ryanbrennan
Member
(7/23/05 7:22 pm)
205.188.116.197
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ledebur's MOBY DICK role name was "Queequeg." Ledebur turned up odd places--he plays the title role in THE MAN WHO TURNED TO STONE and is in Fellini's JULIET OF THE SPIRITS.

One of my Ledebur favorites is THE TWILIGHT ZONE episode "The Howling Man."

I've always thought Bradbury's writing style was an unlikely but workable combination of Thomas Wolfe and Ernest Hemingway, and mentioned this to him. Wolfe has a very descri ptive, almost poetic style; Hemingway wrote very terse, paired-down sentences. And Bradbury writes in descri ptive, almost poetic paired-down sentences. He admitted that those two writers were major influences.

Bradbury skillfully pared-down MOBY DICK, imo. His own fiction is not always handled as ably or respectfully when adapted to film.


TomWeaver999
Member
(7/23/05 7:36 pm)
172.138.78.179
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< Ledebur turned up odd places <<

Yes, like swimming nude in the ocean with his equally nude friend Greta Garbo! (Don't ask me whose bio I read that in, I forget.) The Man Who Turned to Stone indeed!


Bill Warren
Member
(7/23/05 9:32 pm)
207.200.116.9
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In relation to the bit of dialogue Tom quoted above--remember that this was (I believe) Bradbury's first attempt at writing dialogue that was intended to be spoken aloud. I don't think he did any radio work before this. Also, it was in a screen treatment, not in a shooting scr ipt. We have no way of knowing what he would have written as actual dialogue intended for actors to speak; his IT CAME writing was probably more intended as an indicator of direction, of style, than to be read aloud fer sher. As can be clearly seen from the scri pts he wrote that were produced--including several years of his own TV series--he managed to write dialogue that sounded like he wrote it AND which actors could read in a relatively realistic context. Bradbury also wrote many plays that were produced--but there the dialogue could be, and often was, more heightened than is the norm for movies.


Ted Newsom
Member
(7/25/05 11:44 am)
207.200.116.131
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradbury said to me in a video interview not too many years ago, "I was new, huh, so I wrote the whole script, and the writer who came later said to me, 'You're dumb, huh, you didn't do a treatment, you wrote a script, you made my life easy, all I had to do is retype it, huh.'" I think that meant he feels his extended treatment qualifies as a screenplay. And "extended" is relative-- how long was it-- maybe 20 pages, single-spaced?

I know Bill is a tremendous fan of Bradbury personally and professionally, as am I, but there are writing styles that just don't translate into screenplays. Bradbury's style of dialogue appears to be one of them-- with the greatest respect to him as a creator and story teller. Though Bill classifies it as "heightened," I'd say "overly flowerly" and "unpronouncable" (as opposed to "unspeakable"). Some of Harry Essex's changes in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE are terrible, some are utilitarian, but most of them do what is necessary, boil the essence of an overwritten line of dialogue down to a simulcrum of how a real person might talk.

In as far as Bradbury and Essex remained friends through the years and collaborated on something (a play, I think) about 15 years ago, both of them must have been at least not unhappy with the result.

As for the Bradbury TV series... perhaps he got better over the years. Or perhaps he was heavily edited, without credit.

I don't want to pick a fight. My point is only that there are certain writers whose work, at its best, does not translate well into the bastard medium of a screenplay, which is by its nature very skeletal, even schematic. Henry James is certainly one-- fancy a character having a five-page monologue with one sentence and no break. Harlan Ellison is another, and I have the utmost respect for him, too. He's appalled at THE OSCAR, but if you actually listen to the dialogue, it's Harlan all the way, it's just wrong for the characters, badly delivered and badly directed. It doesn't mean the selfsame words wouldn't have worked in another medium... like a book.

Edited by: Ted Newsom at: 7/25/05 12:24 pm


TomWeaver999
Member
(7/25/05 11:18 am)
172.157.74.129
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< I think that meant he feels his extended treatment qualifies as a screenplay. And "extended" is relative-- how long was it-- maybe 20 pages, single-spaced? <<

He wrote several different versions -- the longest one (by far) is around 110, 115 pages, double-spaced. And Bradbury should thank his lucky stars that a lot (maybe most) of his dialogue was re-written. But, hey, he was 30-ish and a neophyte when it came to writing dialogue for a movie of that type (and every OTHER type) -- there's no shame in a first effort that was found to be (and IMHO was) not acceptable.


Bill Warren
Member
(7/25/05 12:13 pm)
207.200.116.9
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Bradbury TV series... perhaps he got better over the years. Or perhaps he was heavily edited, without credit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggest that to him the next time you see him. Be prepared to flee up stairs where his wheelchair can't reach you. I'm a little surprised--no, make that a big surprised--that you would think that a show called THE RAY BRADBURY THEATER, featuring Ray as the host and one of the producers, could or would sneak in another writer. It's just that simple: Bradbury learned to modify his style when writing drama.

Among his OUTER SPACE drafts, as Tom notes, at least one was scr ipt length--but none of them were written in screenplay format, just sorta kinda.


DrPaulArmstrong
Member
(7/25/05 1:36 pm)
70.34.248.6
Reply | Edit | Del Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<there are writing styles that just don't translate into screenplays. Bradbury's style of dialogue appears to be one of them-- with the greatest respect to him as a creator and story teller. Though Bill classifies it as "heightened," I'd say "overly flowerly">>

Well, I used the term "heightened" in referring to RB's dialogue for MOBY DICK earlier in this thread. I maintain that that dialogue works beautifully in that film. Now I think I'm correct in assuming you're NOT saying heightened dialogue has no place in film, yes? Some of my favorite films of all time have heightened (elevated? monorail?) dialogue; Polonski's FORCE OF EVIL, Rose's MAN OF THE WEST, ON THE WATERFRONT, BORDER INCIDENT. And of course there's Mamet's films. And TV (that bastard's bastard) has given us brilliant rich dialogue by Stirling Silliphant, Shimon Wincelberg, Calvin Clements, and William Wood to name a few that have bowled me over.

In fact I would go so far as to say we could use a little more poetry in dialogue today. Dialogue is music. Now that DOESN'T mean flowery long pretentious actors-can't-speak-it-naturally blocks of text. I'm talking about the poetry of real life, the language of the everyday, given a personal stamp by a writer with a keen ear (listen to Mitchum's speeches in THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE). The important thing is it can be both terse AND poetic (I completely agree with you about 5 page monologues!)--ABOVE ALL IT HAS TO SOUND NATURAL. I would rather hear a failed attempt at this than the inevitable strings of banalities, cliches and cookie cutter quips that pass for human speech most of the time.

Edited by: DrPaulArmstrong at: 7/25/05 1:41 pm


Bill Warren
Member
(7/25/05 1:42 pm)
207.200.116.132
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I think I'm correct in assuming you're NOT saying heightened dialogue has no place in film, yes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that the stylization of the language should be congruent with the stylization of the film in other regards. That is, rhyming iambic pentameter would not be appropriate for, say, an episode of LAW & ORDER.
The concept of "has to sound natural" is easily confused with "has to sound realistic." It is natural for Caspar Gutman to speak the way he does, and Greenstreet's performance underscores that. It would not have been natural for Wilmer Cook to talk the same way. But it's never actually "realistic"--which, after all, is just another form of stylization. Truly realisitc dialogue would have to include a lot of uhs and ers, incomplete sentences, etc.

Edited by: Bill Warren at: 7/25/05 1:46 pm


DrPaulArmstrong
Member
(7/25/05 1:17 pm)
70.34.248.6
Reply | Edit | Del Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think dialogue has become possibly the single most neglected element in film/TV. Rich dialogue can transport us. Just look at (listen to) DEADWOOD.


CSABadass
Member
(7/28/05 5:07 am)
69.243.41.124
Reply | Edit | Del
Question for Mr. Tom Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mr. Weaver,
Just finished listening to your DVD commentary on It Came from Outer Space, and (as always, with your tracks) enjoyed it tremendously. Kudos to you, good sir!

It did inspire in me a question. To wit:

In the commentary, you mention (with supporting anecdotes) the film was shot in 1.85:1 widescreen, which would mean the current DVD version is cropped/P&S at 1.33:1 ratio. Why did Universal choose not to release it in its OAR?

I'm a bit perplexed about this because the IMDB--while far from authoritative (I trust you, good sir, more than it) says the movie was shot in 1.37:1. With all due respect, based on what I saw on the disk, this appears to be more correct, as none of the tell-tale signs of a cropped/P&S print appeared. Indeed, the shots seem properly framed on the full-frame DVD version.

Thanks in advance for your reply, Mr. Weaver, and again, my thanks for 80 informative, well-spent minutes.
Deo Vindice,
Christopher McGlothlin, M.Ed.

-Mad Social Scientist & Freelance Writer
-Moderator, The nGo Game Industry/Pro Wrestling Listserver

"Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!"--Charlie Meadows, in Barton Fink


TomWeaver999
Member
(7/28/05 5:32 am)
172.156.67.147
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Question for Mr. Tom Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not having been around in 1953 and part of the process, I'm not one who likes to make Super-Authoritative Statements ("It was DEFINITELY shot in 1:85!") soooo ... all I can say is that the 1953 trade papers and Universal behind-the-scenes paperwork says that it was, and there was even an article (or something ... I forget now) about the So-and-So Theater where it premiered going through a mad-rush process of tearing out some seats in order to widen their screen in time for the premiere. Why we only have it today at 1:33 -- and why it looks perfectly fine in 1:33, like nothing's missing -- are questions I'm afraid I can't answer. In a lot of (maybe most) technical areas (3-D, most special effects, etc.), I know much, much less than the average horror-oldies fan, and I'm afraid the ins and outs of aspect ratios is another one of 'em -- sorry! Thanks for mentioning that you enjoyed the commentary!

Good Sir


Bill Warren
Member
(7/28/05 12:04 pm)
207.200.116.131
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Question for Mr. Tom Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be wrong, but I don't think at that time ANY movies were shot hard-matted at 1.85:1; it was up to the theater manager to matte the 1.33:1 prints down to 1.85:1.


bosko52
Member
(7/29/05 12:00 am)
64.12.116.137
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Question for Mr. Tom Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill's right.
IT was one of the first of the 50s "widescreen" presentations of a film shot in 1:33 but framed to be projected in 1:85 with the top and bottom cut off in projection.
This hybrid framing continued throughout the decade, as many theaters had yet to widen their screens.
Check out such 1:33/1:85 Universals as TATRANTULA, where the extra headroom in some of the dialog scenes makes it seem like thought balloons were supposed to be added.


ryanbrennan
Member
(7/29/05 12:49 pm)
152.163.100.137
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Question for Mr. Tom Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bosko and Bill are correct. It was shot open matte but U-I presented in what they ballyhooed as "Wide-Vision." And it had interlock stereophonic sound. It's claimed that this film was the first to be projected in the 1.85:1 ratio.


oldmanster
Member
(8/4/05 4:15 pm)
24.1.28.3
Reply | Edit | Del Re: Question for Mr. Tom Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think dialogue has become possibly the single most neglected element in film/TV. Rich dialogue can transport us. Just look at (listen to) DEADWOOD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but... does Swearingen haveta use all that profanity all the time? It's distracting, and I can't hear all the rich dialogue and be transported to that filthy, lice-ridden bar.

... Reed


Ted Newsom
Member
(8/4/05 5:09 pm)
207.200.116.132
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be prepared to flee up stairs where his wheelchair can't reach you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can outrun him.


Ted Newsom
Member
(8/4/05 5:18 pm)
207.200.116.132
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was briefly a projectionist in a wonderfully seedy theater in downtown Portland, OR, called the Round-Up. Mostly westerns, but occasionall out of the genre. We had several masks or matte boxes which nobody ever used.

And there was another theater. the Blue Mouse (wher HORROR OF DRACULA premiered in Portland back in '58) a couple blocks away where I use to catch the Hammer films like THE REPTILE. I remember seeing ASSUALT ON A LADY, the Frank Sinatra film about a WW2 sub used during a robbery of the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth. Every time there was a cut-- EVERY time-- there was a visible splice mark at the top of the frame. It wasn't a 'scope film as far as I remember, but that phenomenon was fasinating, and a little annoying when you started to notice it.

SuperScope in the '50s (i.e., INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS) seemed to use an open aperature which could be reduced to "widescreen" when projected. I think DAY THE WORLD ENDED was shot in the same fashion.


TomWeaver999
Member
(8/4/05 6:33 pm)
172.136.192.201
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: 92 degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< Every time there was a cut-- EVERY time-- there was a visible splice mark at the top of the frame. <<

Films Inc. had 16mm prints of John Wayne's THE GREEN BERETS with the same problem.


Bill Warren
Member
(8/4/05 8:34 pm)
207.200.116.9
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HORROR OF DRACULA opened citywide in Portland, Ted; I know--I clipped all the ads and still have them somewhere. It may have also played at the theater you mentioned, but it was rare for a double bill to open in just one theater. And HORROR OF DRACULA was double-billed. I thought by 58 the Blue Mouse showed mostly older films. I sure loved the name of that theater. As many times as I visited Portland and as many times as I went to theaters there, I never got to the Blue Mouse. Lemme see, I saw BEN HUR, NIGHT PASSAGE, THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED/PHANTOM FROM 10,000 LEAGUES, BEGINNING OF THE END/THE UNEARTHLY, THE H-MAN/WOMANEATER, CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN/X THE UNKNOWN, many others, while staying with my Aunt who lived there. On my way to my first Worldcon (Seattle-Tacoma) I saw PIT AND THE PENDULUM in some big downtown Portland theater.

At the old Encore theater here in Los Angeles, I was happily watching a revival of THE INNOCENTS. The guy I was with was gradually becoming increasingly agitated. Finally he started practically yelping. What's up? I asked.
THEY'RE RUINING THIS! he exclaimed.
He pointed out that the projectionist had allowed a bit of the frame line from the bottom of the image to appear on screen--and you could see every splice in the original negative.
Well, actually, I COULDN'T--until HE POINTED IT OUT. And now though I tried to make myself unaware of it, I started seeing every splice until he went out and bitched to Louis Federici, the manager.


Andrew Kidd
Member
(9/5/05 6:49 pm)
172.129.198.110
Reply | Edit | Del Re: IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just bought Ray Bradbury's most recent short story collection, and one of the older stories in the collection, "A Matter of Taste" is, according to Bradbury, one of the springboards to his treatment of It Came From Outer Space (which he calls a "rather nice film"). The aliens in ICFOS, however, remind me more of the "perfect" Martians in Bradbury's The Fire Balloons than anything else.