Don Quijote de Orson Welles

dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York does not know what he is talking about. The fact is, he has only seen the Franco version and has nothing to compare it to. The work print floats around occasionally, and it's a million times better that the Franco version. How can anyone call a film crap, when they have never even seen it. Don't ever listen to people that stupid. The fact is that you should even write a review if you have only seen one version of the film, and have no knowledge of the production history, the comment about Wells never intending to release it, is the most ridiculous, ignorant conjecture I have ever heard. No film make spends nearly 10 years of his life making a film, for it to just be a personal toy. He had plenty of projects that never saw release, The Deep, The Other Side of The Wind, etc. The main reason the film was never completed is that one of the principle actors died.

Orson Welles legendary project is nigh on impossible to find here, but I did have the good fortune to attend a free screening. Including myself and my wife there must have been all of eight people in the theater.

Welles interpretation of Quixote is peculiarly reminiscent of some of the illustrations of Gustave Doré (and to a lesser extent Salvador Dali) of Cervantes' masterpiece. I thought this an attractive approach, as it indicated a degree of recognition for others who had explored this fascinating work.

Given the wild fluctuations in film stock and equipment, the film is at times somewhat difficult to watch: but these sudden transitions are only a little more extreme than in F for Fake. The travelogue like sequences toward the end of the film are also a little jarring, but do give some indication of Welles fascination with Spain.

As a student of film, or as a student of Welles you should try to see this flawed film. It's great moments far outshine the weaknesses. I am not an Orson Welles fan, but I certainly prefer this to The Lady from Shanghai. If you are not interested in Welles or film history you will probably be disappointed. As with F for Fake, there is little of the slickness we associate with Welles films.

Based on the classic novel , considered to be the best literary work ever written that stands in an unique position between the modern novel and medieval chivalric romance . And deemed to be one of the most influencial works of literature from the Golden Age . This work was made by Orson Welles just over fifteen years for lack of finances , though it turns out to be a combination of fictitious and documentary scenes . In fact , Welles began shooting in 1955 and worked on it off and on over the years . This is a blending of the unfinished film Don Quijote by Orson Welles , adding documentary scenes from Italian TV series shot by Welles , some scenes filmed by Jesus Franco himself and images of Spanish documentary NODO , all of them under supervision of Oja Kodar , Welles' wife . It was produced by Patxi Irigoyen and mounted , reshaped , cut and finished by Jesus Franco, including Daniel White score , Franco's regular , being premiered in Sevilla Exposición 1992 . Here Don Quijote is well played by Francisco Reíguera and AkimTamiroff gives a fabulous Sancho Panza . There also appears Paola Mori while is attacked by Don Quijote , as woman on motorscooter, she was Orson Welles wife who died early , and Fernando Rey as a narrator in the closing scene . In addition , the picture lacks footage from original Don Quijote , being held in other private collections in Europe .

It follows the classy plot , but introducing modern elements and a lot of anachronisms. As Don Quijote is a brave hidalgo , fanatic for chivalry novels , he decides to undertake imaginary adventures along with his friend , the simple farmer Sancho Panza , along the way he battles windmills , countrymen , warriors and he is finally locked . This enduring romantic adventure deals the enthusiast , passionate knight Don Quixote and it is paced in enjoyable as well as deliberate rhythm . There are several documentary scenes including Holy Week and Pamplona parties : San Fermin . However , the film tires , being paced in fits and starts and feels overlong . And relying heavily on the documentary , and certain confusion and mayhem . Furthermore , the images are faded and tarnished. being really necessary a perfect remastering .

There are a lot of versions abut this classic novel , such as : ¨Don Quijote¨ 1933 by G.W. Pabst . ¨Don Quijote de la Mancha¨ 1945 by Rafael Gil with Rafael Rivelles , Juan Calvo , Sara Montiel , Fernando Rey . ¨Don Kikhot¨1957 by the Russian Grigori Kozintev . ¨Don Quijote cabalga de nuevo¨ by Roberto Gabaldon with Cantinflas , Fernando Fernández Gómez , Maria Fernando D'ocon. And a musical version 1972 by Arthur Hiller titled ¨Man of La Mancha¨ with Peter O'Toole , James Coco , Sofia Loren , John Castle , Brian Blessed . ¨Don Quijote¨ by Peter Yates with John Lightow , Bob Hoskins. Besides , Spanish series , 1991/1992 titled ¨El Quijote de Miguel de Cervantes¨ with Fernando Rey , Alfredo Landa , Manuel Alexandre , Aitana Sánchez Gijon , Francisco Merino , Esperanza Roy . ¨Don Quijote¨ by Manuel Gutierrez Aragon with Juan Luis Galiardo and Carlos Iglesias . Don QuiXote 2015 with Carmen Argentino, Horatio Sanz , ¨Don Quixote: The Ingenious Gentleman of La Mancha¨ (2015) by Dave Dorsey . Finally , ¨The Man Who Killed Don Quixote¨(2018) by Terry Gillian with Jonathan Price , Adam Driver , Stellan Skarsgård , Olga Kurylenko , Paloma Bloyd , Óscar Jaenada . And in cartoon movies as Don Quijote de la Mancha by Cruz Delgado and Donkey Xote 2007 by José Pozo .

Only when one hear Welles narration on the soundtrack of this dog's dinner of a film, does one get a tiny glimpse of what Welles might have been able to achieve in bringing "Don Quixote" to the screen. From what I saw last night on DVD (purchased by a friend recently in Spain!), my guess is that "Don Quixote" is unfilmable, even by a genius like Welles. The 'director', Jess Franco', is no Welles, to be sure. Where and how Franco got his hands on this footage, is as mysterious as Welles himself. Apparently shot over a number of years, the assembled footage, is a mish mash of stills, unrelated footage, an out-of-sync sound track (scenes of Welles in a car shooting footage like an enthusiastic tourist), and ludicrously dubbed American voices, makes this just a slice of arcane interest. In summary, it was 'interesting' to see, but at the end of the day, it manages to tarnish Welle's reputation, rather than enhance it. Still, with 'Citizen Kane', the truncated "Magnificent Ambersons", & "Chimes At Midnight", to his credit, Welles really doesn't need this kind of 'tribute'.

Those who dismiss this reconstructed film out-of-hand cannot possibly have any appreciation of Welles' genius. The reviewer who calls it a "dog's dinner" is obviously reacting to the unusual and non-linear qualities of Welles' later films. I doubt that he can know very much about either Welles or Quijote. In any case, he fails to see the forest from the trees. Of course there are some scenes and shots in this incomplete film that go nowhere-- BUT this is still the most beautiful, exhilariting, and cinematic version of Cervantes yet put to film. I don't doubt that the film would be better if Welles had been able to finish editing it himself. But even as it is, the great director left his mark on each and every surviving scene. Visually speaking, the film is simply too similar to 'The Trial' and other late Welles classics to be ignored.

The film centers around the idea of Don Quixote (and Sancho) trying to stick to their guns in the midst of the great confusion of modern-day Spain. Such a conceit is absolutely typical of Welles, as are all the other major departures from the novel. Welles was not known for faithfulness. But there are also scenes of pure character drama, and they play so well as to make us believe that Cervantes had written them; Welles was, after all, among the greatest of screenwriters.

Not the least of his triumphs here is in the casting: Akim Tamiroff, one of the screen's greatest and most unsung actors, was born to play Sancho and he does not disappoint. Francisco Reiguera looks and acts more like Cervantes' Knight than any other. Again, the other reviewers fail to appreciate this.

If the film has any really major flaw (apart from the awful English dubbing), it is the additional dialog written by Jess Franco, who was Welles' A.D. on this film. Of course it is difficult to identify, but I take it that most of the dialog is Welles'. The film also goes on too long concerning bull-fighting, but of course this was one of Welles' fascinations and it is probably at least partly his fault.

The real reason this film has been ignored is because a lot of people crave conventional narrative cinema so badly that they deride cinematic art unless it has a "artist's brand name" attached to it. Since Welles' is not entirely responsible for the final cut as we have it, a lot of people feel that its 'fair game' in a way that his other films are not. Well, if you can't stand genius, then stay away from it-- you'll only embarrass yourself trying to deride it.

BEWARE THE English-LANGUAGE DUBBING. Welles obviously never did an English dub of this footage, and the one that is supplied by Welles' reconstructors is a total injustice to the film. It is far better to stick it out with the Spanish track and French sub-titles, even if you don't know a word of French. At least you'll have an idea of the quality of some of the scenes. HOPEFULLY we will see a DVD of this in the US with English subtitles.

Perhaps some further reconstruction is also still possible? BUT it will only happen if Welles fans are supportive of the footage the Welles did indeed achieve.