Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:07 pm
by purplepines
And I have no comment. Other than to say its cute to hear him saying dates that are in the recent past.
Clip ONE Click Here
Clip TWO Click Here
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:59 am
by Glenn Anders
That first capture from THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW is impressive, isn't it, especially if Welles wrote, or re-wrote, his own narration for it.
Really uncanny.
I think I've posted it here before somewhere, but you might like to look at an Epinion that I did of THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW in September of 2001, just after 9/11:
http://www.epinions.com/content_41525546628
Thank you for bringing the clips.
Glenn
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:24 pm
by Kevin Loy
Actually, I have fond memories of this film, since it was my first real exposure to Welles. I remember it was in pretty heavy rotation on Cinemax (I think) at one point in the mid-to-late 90s -- I remember because it would often air right after I returned home from school (and it beat the hell out of doing homework). Despite the fact that the merit of Nostradamus' predictions (as well as the interpretations) are hotly debated to this day, and despite the fact that the film itself is dated in some aspects (I think they made mention at one point in time about Ted Kennedy possibly becoming president), I still think it is interesting for what it is.
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:54 am
by Glenn Anders
True, Kevin.
The point I make in my review is that, according to what the director said in an interview, these are Welles' predictions, based on his own interpretations of Nostradamus. If you know anything about the ratio of predictions to reality, Welles looks very good here. He is off by a approximately two years on the major ones, Osama bin Laden and the San Francisco Earthquake of 1989. He is off on that time frame, but given leap years, etc., which are often figured in, he is still remarkably on the money. And, off the top of my head, I would estimate that he is about 7 for 10, overall in the predictions.
What always must be remembered is that it is easy to make Nostradamas look good after the fact, whatever you want to prove.
But Welles was actually making predictions of events within our lifetime.
You would have been best to stay with your homework, however.
Prophecy tends to be the work of charlatans.
Meanwhile: "REMEMBER, REMEMBER, THE 7TH OF NOVEMBER."
If we want to have any chance to explode Welles' prediction of "the war on terror" lasting 27 years!
Glenn
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:13 pm
by Michael O'Hara
Kevin Loy wrote:Actually, I have fond memories of this film, since it was my first real exposure to Welles. I remember it was in pretty heavy rotation on Cinemax (I think) at one point in the mid-to-late 90s -- I remember because it would often air right after I returned home from school (and it beat the hell out of doing homework). Despite the fact that the merit of Nostradamus' predictions (as well as the interpretations) are hotly debated to this day, and despite the fact that the film itself is dated in some aspects (I think they made mention at one point in time about Ted Kennedy possibly becoming president), I still think it is interesting for what it is.
Same here. I saw it on HBO as a kid (early 80's) and really got hooked on it, and years later I remembered it and tracked down a copy on VHS. It was also my first glimpse at this man Orson Welles. He was there banging at my door way back then. Too bad no one planted me in front of a television and forced me to watch Lady From Shanghai. All those years wasted on Atari 2600 and MTV. I should have been watching the classics! Curse you, Smurfs! 
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:48 am
by Kevin Loy
Glenn Anders wrote:The point I make in my review is that, according to what the director said in an interview, these are Welles' predictions, based on his own interpretations of Nostradamus. If you know anything about the ratio of predictions to reality, Welles looks very good here.
I have to ask (and I don't mean to be a wiseacre)...
Was Welles actually interpreting Nostradamus' original quatrains, translated versions of them, or just re-writing the script itself? I think there are crucial differences here that need to be addressed. You're well aware that Nostradamus veiled his quatrains with an extensive amount of ambiguity (which says nothing of the usage of multiple languages), which makes them easily open to vastly different interpretations.
If Welles was working from translations of the quatrains, however, it would mean (in my opinion, at least) that he would be generally predisposed towards a certain direction with his interpretations. The possibilities could still be broad, but not as variable as they would be from the original text (since anybody who translates a similar text will undoubtedly add their own interpretation to the material, whether intentionally or not).
But, of course, just re-writing the script is another matter entirely.
And remember that Welles did describe himself as a charlatan at the beginning of "F For Fake" (I'm sure you did, though)
I do think your review makes some interesting points (though I have a bit of difficulty in accepting the 1989 San Francisco earthquake prediction simply because, well, you're talking about predicting an earthquake in California)...though I must say that, if it wasn't "The Man Who Saw Tomorrow", it would have been spending time listening to music as opposed to doing homework.
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:49 pm
by Glenn Anders
Kevin: I'm not making myself clear.
With one or two exceptions, the the interpretations of Nostradamas's quatrains were made after the events he supposedly described. Then some one would say, "A-ha! when he talked about the Eagle, he must have meant . . . that!" Whatever, as we like to say nowadays, in our off-handedness. A hundred years further on, something else might happen, and the very soothsaying.
Just as you indicate, Welles was re-writing the script, and making his own interpretations. But the difference is that His predictions or interpretations dealt with events twenty or twenty-five years in the future, not in the past. As foretelling the future goes, his work here should be thought remarkably accurate in any critic's book.
If you know California History, you will see that the Loma Prieta Earthquake was the biggest in California since that which leveled San Francisco in 1906. And just a couple of years later, the North Ridge Earthquake devestated a portion of Southern California. True, we expect earthquakes out here. The San Francisco Chronicle used to carry a map which would show half a dozen to a dozen earthquakes A WEEK! But to predict, only a couple of years off the mark, such huge earthquakes is impressive. Something of a very different order.
Glad you found some merit in the review.
Glenn
Re: Clips from 1981's The Man Who Saw Tomorrow
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:17 pm
by Le Chiffre
Here's the entire documentary on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj3V5_5TxdU
