And Now The Return of Another New Slideshow (Sort of) [**Now featuring alternate versions of scenes - see replies #60,#82,#116,#138,#157,#180,#224,#240,#280,#372,#526**]

[KMR]

I would definitely prefer Keith Prentice to Michael Stroka but my ideal choice for Gregory would have been Louis Edmonds.

Oh, Louis would have been a hoot in that role!

I also agree that Keith be preferable to Michael.

[KMR]

Also, revisiting a comment I made in the previous post, it's interesting how the boutique is described as "a very New York shop" and not "a very New York-like shop". Could it really be that the reason Scenes 81 & 82 are described as being set on a Tarrytown street is because in this film Collinwood is really located in Tarrytown, NY and not in Collinsport, ME?! I don't believe there are actually any references in the script to Collinsport or Maine. Or are the references to Tarrytown and New York simply oversights that crept into the script because they knew they would be shooting at Lyndhurst?

Okay, MB, I was all ready to go with this idea of NODS being set in a parallel universe with Collinwood in Tarrytown instead of Collinsport.  (Mainly because it just feels like it's in a parallel universe anyway.)  But then today's quote threw that idea out the window, at least for me.  Tracy saying that being in the shop makes her feel like she's "back in New York" would be a weird thing to say if she's only 30 miles up the Hudson.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The script definitely sends mixed messages. But like I also said, most likely the references to Tarrytown and New York are simply oversights that crept into the script because they knew they would be shooting at Lyndhurst (which is something they didn't know when hoDS was first written).

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Oh, Louis would have been a hoot in that role!

I agree. Though at least from what's been written, it doesn't seem like he was ever in contention.

One thing that was interesting was that when 'Curse' of Dark Shadows was first announced, there was a bit of misinformation as to who would be in it. An article in 16 magazine, which normally had their facts correct when it came to DS, said:


"...the next MGM full length, color Dark Shadows movie. It's called Curse of Dark Shadows (working title) and it stars and features nearly every one of your DS favorites!

Jonathan Frid: It is highly unlikely that you will see Jonathan in the Dark Shadows movie. ... he feels that continuing with the "Barnabas Collins" role in Curse of Dark Shadows will actually stymie him in the quest to resume his serious acting career.

David Henesy: Acting-wise you can be quite sure you'll be seeing David in regular and guest roles on many top TV shows and its just very possible that he will be doing a featured role in Curse of Dark Shadows.

David Selby: At press time, David Selby was trying to make the agonizing decision of whether or not to star in a Sam Shepard play at the American Place Theatre in New York City or to accept a starring role in Curse of Dark Shadows. Both opportunities are equally inviting to David, but since he feels that his future is primarily on the Broadway stage, it's not unlikely that David will ultimately choose to do the Sam Shepard play. However, keep your fingers crossed and wish real hard--and it may be that he will change his mind and we'll soon be seeing him in the Dark Shadows movie!

Dark Shadows regulars you'll be seeing and hearing about are: Jim Storm, who is co-starring in the off off-Broadway play Mad Dog Blue (St. Mark's church Theatre in New York City) and who may be in the movie...Roger Davis, whom you've seen gangs of in such googies as The Movie of The Week The River Of Gold and in guest roles on other top TV shows, is almost definitely in the movie...Grayson Hall (whose husband Sam is writing Curse of Dark Shadows) is a definite for the movie...Christopher Pennock will definitely be in the movie...Lara Parker, will be co-starring in Curse of Dark Shadows...Mike Stroka, is almost definitely in the movie...Also look for Joan Bennett, Jerry Lacy, John Karlen, Kathy Cody and a number of other DS regulars in the movie...Denise Nickerson has gotten a powerful head start in a brand new segment of her acting career--movies and TV starring roles. If you missed her in the Movie of The Week The Neon Ceiling. keep your eyes peeled for her forthcoming motion picture Willie Wonka & The Chocolate Factory...Tom Happer, who was a brief but beautiful DS regular, is still "at large" and hopes you'll soon be seeing him not only back on the tube, but on the big silver screen too!"


Obviously Joan Bennett, David Henesy, Kathy Cody, and Roger Davis were not in the film (and thank heavens for that when it comes to RD). And given the script, one has to wonder who they might have played - but then, perhaps the script wasn't complete at the time the article was published...

I'd completely forgotten that David Selby was choosing between the play and the movie...

And it's interesting that the article doesn't mention Nancy Barrett or Kate Jackson at all...

[Uncle Roger]

I wonder if the movie would have happened at all if David Selby had decided to do the Sam Shepard play. They did turn out to be almost right about Jerry Lacy being in the movie, as the script proves later on. Could Cody have been a possibility for Sarah Castle? She was rather old for the part but she was a bit old for Hallie as well.
 I don't remember Nancy Barrett or Kate Jackson getting a lot of coverage in 16.

[KMR]

I've a hunch the basic story for the movie was not settled on until they got firm commitments from the "A-list" actors, so they'd know which actors to create characters for.  The "B-list" actors could be plugged into miscellaneous parts.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Wrapping up Scene 83, beginning with Tracy's comments about Gregory's shop:

Page 33/Scene 83 - Tracy: 'Hi. This makes me feel like I'm back in New York.'

- and that's followed by the 14th's quote -

Page 33/Scene 83 - Gregory: 'Oh, do I have something for you ... it's madness it's so perfect. [He whips out an insane dress.] Could it be more you?'

- coming up, followed by the 15th's quote -

Page 33/Scene 83 - Tracy: 'It's very me ... but it's completely un-Quentin.

- coming up, followed by the 16th's quote -

Page 33/Scene 83 - Gregory: 'The husband, darling?'

- coming up, followed by the script continuing with:

83     CONTD                                     CONTD    83                              CLAIRE                       (seeing riding clothes                       on the mannequin)                  That's Quentin!                              TRACY                  Oh, he'd never wear that.                              GREGORY                  I'm sure he'd look marvelous in it.

And that's when today's first quote -

Page 34/Scene 83 - Claire: 'Gregory, wrap it up. We'll take it.'

- comes up, followed by the script explaining:

Tracy starts laughing.

And that's when today's second quote -

Page 34/Scene 83 - Tracy: 'Alright, but only if we can return it.'

- comes up.

End of scene.

And there's still absolutely nothing to get into when it comes to differences with the dialogue, the descriptions, or the directions because Scene 83 was never shot. But beginning tomorrow the slideshow will be getting into scenes that are in the film - though there are differences between what's in the film and what's in the script, as well as differences between Grayson's and DC's scripts. But more on that beginning tomorrow...

[Mysterious Benefactor]

We're going to handle things a bit differently for this next sequence because when it comes to the beginning of Scene 85, it's different in the film from the way it appears in both Grayson's and DC's scripts - especially DC's. And the fascinating thing is that DC's script contains a major rewrite, yet none of the rewritten part made it into the film. But to kick things off, this is the way Scene 84 and the beginning of Scene 85 appear in Grayson's script:

CUT TO: 84     INT - TOWER - EVENING                             84        Quentin is at work on his abstraction.  He stops,        looks at the light - fading.  He sighs, begins to        cap his paints.  He starts to look for something        and, moving a trunk to a better position, discovers        that it was concealing a built-in wall cupboard.        Obviously, it hasn't been opened in years.  Opening        it, he sees a stack of canvases.  He takes one out.        It is a portrait of Angelique and is signed:  "Charles        Collins, 1800."  Quentin is amazed.  He takes out        others.  They are all of Angelique.  Then he comes        to an unfinished one.  It is the most interesting.        A lascivious Angelique lies on a bed of rose petals,        surrounded by nymphs and satyrs.  In the F.G., there        is space left for several figures.  He stares at it,        absolutely fascinated.                              QUENTIN                  Charles Collins...1810.        TRUCK IN on the portrait as we                                              DISSLOVE TO: 85     INT - TOWER ROOM - 1800 - DAY                     85        SUBCONSCIOUS MEMORY CUT        Transistion is made HOLDING on the portrait and        changing the color quality to that of the previous        segments.  HOLD ON THIS as the first part of the        dialogue is played O.S. 85     CONTD                                    CONTD    85                              ANGELIQUE (O.S.)                  You're never going to finish it.                              CHARLES (O.S.)                  Is that a prophecy?        RACK FOCUS to the B.G. where Angelique and Charles        are embracing.                              ANGELIQUE                  No - I just won't let you go.        They laugh and kiss again.  There is a POUNDING        ON THE DOOR.

And so far as the differences in the dialogue go, in Scene 84 Quentin doesn't speak the signature on the painting out loud (the painting doesn't even appear to be signed) - and everything is different in Scene 85.

And so far as the descriptions and directions go, as can be seen in the following capture -

- Scene 84 does not take place during the evening, and Quentin is not seen at work on his abstraction (though we do see sketches on a pad on his easel behind him), and so, therefore, nor does he stop, look at the fading light, sigh, begin to cap his paints, or while looking for something does he move a trunk to a better position because what he does do, as can also be seen in the capture, is check some things in his supplies case. And after Quentin notices the paintings leaning against the wall, neither of which is a portrait of Angelique signed by Charles Collins because as can be seen in the following two captures -

- one is a landscape and the other is a still life, and neither appears to be signed, or at least Quentin doesn't acknowledge that they are. And when he discovers the cupboard and opens it, he doesn't take out any paintings other than the unfinished one, which he carries over to his easel, as can be seen in the following capture -

- to get a better look (though given there's an obvious cut in the background music, it would definitely seem as if something was cut from the scene that took place between the time Quentin discovers the hidden paintings and the time he takes out the unfinished one) - and sadly, as can also be seen in that capture, there aren't any rose petals, nymphs or satyrs in the painting - though one could say that Angelique has a lascivious expression on her face...

And as for what the actual differences in the dialogue, the descriptions, and the directions are when it comes to Scene 85, that will wait until an upcoming post... But yes, "Transistion" is misspelled that way - and in both Grayson's and DC's versions of the script...

[Mysterious Benefactor]

When it comes to DC's script, Scene 84 and the setting and first descriptions of Scene 85 are exactly the same as they are in Grayson's script, so I won't repeat them. Things get very different once DC's script reaches its Page 35:

(Revised 3/31/71) 85     CONTD                                        CONTD       85                            ANGELIQUE (O.S.)                  We can't stay like this forever.                  You must finish the picture.                            CHARLES (O.S.)                  Why?  We have all the time in                   the world.        RACK FOCUS to the B.G. where Angelique and Charles        are embracing.                            ANGELIQUE                  We haven't.  You must finish it                  because when you do, you will give                  me the most marvelous gift of all -        Charles looks at her, not understanding.                  this time life will imitate art.                  I know you merely planned to paint                  it to torture her, but that's not                  enough.  My darling, you must do it.                            CHARLES                  No.                            ANGELIQUE                  Don't you want us to be like this                  always.  Must we constantly be                  leaving each other?  How can you                  hold Laura?  How can you touch her?                            CHARLES                  When I do, it's you I hold, it's                  you I caress.                            ANGELIQUE                  We are in each other's souls, Charles.                   We can't escape it.        They kiss.                  You will make the picture come true.                            CHARLES                  Yes.                            ANGELIQUE                  Then you must paint, my darling.                  Tonight.  It must be done.        There is a POUNDING ON THE DOOR.

And when it comes to the dialogue, as I'd mentioned previously, none of it is in the film as scripted - and it's not really even in the film exactly as the changes that were made to some of the crossed out parts. Speaking of which, notations in DC's script make the following replacements in the dialogue:

• Angelique's "you must do it" is replaced with "you must bring the painting to life"
• Charles' "No" is replaced with "But why - we have each other - that's all that counts - she doesn't even exist for me"
• The entire section of dialogue beginning with Angelique's "Don't you want us to be like this always? ..." right through to Charles' ending with "... it's you I caress" is not only crossed out but X'd out and it's all replaced with Angelique saying "As long as she's here, we could never really have each other"
• And Angelique's "You will" is replaced with "I want you to"
• And after Angelique's "make the picture come true", "Please - promise me" is added.

And as for what the actual differences in the dialogue, the descriptions, and the directions are when it comes to Scene 85, that will still wait until an upcoming post... But one thing I will say now, or rather ask is if I'm the only one who comes away from reading DC's version of Scene 85 with the impression that Angelique is actually encouraging Charles to kill Laura?

[Uncle Roger]

It certainly sounds that way to me.

[KMR]

I'm sure you're right, MB.  It all leads up to the very ending of the movie.

[Gothick]

I personally have felt every time I've watched the film that Angelique was a Witch--or certainly had magical powers.  Nothing in the movie makes any sense unless this was so.

I think sometimes people think the narrative points to her having been wrongly accused of witchcraft and I'm not sure where they're getting that.

Of course if the seance scene had been included in the theatre edit, it might have helped clarify the plot. 

G.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Even if one reads the full script it could still be up for debate whether or not Angelique really had powers because there are definitely mixed messages that I've often suspected were deliberately put in the script to spark debate/discussion. And Angelique's potential powers aren't the only instances of mixed messages. But most of the instances are probably best left until after we get through the whole script so that everything will be available to reference.

But getting back to DC's version of Scene 85, I almost wish the rewrite had been the way things played out on screen. It certainly would have been far more sinister than the way things do play out, which is much more ambiguous (though there may really be a reason for that - one that we'll get into after dealing with the whole script). And the way things were originally written in Grayson's script is positively dull by comparison to both the film and the rewrite.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The way Scene 85 actually begins in the film isn't with the transition in Scene 84 from Quentin's view of the unfinished painting to a view of it in 1810 because, like several other instances of the subconscious memory scenes, things actually cut to a close-up of Quentin -

- staring and blinking his eyes, and from there they go to the subconscious memory of the painting in 1810 -

- and from there the camera doesn't rack focus to the background where Angelique and Charles are embracing because the camera actually slowly pans from the painting to them, by first showing their reflections in a mirror as they make out, all kisses and moans -

- and then the couple themselves as they become -

- a mass of entwined body parts.

And whereas the 18th's slideshow's quote -

Page 35/Scene 85 - Angelique: 'You must finish it because when you do, you will give me the most marvelous gift of all -'

- comes from DC's version of the script, what actually happens in the film is Angelique declares (with regard to Laura) -

Angelique: 'As long as she's here in this house, I can't be
happy.'

- which is most certainly strongly implied in the rewrite in DC's script, but isn't said outright as such. And rather than the 19th's slideshow's quote -

Page 35/Scene 85 - Angelique: 'We are in each other's souls, Charles. We can't escape it.'

- which also comes from DC's version of the script, though from a much later point in the scene, what actually happens in the film right after Angelique's remark (with regard to Laura) is that Angelique then asks Charles -

Angelique: 'Bring the painting to life, Charles. Please -
promise me.'

- which is a reworked version of something that was added by DC to his script near the end of the rewrite - though without being within the context of everything that was dropped from the rewrite, neither of Angelique's lines in the film take on the sinister tone they would have otherwise had had the majority of the rewrite been included in the film.

But after the rewritten section, things in Scene 85 return to basically what is written in both Grayson's and DC's scripts, and that's that after the pounding on the door is heard, it's followed in the script by:

(Revised 3/31/71) 85     CONTD                                          CONTD        85

And that's when today's quote -

Page 35A/Scene 85 - Gabriel (O.S.): 'Charles, I want to talk to my wife.'

- comes up and is delivered exactly that way in the film.

[Gothick]

I like today's photo.  I know you can't see "anything" but as you know, I have a vivid imagination.

winking,

G.