|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: William Dieterle (Reply to this comment)
by ebrown2
The Granger subplot is an interesting commentary on Hollywood politics at the time.
|
Jan 14 '02
10:31 pm PST
|
|
Re: William Dieterle (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot,  in Movies
DDW is one well put together film. It's a shame the censors cut it up. You can see a few frame jumps and hear skips in the music. This would be a prime candidate for a full-blown restoration. Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Stephen!
|
Dec 18 '01
12:54 pm PST
|
|
Re: I'll have to check this one out again.. (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Thanks for your kind words, Gasman. It is well worth another look. I want to watch it again as I've noticed more in it with each viewing.
|
Dec 18 '01
12:51 pm PST
|
|
William Dieterle (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray, in Movies
was no slouch as a director and I think that the similar look owes more to (1) the German expressionist cinema influence on Welles that was carried to America by Lang, Dieterle, and others, and (2) the same cinematographer and editor.
Nonetheless, the film deserves recognition and conservation/restoration, even though the once canonized American poet Stephen Vincent Benet has been forgotten.
|
Dec 18 '01
8:09 am PST
|
|
I'll have to check this one out again.. (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
I remember seeing this movie awhile back and I remember liking it. I guess I'll need to check it out for another look. Great Review.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Dec 18 '01
7:19 am PST
|
|
Re: Thanks to the Devil! (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Dear Macresarf1,
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your filling in some lore on this fascinating film. I honestly cannot think of another movie I've seen that tells a tale with such economy and power and keeps me hanging on every word.
I watched it three times over the course of a week and each time I was amazed at how much I'd missed before. This is truly a celebration of all that cinema can be.
Best regards, old buddy,
George
|
Dec 17 '01
6:55 pm PST
|
|
Thanks to the Devil! (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
Dear George: I appreciate your compliment on my review. Yours has at least as many virtues.
I might just comment that Director Dieterle had worked with F. W. Murnau, who brought to Hollywood many of the expressionistic camera uses that John Ford and Welles used. And of course, Joe August was Ford's most frequent photographer, and Robert Wise got his start with Welles. Clearly, to me at least, the original plan would have called for Walter Huston to play opposite Welles's Daniel Webster, a part he had played in a number of radio dramas.(It would have allowed him to play a part at his more normal weight, which no doubt George Schaefer, who hoped to build him into a romantic idol, opposed.) I have read a rumor that Welles discussed playing all three parts: Jabez Stone, Mr. Scratch, and Daniel Webster. Actually, of course, both CITIZEN KANE and THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER had very similar themes.
Welles used unknown actors in CITIZEN KANE because 1) his Mercury Theater players were, at the time, unknown, and 2) he wanted the impact that superb unknowns, rather than familiar "stars" might bring to his unique fable.
Your readers may be interested to know that, short a minute of the original, a restored THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER, is available on Laserdisc (or copies there from). There are a number of noticeable breaks and a sound differential.
I fully agree that THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER is a film which deserves much more credit and viewing.
Regards.
[Macresarf1]
|
Dec 17 '01
1:35 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.