Happy 50th Anniversary, Night of Dark Shadows

[Mysterious Benefactor]

it appeared in the magazine's You Axed For It section, but I don't recall if it appeared before they did their full article or after...

I just remembered that the cover for the FMoF article says "FIRST PHOTOS" - so one might presume that means the article came out before the issue with still #9 in the You Axed For It section. But it they'd already done an entire article on NoDS, why would someone write in to request a NoDS photo? Though I suppose they could have written in before the article was published and FMoF didn't get to the YAFI request until after. Who knows? Though in the grand scheme of things does the chronology really matter? All that matters is that FMoF shared another NoDS photo in addition to the ones in the article. 

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I'm wondering ... why would the child of a servant be given such an elaborate bedroom? (And even if it hadn't been so elaborate back then and had since been redecorated, it was a much larger room than would have been given to the servant class. Not to mention it was on the second floor--not the third, where the servants would be.)

I have a theory: I suspect the location of Sarah's room had a lot to do with the fact that she was beloved by Angelique and Angelique had the master of the house wrapped around her, uh, little finger - yup, that's what Charles wrapped himself around - forget what you see in this still:

(Click here for a 1400X1098 version)

 

And if that is the reason, something tells me Laura, as the mistress of the house, was probably none too pleased with the location of Sarah's room and why it was her room. Yet another reason for her to resent Angelique and her relationship with Laura's husband...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I love the line in the TV Dawn to Dusk article, when they said the cast could be seen "lurking around the studios of M-G-M".

My thing about that article (beyond identifying Diana Millay as Diana Hilay ) is the part of caption #1 that says, "the newly finished portrait of Angelique and Charles Collins." Umm, if they simply went by the size of the still as it appears in the article, maybe that description could be a forgivable mistake, but not if one looks at the full-sized version or especially if one goes by the shot of the man in the actual film because he's clearly Quentin -

- and not Charles. He may be dressed in clothes similar to what Charles may have worn, but the man has no scar on his left cheek, nor does he have sideburns like Charles does. And honestly the fact that it is Quentin and not Charles makes the fact that the body the man is holding looks like Tracy all the more unsettling...

In fact, the script even says -

...

159    INT - TOWER ROOM - DAY - TRACY'S P.O.V.            159        The painting on the easel is covered.  The room is a        mess.  The cot looks as if it had been slept in.        Tracy ENTERS THE SHOT, leaving the door open.  She        crosses to the easel.  She lifts off the cover and        is shocked by what she sees.  The picture is now        completed.  The reality of the situation shocks her.        It is obvious Quentin has been completing Charles'        unfinished portrait.  The picture now includes a man        who looks very much like Quentin and who stands in        front of the half-clad Angelique.  In his arms he        carries the limp figure of a girl.  The girl's face        is Tracy's.  It seems she is an offering to Angelique.

...

Though there is one other possibility that could also make the mistake forgivable for TV Dawn To Dusk and that is that I have seen some of the stills with captions for them typed on their backs. I've never come across a copy of still #18 with a caption on its back, and I have no idea if any or all the stills included in the Editor's Portfolio came with captions on their backs or even with a separate sheet of suggested captions. But I have seen instances where suggested captions get some aspect(s) of the plot wrong (which makes one wonder who came up with them?!). So...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Before I post which stills come up next from the NoDS Editor's Portfolio, I want to share the article Daytime TV did for NoDS because it's another that mostly consists of stills not in the Editor's Porfolio ( Portfolio:3 / Not Portfolio: 8 ), though some will look familiar because they're alternate version of ones in the Portfolio.

So, without any further ado:

The first page (with a few extras):

(Click here for a 1200X1617 version)

And the second page (with an extra taken from the cover of the magazine):

(Click here for a 1200X1645 version)

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

  Oops - I forgot to include that we've already seen the larger/full versions of stills #5, #10 & #40, but I don't have copies of any of the unnumbered alternative stills that appear in that article. And that article is the only place I've seen them, except for the article's #8, which no doubt you'll recall was also part of Flip's article, though the Daytime TV version isn't cropped the same...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The next six stills. So, here's #43 -

(Click here for a 715X871 copy of a newly scanned version)

- #44 -

(Click here for a 558X700 copy of the previously posted version)

- #45 -

(Click here for a 700X874 copy of the previously posted version)

- #46 -

(Click here for a 620X777 copy of the previously posted version)

- #47 -

(Click here for a 4947X600 copy of the previously posted version)

- and #48 -

(Click here for a 620X781 copy of the previously posted version)

And since I'm sure you realize all six of those have already been shared in one version or another, the four that have never been shared must be the last four to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

A few points to make about the latest batch of stills from the NoDS Editor's Portfolio:

First up things regarding the numbered version I used for #43:

Rather than being blank or having the simple copyright that others have had, note that version has a ton of info -

- exactly the same as the info on the cropped 8X10 set of NoDS Lobby Cards -

- and that's because a lot if not all 52 of the B&W stills shared in the NoDS Editor's Portfolio were also made available to theaters to use as lobby cards. I'm not positive that all 52 were because I've only ever come across 11 of them (#4, #7, #16, #17, #18, #32, #34, #36, #42, #43 & #50), but chances are pretty good that they all were.

Also, the reason why I did a new scan for #43 is because I'd previously shared an entirely different print -

(Click here for a 700X540 version)

- which was obviously cropped for the Editor's Portfolio and the Lobby Card versions.


And while I definitely do like #45 & #46 (after all, I did have Kate Jackson sign an 11X14 version of #45), there's actually a different still of her that I like better. (But pretty needless to say they didn't consult me when they picked the stills to include in the portfolio. ) I haven't shared that particular still yet, but I'm sure it will show up sooner or later...


And when it comes to #48, the really fascinating thing is that there's also a rarely seen color print of it -

(Click here for a 1600X2000 version)

- and interestingly enough, it's one of at least two stills that I've come across that have both B&W and color versions (the other being a still related to Scene 85).

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The last four stills. So, here's #49 -

- #50 -

- #51 -

- and #52 -

And considering I haven't ever shared these four stills yet, there aren't any previous postings to link to, so getting to see the actual larger versions will have to wait until I get the chance to format my copies for posting along with a few other bits. At least the first two should show up before the end of today...

More to come...

 

[KMR]

MB, thank you so much for this wealth of publicity photos you have been posting. What a treasure! And the color version of Angelique with the candle in the foreground--what an unexpected pleasure! (To quote someone from the wrong DS movie...)

It was funny revisiting the FM issue about this movie, and how it presents a "preview"... The issue is dated January 1972, and while issue dates were always way before the actual newsstand dates, this did come out well after the movie's release. But then again, I don't have any idea how long the movie actually traveled around the country. This was back when the number of prints circulating the country would have been in the (low) three figures, and films didn't open everywhere at once.

What's amazing is that the movie opened slightly over FOUR MONTHS from the first day of filming!

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Here's #49 -

(Click here for a 700X902 version)

- and not only is it a part of the NoDS Editor's Portfolio, but it also appears in the NoDS Pressbook with the following caption -

And here's #50 -

(Click here for a 700X903 version)

- and note how my copy is another one to have its numbering written on it rather than in a rectangular box in the margin - and also not only is it a part of the NoDS Editor's Portfolio, but it's another to appear and be captioned in the NoDS Pressbook -

More to come...

 

[Uncle Roger]

I bought stills #46, #47 and #51 from MGM back in the day. They were some of my first DS stills. I still have them.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

When I posted the Dayime TV article I didn't reread the captions for the photos. Apparently, like the TV Dawn To Dusk article, there's one that's definitely off: "3. Quentin goes into a frenzy when Carlotta (Grayson Hall) tells him that Gerard (James Storm) is on his way to murder Tracy." Uh, not exactly. As we know, the still -

- is actually Quentin begging Carlotta to tell him if the things he's been seeing are real - not at all the same situation. But then, as I've said, it's not just magazines that got captioning wrong because even official materials provided by MGM got things wrong, an example of which is the captioning of still #7 in the NoDS Pressbook -

- because as we know, no ghostly figure is confronting Carlotta, Alex, and Gerard, they're looking up to an unseen Quentin who's telling Carlotta and Gerard to leave Alex alone - again, not at all the same situation. But that's not the only example where the notion they're seeing Angelique is put forth because an alternate still from that scene that was published in 16 Spec has this caption -

Certainly somewhere along the way somehow the wrong idea about those stills came about and it spread. 

At least the NoDS Pressbook gets things about right with its caption for still #12 -

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Here's #51 -

(Click here for a 470X700 version)

- and not only is it a part of the NoDS Editor's Portfolio, but it also appears in the NoDS Pressbook with the following caption -

And finally here's #52 -

(Click here for a 559X700 version)

- though unfortunately #52 doesn't appear in the NoDS Pressbook, it chose to feature Carlotta in stills #7 and #12 - however, something I can share from the Pressbook is something else I've never shared before and that's the article that accompanies still #51 -

- and apparently they really did need a proofreader for the Pressbook because not only did it get a caption wrong and leave out part of another, it misidentifies NoDS as hoDS in the fourth paragraph in that article.  Also, I would quibble with Nancy's opinion that she simply played a "housewife" in the film. Being a housewife implies that a woman doesn't have a career, and, sure, none of Claire's dialogue brings up that she co-writes Gothick novels with Alex, which certainly makes Claire an author, but the film itself makes it quite clear that she's an author. Did Nancy simply read her own dialogue and had she not seen a copy of the film at the time of the interview? 

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Before we move on from the NoDS Editor's Portfolio, I wanted to point out that all of the stills that are shared in the NoDS Pressbook are ones that are also in the Portolio, though I suppose that's not all that surprising.

I've already revisited or newly posted stills #7, #12, #49, #50 & #51 as they appear in the Pressbook, but it also includes -

- #16 -

- #22 -

- #38 -

- #39 -

- #43 -

- #46 -

- and #47 -

Now we can get back to posting about the film...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Recisiting how Scene 84 is scripted:

...

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:

...

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 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 we'll be revisiting other aspects of Scene 84 in another post...