Black Magic

This is an unusual blend of courtly intrigue, romance, supernatural thriller, and swashbuckler, from United Artists and director Gregory Ratoff. Orson Welles stars as Joseph Balsamo, a gypsy magician who is gifted with true powers of hypnotism due to a traumatic childhood incident. He renames himself Cagliostro and attempts to gain entry into the upper echelon of 18th century Parisian society, but when he is rejected, he decides to take by trickery what was not given freely. Also featuring Raymond Burr.

I'm not a worshiper at the altar of Welles, nor a detractor. I think he was a gifted man who squandered much of his talents, and had perhaps too much hubris to achieve what he wanted in his chosen art form. I like many of the films he's associated with, but have disliked just as many. This movie reminded me a bit of his later work, inspired in places, threadbare in others, and often giving the appearance of being awkwardly stitched together. He wasn't the director, although he's rumored to have directed scenes, and the film was produced in the traditional manner, and not in the start-and-stop way of later films that kept losing funding.

The sets and locations are good, although they occasionally clash, as one camera angle shows an impressive real courtyard with dozens of extras, while the next angle reveals the performers against an obviously painted backdrop. Instead of ruining the atmosphere, it instead imbues the proceedings with a slight dreamlike quality. I thought Welles did a fantastic acting job, never less than believable, and Nancy Guild isn't bad in a dual role. Valentina Cortese and Akim Tamiroff provide nice support.

Not having readt the story by Dumas,I really don't feel qualified to comment as to this film's fidelity to the original work.However,it has very little,if anything,to do with the actual history.till,it's a superb example of a cross between swashbuckling and film noir. Has anybody ever commented on the fact that,when Orson Welles did historical or Shakespearean figures,he was really telling so much about himself.Noble,talented,gifted people,whose grandiose designs were brought low by their own tragic flaws.And how good looking he was.If he hadn't doubled his girth in later years,he could have played leading men similar to those of Walter Pidgeon.

HISTORICAL NOTE:The real Cagliostro was exiled from France in 1789,following the business about the diamond necklace.He then moved to Rome,where he established a Masonic Lodge.Now,in Europe,the Masons are NOT viewed as a men's fraternal organization,as in the U.S.A.,but,rather,as a hot bed of treason,treachery,and heresy.Consequently,he was arrested,and sentenced to be executed.The Pope commuted the sentence to life imprisonment,and he spent the rest of his life in prison.

MORAL:We really don't need anyone else to foul up our lives,now,do we?We happen to do a great job on our own.

Trivia Question: What role was played (in the movies) by both Orson Welles and Zero Mostel? Answer: Joseph Balsalmo, a.k.a. Cagliostro, the charlatan magician who was a leading social figure in Europe in the 1780s and early 1790s. Mostel, early in his film career, played the imposter in DU BARRY WAS A LADY, opposite Red Skelton and Lucille Ball. Welles played the role in BLACK MAGIC, a more serious film based on one of Alexander Dumas Pere's innumerable historical fables.

Basically, the film follows the rise and fall of Cagliostro, building up his tangential involvement in the notorious "Affair of the Diamond Necklace" (1785) which has been the subject of a serious film two years ago. Cagliostro was arrested in that affair's investigation, as the actual culprit was smart enough to lay a path of clues pointing to his involvement.

He was released at the conclusion of the investigation (and banished from France). This movie puts him into the center of the plot, his hope being to use it to discredit the Bourbons and take over the country (in reality he would not have gotten anywhere near such a situation - his own aristocratic associates would have prevented it). Welles does nicely as the power-intoxicated anti-hero, but the plot is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe what's going on. But, come to think of it, the affair of the Diamond Necklace itself was pretty ridiculous, so who should complain.

There seems to be a cottage industry among film scholars to try to expand the films of Welles that he directed. For the record he directed CITIZEN KANE, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, IT'S ALL TRUE, THE STRANGER, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, MACBETH, OTHELLO, CONFIDENTIAL REPORT/MR. ARKADIN, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE TRIAL, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, F IS FOR FAKE, and two television films: THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH and THE IMMORTAL STORY, all of which he completed except for IT'S ALL TRUE (which has since been somewhat preserved and edited, and is on video). He also had a hand in JOURNEY INTO FEAR, MONSIEUR VERDOUX, and THE THIRD MAN. There are some films he directed that (for one reason or another) were never cut or released: DON QUIXOTE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, and one other that had to do with people on a sinking yacht. Roughly 21 movies. For a major cinema talent it is a pitiful number (only the French director Jean Vigo is of Welles' stature and did less - but Vigo died prematurely after making three films). So it is understandable that Welles' myriad of fans would want to expand his filmography. But is this actually wise.

If one could show Welles' involvement in a film it is a plus to his reputation and that film. Take MONSIEUR VERDOUX. Chaplin had to put down credit that Welles' gave him the idea for VERDOUX - actually Welles suggested doing a film with Chaplin as Henri Landru (the actual wife murderer Verdoux is based on) and Chaplin said no but took the story and turned it into the greatest black comedy film made before DR. STRANGELOVE. People pass ideas back and forth all the time. There is no evidence that Chaplin asked Welles to suggest camera angles or look over the script (Chaplin was brilliant enough to handle that by himself). But it is mentioned in the film credits that Welles suggested the idea for the film. Enough said for that reason.

There is no screen credit for Welles assisting Gregory Ratoff in directing BLACK MAGIC. Perhaps there is a reason for this - Welles may have accepted this for tax reasons (he had large tax problems in the U.S. after 1946 when a Broadway production of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS with music with Cole Porter flopped). Or perhaps because of industry word that he was an unreliable film director who went over budget (his most successful film was THE STRANGER, which is also one of his least Wellesian in structure or special touches). Or, Welles may have noticed the film was not that particularly interesting or good. It isn't. It is rather padded, and has only one curious element in it: Welles or Ratoff had most of the cast play two roles each. That is a curious innovation, but hardly worth noting. The same year that Welles or Ratoff did that on Black Magic, Alfred Hitchcock did his famous nine minute static scene takes in ROPE. Although not a great idea, it was innovative, and most people recall that film for that particular innovation. Hitchcock also made DIAL "M" FOR MURDER in 3-D, with more success than most directors. But then Hitchcock was a better director than Ratoff.

Welles and his friend Akim Tamiroff do well in their juicy parts, but not so the other performers (although the role of Dr. Anton Mesmer is of some interest). As a result the film is fairly forgettable. Which would be a good reason not to include it in a list of Welles' films that he directed. Keep his own work under his own name. Hopefully more of the cut scenes from his own films will eventually get restored. Even to THE STRANGER, but (from our words to God's ear) most hopefully for AMBERSONS.

Black Magic is an unjustly neglected 1949 Orson Welles film, based on Alexandre Dumas's novel Joseph Balsamo, a fictionalized version of the life of the occultist better known as Cagliostro, set mostly against the background of the days just before the French Revolution. The film is entertaining and well done, though it's a pity that it's in black and white, since the meticulously recreated ancien regime sets and costumes would have looked much more impressive in color. Welles reportedly said that he had more fun making this film than any other, and it's easy to see why, since the melodramatic script gives ample room for over-the-top histrionics, which only an actor of Welles's talent could put over convincingly. It's interesting that Welles here again plays an eccentric genius whose early success was soon undermined by his own flaws -- in other words, a character whose career is intriguingly parallel to his own. I think most people will find the film entertaining, and real Welles fans should consider it a must-see.

The Hen's Tooth Video DVD seems to be the only Region 1 DVD currently available, and it's of adequate sound and image quality, though from a rather poor original print. The film is certainly important enough to deserve a redigitized version with booklet and special features, if possible from a better print, but lacking that, the Hen's Tooth Video version is watchable.

An excellent adaptation of a rather obscure (even in France) novel by Dumas who appears 'in the flesh" in the first -and a bit pointless- scene.But all that remains is quite absorbing and there's never dull moment.

The beginning displays an unusual cruelty ;the hangmen are about to scratch the boy's eyes out :in the distance ,we can see the gallows,where his parents have just been hanged .Orson Welles is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a disturbing dreadful mysterious person,who could mesmerize (no pun intended) the crowds who stood in awe of this French Rasputin (too bad Welles never portrayed the Russian monk).

Taking with French history the largest liberties ,to put it mildly , the screenplay mixes fictionalized events with some real ones :yes,the king would play the occasional clock-maker ,a footnote of history;yes, Marie-Antoinette could not stand La Du Barry and she had her sent to a convent for two years after Louis The Fifteenth 's death;actually the affair of the necklace occurred about ten years after in 1785. Dumas replaced the Dramatis Personae by his own characters: thus Lorenza unintentionally plays the role of Madame De La Motte ,of evil memory,and the Viscount of Montaigne that of The Cardinal De Rohan ,a naive man who wanted to attract the queen's attention .On the other hand,Cagliostro did take part in the greatest French swindle of the eighteenth century (the queen was totally innocent,in spite of the liars Madame De La Motte would write ,in her obnoxious memoirs ).Cagliostro ,nevertheless,did not die after the trial but about ten years later (apoplexy):he got a life sentence,after being tried for heresy by the papal court .

The love affair is almost devoid of interest ,but it's Welles that counts and he delivers the goods: the scene of the would be sick people in the palace of Versailles ,or Cagliostro digging up Lorenza ( a Poesque scene) can still grab today's audience.