Somehow it was much funnier in the book - like Catch-22. Still, its possible that the mutilated Touch of Evil would hardly have grabbed me at all - whereas the version where Welles' editing instructions were applied virtually took my breath away! If Welles had lived another fifty years and made no more masterpieces except finishing properly HALF of his home movie of Quixote - i'm sure it would have been great.

blunted by community · Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:49 pm

don q has brilliant stuff in it. i never looked at it as a narrative film, expecting the pieces to fit together into a story. i look at it as a search for brilliant images, and on this level welles always delivers. i have found brilliance in everything that welles made, except AROUND THE WORLD WITH OW. it's the only welles item in which i can't find something visual that fascinates me.

Sir Bygber Brown · Post by **Sir Bygber Brown** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:45 pm

What about The Stranger - i haven't seen it in a while. All i remember that was interesting was a few shots in the opening passage where Meinke is at the airport, then at the gym. Generally, i seems devoid of beauty (you know what i mean - Wellesian beauty - that The Trial has) - would love if anyone could point me towards something i've forgotten from it.

Glenn Anders · Post by **Glenn Anders** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:26 pm

Once again, Sir Bygber, if we had the full version of THE STRANGER, it would be, I think, a completely satisfying melodrama, with a message similar to that of Huston's KEY LARGO, but with more energy. As it is the film still does remind us in ways, not yet recognized, that the Nazis almost won the Post War. In fact, if we examined the Baron Thyssen, Prescott Bush, also Kellogg, Brown and Root, and now the Diebolt Corporation, we would see a pretty direct line between what the film was dealing with and the people who control the American Government today.

That was the danger which Welles was trying to point out in THE STRANGER and, to some extent, in THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI.

There is certainly no more darkly beautiful and evocative sequence in Welles than the sequence in which he murders Meinke.

Glenn

blunted by community · Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:20 pm

sorry for this long-ass post, but once i started writting i could not stop, i hate long-ass posts:

there was this guy, a tennis pro named bobby rigs. before he came to prominence, he used to play tennis for money. Not commercial matches, but betting type matches. He was so good that he had to handi-cap himself to get any action. he would play while carrying a bucket of sand, or while he had a dog leashed to his foot, etc.

welles' whole filmmaking career was such a struggle for him, you can look at each film, and like bobby rigs handi-capping himself, you can say, “this is what a genius can do with no studio intervention (KANE), this is what a genius can do after a bunch of idiots recut his film (AMBERSONS), this is what a genius can do with both hands tied behind his back, and contractually penalized for any extravagance, (THE STRANGER), etc.

Even with both hands tied behind his back he was able to insert artistry in THE STRANGER. The most obvious artistry is in the South American sequence with Meineke, and that incredible gym scene. but if you search, you will find more.

In a few scenes welles plays ‘find the camera.’ That scene when rankin enters mary’s room and his shadow is cast on the wall. Where is the camera? The light that casts the shadow is obviously behind rankin, and behind the camera, but there is no camera crew shadow. so where is the camera? The camera is in front of rankin moving forward with him. When rankin nears the bed, the camera moves to the left and rankin passes it, now rankin instead of his shadow is in the frame. Mind you, this was 1945, a film camera was a huge, bulky object. No an easy thing to maneuver around. This is brilliant. Is it brilliance with no meaning? Of course not. Rankin is a shadow of what Mary thinks he is, and this scene tells you that.

In potter’s, a few times while Mr. Wilson is playing checkers, you see a mirror behind potter. Some of those shots are lined up so you can draw a straight line from the camera, to robinson, to potter, and to the mirror behind pottter. If the shot is lined up straight, and there is a mirror at one end of the line there has to be a camera at the other end of the line. So where is the camera? It’s inside a piece of drug store furniture.

Also there are a lot of marvelous crane shots all through the film; when wilson is addressing the war crimes commission there is a TOUCH OF EVIL type crane shot when meineke is at the custons shack outside the ship - the camera cranes from meineke to wilson on an upper deck. a nice crane shot at the wedding reception. Notice every one takes long walks to discuss things, and all those walks are filmed in one shot. Meineke’s strangulation is also one long shot, on a crane also. Welles loved that crane. Most of ambersons is filmed from a crane. These are just a few things, there is much more.

The most audacious paring of scenes in the stranger. Some one asked, “why a paper chase?” the paper chase was an excuse to rip pages out of a bible. Ranking first strangles a praying man (meineke), then rips pages out of a bible to divert a paper chase away from the body, then where do we see him next? In church, standing at the altar, getting married! And he buries the body during his wedding reception. This is great stuff. This is what welles brings to a story. Rankin kills a praying man, and later he kicks a dog. This is great, great writing. Pair all this with Rankin having a clock fetish and meeting his doom falling out of the clock tower. it's like an evil cartoon.

there is a lot more about rankin and clocks in the screenplay. also, in the screenplay, rankin, an escaped nazi, lives in a small town but tools around town in an open roadster.

that long south american sequence that glenn mentions, and welles mentions, I have not found any proof it was ever filmed. Only in james naremore’s book, and in welles’ comment does it exist.

I have the shooting schedule for the stranger, and welles had a very peculiar way of crossing out scenes. Most writers draw a square around the text of the excised scene, then draw an X from corner to corner. Welles would draw bars straight down the text of the excised scene. This is how a lot of scenes in the shooting schedule were excised; with pencil drawn bars.

The south american scene is in the shooting schedule, and the actors in it are listed on the studio call sheets, so it was intended for the film, till last minute. And I don’t think welles is lying. He probably drew that scene in his mind 60 times before it was yanked from the shoot. And through his life he drew on memory to create. He did this a lot. Things written into an unfilmed screenplays turn up in the films he was able to make.

In the stranger, a crane shot from meineke at the ship shack to robinson on the upper deck. He did it in kane, but when he did it in TOUCH OF EVIL with vargas climbing to a balcony outside tanner’s, that was more from the stranger than from kane. I think welles was sure he made it.

Some of the scenes crossed out of the shooting schedule were filmed, but my theory on that is that when welles was told he could not make certain scenes, in disgust he crossed them out crossing out other stuff that was always inteded. Like meineke’s strangulation was crossed out.