MERCHANT OF VENICE

[Le Chiffre]

That's a good possibility, but it's probably too late to incorporate it into FILMING OTHELLO, unless specific instructions were written down somewhere by Welles.

[Roger Ryan]

It does seem that all the film material Welles claimed was lost or stolen from the late 60s through the mid-70s has all been found in one place!

[jbrooks]

I just came from the Stefan Droessler's presentation of "The Merchant of Venice" at the Museum of Modern Art. I thought the restoration was wonderful. The image is a revelation. It's not perfect but it's a vast improvement over the workprint footage in "One Man Band." There are some color timing issues here and there and some grainier bits, but for the most part, it looks wonderful. It is colorful and sharp and often looks perfect -- like a newly struck print of a well preserved film from the 1960s.

As for the soundtrack, Droessler has replaced the missing dialogue with dialogue from Welles' 1938 Mercury Theater Record of the play. In contrast to Alessandro Aniballi's assessment above, I thought this worked quite well. It's not a perfect solution obviously, but I think it works and is probably preferable to trying to overdub the footage with new actors. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at how close the line readings from 1938 fit the filmed scenes. I also think the music score works pretty well, though I would probably have to see it again to fully evaluate the score.

The film itself is difficult to judge because it's incomplete. It's a very truncated version of the play, and on top of that, the end of the film itself is missing. Welles apparently intended the film to end with Shylock's "I am a Jew speech." Apparently that scene was never shot -- so Droessler plays the 1938 recording of the speech over a black screen. The 1938 version of the speech works well enough, but I'm not sure that Welles' truncated version of the play is satisfying.

The film has many great shots. It feels like it was shot on a small scale and with TV in mind, but it is obvious that it was Welles behind the camera. It plays like Othello-lite. Also, Welles' performance is wonderful. I think it's one of his greatest performances.

Less wonderful is the character of Jessica. The film is apparently set in the 1800s but Jessica's hairstyle, makeup and wardrobe scream 1969! It's like one of those old Star Trek episodes where the space aliens look like they stepped out of the pages of a 1960s fashion magazine. Also, I don't think the fireworks and carnival inserts work very well -- but those are minor quibbles.

It was a great privilege to be able to see this film in a great print in a semi-complete form. This is a significant addition to Welles' body of work both as a director and as an actor. Congratulations to Stefan Droessler and his team for doing a terrific job.

[jbrooks]

To clarify, only about one third of the original dialogue is missing. The original dialogue exists for the other 2/3rds or so. It's only the missing portions that are replaced by dialogue from the 1938 recording (with inter-titles used for two or three lines that presumably weren't included in the 1938 recording). Some might find the switch from the 1960s voices to the 1938 recording jarring. But -- if one is forewarned -- I think it works fine. The quality of the 1938 recording is surprisingly great, and Stefan Droessler and his team did a great job editing and synching it with the soundless portions of the film.

Also, the film itself is preceded by an introduction by Welles. It was filmed in Venice, and it shows Welles getting off a boat and going over to a chair and makeup table, where he introduces the play as he puts on his Shylock makeup. It then cuts to him doing a drawing of Shylock while he continues to discuss the play. As with the film itself, the soundtrack for half the introduction is missing. But the script apparently remained, and Droessler was able to replace the missing portions of the soundtrack with intertitles. Incidentally, this introduction is not the footage of Venice that Welles shot for possible use in "Filming Othello." This introduction was clearly intended to introduce "Merchant of Venice" to a tv audience. Droessler, however, does have possession of some Venice material that appears as though it was intended for inclusion in "Filming Othello." Droessler showed some of that footage last night as well. And he also showed us Welles' contract for "Filming Othello" in which Welles specifically references the fact that he had filmed some Venice material for the film but that the material had gone missing.

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks for the fascinating rundown, jbrooks. I’m glad you found it more enjoyable then Allesandro did. His objections make him sound like more of a purist than I am, as I, like you, don’t necessarily have a problem either with the use of other sources like the old radio program to fill in the gaps of missing material. It all depends on how well it’s done, and from what you say, it sounds like it’s been done pretty well by Drossler and Munich.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, however, but I don’t think Welles’s MERCHANT OF VENICE was ever intended to be seen as a standalone work. It was intended to be seen as the final part of “ORSON’S BAG”, so all the various and wonderful restorations that the Munich museum has already done of the material for that TV special (including SWINGING LONDON and VIENNA) should really be seen together with the new MERCHANT restoration.

The intro to MERCHANT that you mentioned, where he puts on the Shylock makeup while introducing the character, seems not only a neat “back-in-time” twist on the previous intros to the other city segments, but it also sounds reminiscent of the Falstaff bit he did on The Dean Martin Show, which can be seen on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ6v7GHYDbM

This is something that was discussed recently in another thread on the recent photobook from Italy:
http://wellesnet.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2572

Of course, having it as a standalone work is infinitely better then not having it at all, and it’s great to hear that the restoration has been done well. I look forward to seeing it myself, hopefully soon.

[Wellesnet]

Joe Bendel on the MoMA Merchant showing (From "JB Spins):
http://jbspins.blogspot.com/2015/11/unk ... enice.html

Aside from a rather jaunty opening, in which Welles triumphantly returns to Venice (where he also shot Othello) lounging in a gondola, the film is probably the closest in tone to Welles’ The Trial. The entire city seems to be conspiring against Shylock, while wearing sinister carnival masks that weirdly bring to mind Eyes Wide Shut.

John Touhy (From Wellesnet Facebook):

I was at the Merchant of Venice screening tonight. The people who were in the standby line all made it in, so if you are interested in seeing The Deep, I would just show up and get in the standby line. The lecture and reconstructed footage were well worth seeing. MoV was obviously not a finished Welles film, but the reconstruction gave an idea of what he had in mind in adapting the play. And Welles' performance as Shylock was quite moving. Stefan Droessler's presentation and the clips he shared powerfully conveyed the struggles that Orson Welles went through to make his films, as well as the man's sensitivity and intelligence. I left MOMA admiring Welles more than ever. If you are a fan of Welles and can catch one of the remaining presentations, you owe it to yourself to attend.

Drucker (From the Criterion Forum):

It was more of a lecture than anything else, but the restored Merchant of Venice is certainly the best looking color film I've seen from Welles. Stylistically, it was very similar to Immortal Story, but I actually found it better and more powerful overall. The most interesting thing about the restoration is that a whole reel of sound elements is missing (from the important Shylock speech, no less). But Welles had recorded the speech as part of a record series for Columbia records in the 1930s. It just so happens, as well, that he didn't change ANY of the lines from his recording of the speech, but did rearrange them. So the missing sound elements were dubbed in from a recording from 1938, and it really wasn't too bad!

[A Sled in Flames]

Add me to the list of people impressed by the MOMA screening. I really didn't expect much, but came away thinking Welles's incomplete Merchant of Venice was better than his finished Immortal Story! As Mr. Drossler pointed out in his stellar but concise rundown of Welles's Shakespeare career, the two were truly meant for each other.

Welles the actor shines as the most nuanced Shylock I'd ever seen. It's very clear where Welles sympathies lie, and I'm glad that he completely runs with his choice. Even in his old age, Welles's acting skills never faltered. His Shylock is simultaneously imposing yet pitiable, undeniably wronged and left alone. Even the scene with Tubal, which he had to be convinced into including, still makes him come across as sympathetic.

It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of Welles's 1930s aural portrayal of Shylock and the one he actually did for this movie. As someone noted above, Welles was trying harder in the 1930s to sound imposing and make his voice deeper. In the 1960s, Welles just plays Shylock as how he views him-- the aging, wronged Jew; he confidently relies on his natural stature and presence for the intimidation factor.

Nonetheless the closing "Hath a Jew Eyes" monologue delivered by Welles in the 1930s is very striking. I actually didn't mind how it didn't have accompanying video. The silence let us focus on the words. I believe that the monologue is more aggressive than Welles would have performed it in the 1960s, but, for this specific speech, such bite is needed.

The versions he filmed of the speech later in life were intriguing alternatives-- truly, Welles never stopped growing as an actor, despite his greatness from his earliest years.

[Wellesnet]

Jonathon Rosenbaum has posted few images from the new restoration on his website:
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2016/0 ... limpses-2/

[Jedediah Leland]

Could someone who's seen the restored version of The Merchant of Venice clear up something for me?

I see that several of the most common photos of the restoration have Welles wandering around Venice in modern day clothes. I'd assumed this must be behind-the-scenes photography. But I see from the photos of the restored film, posted by Jonathan Rosenbaum at http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2016/0 ... limpses-2/ that these seem to be included in the film, and that it also features Welles in modern dress getting into his Shylock makeup. Is this the case?

The reason I ask is twofold.

Firstly, I was wondering how Welles was planning to "bridge" the shift in tone in Orson's Bag, from the lightweight, funny segments (London, Vienna, cookery, magic tricks) to something more 'heavy' and serious like The Merchant of Venice. Welles getting into his Shylock makeup in front of us is rather reminiscent of the late 1960s Dean Martin Show appearance he made where he got into his Falstaff makeup in front of us, before giving us a dramatic reading. It would certainly make sense to see the "film" in the context of being the last 40 minutes of a mostly-light-hearted TV special, and of this "changing" acting as a narrative bridge to the rest of the TV special. So is that how the "film" starts? If so, how is the transition managed?

Secondly, I've read about the way the Munich Film Museum substituted for the missing final reel, made up of Welles's "Hath Not a Jew Eyes" speech, by playing the 1938 recording over a freeze-frame of Welles in character in his 1969 Shylock make-up. But I wonder whether Welles had something different in mind? For decades, it was said that no-one could work out why Welles kept re-filming that speech in modern dress against a sunrise/sunset, in various European locations, throughout the 1970s. I wonder, was the film meant to end as it had begun, with a transition to Welles in modern dress? Was there some sort of postmodern twist to how Shylock was being presented, consciously as a fictional character in a film within a TV special?

Thoughts?

[jbrooks]

Jedidiah:

To respond to your question, the restoration begins with Welles in modern dress riding on a boat in Venice -- he gets off the boat and walks over to a makeup and begins getting made up as Shylock -- all the while giving an introduction to the play. Unfortunately, much of the soundtrack for this introduction is lost, but the script remains. And it is clear that this introduction was intended to introduce a television audience to the play.

If I recall correctly, the film cuts from Welles getting made up to the film proper (or maybe even to the introductory credits?). Welles does not jump up directly from the make up table and start performing the play as part of the same scene.

I doubt that Welles intended any of his modern-dress Shylock speeches to be used to complete this version of "Merchant." But it's an interesting thought.

[Jedediah Leland]

Thanks for the clarification, jbrooks - all very interesting!

[Wellesnet]

If anyone in the Los Angeles area is going to the showing this evening (Welles's 102nd birthday) of "The Merchant of Venice" and other footage from OW's unfinished projects, which will be screened at Grauman's Egyptian Theatre on 6712 Hollywood Boulevard, we would love to hear more feedback about it.

Orson Welles fest with unfinished films taking place in Hollywood:
http://www.wellesnet.com/orson-welles-f ... hollywood/

The schedule for Orson Welles: The Studio Years and Beyond, includes:

Saturday, May 6:  Orson Welles, Shylock and King Lear hosted by Dröessler features the 2015 reconstruction of The Merchant of Venice.  It will followed by a second 100-minute program with Dröessler,  Orson Welles Rarities, which includes The Deep trailer, the amusing  London sketches and screen tests for The Dreamers.

Here's Welles author FX Feeney on the series:
http://americancinematheque.blogspot.co ... elles.html

[tonyw]

I hope all these items eventually become available on DVD.

[Wich2]

Accordingly, what he's done (and he interjected "and I know some Wellesian purists are going to hate this!") is synched the film to Welles's 1939 gramophone recording of The Merchant of Venice.

I look forward to seeing this, as the MERCHANT material in the package I saw at Film Forum a few years back was very interesting.

Of course, I understand why purists would take offense. But on the other hand, the recorded media are technical animals to begin with, so...

A dream project I've long had, if I ever had the time and money: wedding the best available, restored audio from Jack Barrymore's '30s radio HAMLET and RICHARD, with artfully shot footage of the many stills - perhaps even, colorized per original guidelines - from his '20s stage performances of those roles.

Technical as such projects may be, they do offer us a closer approximation of treasured performances of this classic material by these gifted men.

-Craig
(aka "Antonio, the Merchant")

[nickleschichoney]

I look forward to seeing this, as the MERCHANT material in the package I saw at Film Forum a few years back was very interesting.

...well, hopefully it was good, too...