Happy 50th Anniversary, Night of Dark Shadows

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting more Gregory/shopping sequence posts:

... The shopping excursion certainly seems like it would have been some of Claire's best stuff in the film had it actually been shot. But alas...

And just so you'll be able to put a face to who might have been Gregory had his scenes actually been shot, here are the two actors of whom it's been reported were considered (Keith Prentice and Michael Stroka) and one that some fans have said they would have liked to have seen in the role (Louis Edmonds):

Louis would have been magnificent as Gregory!!!!

It's a fun scene. It really shows a genuine friendship between Tracy and Claire. And Gregory, well, is like no other character in the DS pantheon. Unfortunately, it doesn't add all that much to the film as a whole. It might have worked better if it had been intercut with bits of Carlotta or Gerard doing something nefarious back at Collinwood. I can see why DC chose not to shoot the scene. Which leads me to wonder if Gregory had even been cast. It wouldn't be like DC to cast an actor then have to pay him for doing nothing

  From the way the sequence has been talked about, I doubt things ever got to the point where Gregory was actually cast. It seems like before production began some actors' names were bandied about, but before any might have been cast, DC decided to scrap the whole sequence. As far as even the 129 minute version of the finished film goes, the audience would be left forever wondering who Gregory was when Tracy told Quentin that "Gregory said I could take them back" after Quentin discovered she'd bought him a pair of riding breeches...

...

I have a feeling the shopping sequence was dropped primarily for budgetary reasons. Since they apparently decided to shoot the entire film on the Lyndhurst estate, it may have been difficult to find somewhere on site that didn't need a lot of set design/dressing work to make it convincing. Going into Tarrytown or Irvington would have probably added a lot of extra expense they didn't feel was warranted for a sequence that doesn't really advance the plot (even if it does enrich the characterizations).

Another thought regarding the shopping sequence. As much as I'd like to be able to see it on screen, I think it would feel quite out of place in the film that we have. It would be the ONLY interjection of a bit of the outside world, in what is otherwise a very weird, creepy, other-worldly bubble (which is one of the things I really love about the film).

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Now that we've reached still #21, I want to revisit the following two part of these early posts:

...

... "Curse of Dark Shadows" (Only NoDS' working title even from the outset because it was even referred to as such when 16 Magazine announced the film) ...

...

... a photo that I've lost track of just how many magazines went with to initially publicize the film. It was most probably more than a dozen. Though what's interesting is it wasn't a part of the first article on the film after production had begun. That article appeared in Flip magazine soon after the daytime DS went off the air and it features stills from some of the 1810 flashback scenes as well as the seance

...

As I was going through things and planning out future things to share, two thoughts struck me: ..., and more often than I would have liked magazines chose to use a still from the NoDS Editor's Portfolio (which MGM provided with stills and background articles) that, if it was me making the choice, would have been the least likely one I would have chosen. Case in points, this:

It's really quite surprising how often that cemetery shot showed up in prerelease publicity in the various entertainment magazines rather than stills that featured actual stars from the film. Yes, as I've said, it's definitely true that the still of Tracy and Quentin entering the vestibule with their luggage was published more than a dozen times - but the cemetery photo had to come in as a close second. And one has to wonder why? Did the magazines think people might say to themselves, "Oh look, it's a photo of people in a cemetery, let me run to see that film!"? I tend to suspect few people would have. But then there is no getting around that MGM did include the photo in the set, so they had to believe it had some sort of selling point. And it's not even like it's the only cemetery still they used to promote the film because one of the Lobby Cards is a cemetery shot ...

At the time that I'd posted all that about the cemetery shot, I'd completely forgotten that it is still #1, so that definitely explains why it was one of the first stills to show up in magazines to publicize Curse of Dark Shadows. Though why it was still being used after the film was retitled Night of Dark Shadows, which was obviously before the Editor's Portfolio was made available, is anyone's guess because obviously plenty of much better stills had been made available to choose from...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The next five stills. So, here's #22 -

(Click here for a 600X458 copy of the previously posted version)

- #23 -

(Click here for a 620X797 copy of the previously posted version)

- #24 -

(Click here for a 1000X772 copy of the previously posted version)

- #25 -

(Click here for a 548X700 copy of the previously posted version)

- and #26 -

(Click here for a 700X541 copy of the previously posted version)

Sadly the last three are from scenes that aren't currently in the film - and actually #24 is only one of the three that's even in the 129 minute version.

And we've reached the halfway point, so another 26 to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Before we move on I'd like to point out that it may seem odd that still #23 comes up in the midst of the scenes that take place in the basement of Collinwood, but keep in mind that the scene depicted in still #23 takes place at the greenhouse and as Darren explained to us:

The location for all the NODS basement scenes is actually the basement underneath the greenhouse.

Appears to quite possibly be yet more circumstantial evidence that the stills in the Editor's Portfolio are organized in the order that the various scenes were shot...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I've recently revisited material from the magazines Flip and 16 that included stills that are not included in the Editor's Portfolio. In addition to what I've already shared, three such articles were published by 16/16Spec (but they had an extremely closed connection to DS) and I hope to share those at some point in the future. However, those sorts of articles/materials are few and far between. In fact, now that we've reached still #25, an example of an article that strictly features stills provided in the Editor's Portfolio (stills #3, #9, #16, #18 & #25) is the following piece that was published by TV Dawn to Dusk in the Fall of 1971:

(Click here for a 1200X1704 version)

Given that NoDS had already been out for months, it's interesting that they decided to go with two stills from scenes that weren't even in the film. But more than likely whoever edited the article probably didn't even realize that - they simply went with stills they liked...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The next four stills. So, here's #27 -

(Click here for a 700X885 copy of the previously posted version)

- #28 -

(Click here for a 700X542 copy of the previously posted version)

- #29 -

(Click here for a 700X595 copy of the previously posted version)

- and #30 -

(Click here for a 700X540 copy of the previously posted version)

This time around it's #27 and #29 that are from scenes that aren't currently in the film - though #29 is in the 129 minute version.

More to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The next four stills. So, here's #31 -

(Click here for a 626X800 copy of the previously posted version)

- #32 -

(Click here for a 700X595 copy of the previously posted version)

- #33 -

(Click here for a 700X548 copy of the previously posted version)

- and #34 -

(Click here for a 700X537 copy of the previously posted version)

Another grouping of stills shot in the same location.

More to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The next four stills. So, here's #35 -

(Click here for a 700X529 copy of the previously posted version)

- #36 -

(Click here for a 620X498 copy of the previously posted version)

- #37 -

(Click here for a 803X620 copy of the previously posted version)

- and #38 -

(Click here for a 700X900 copy of the previously posted version)

And yet another grouping of stills shot in the same location.

More to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting how Scene 83 wraps up, 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...

April 14 = November 15th / April 15 = November 16th / April 16 = November 17th / Today = November 18th / Tomorrow = November 19th

 

[KMR]

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". Not the Culver City lot, mind you, but the Tarrytown lot, which they seemed to have divested themselves of immediately after NODS was made.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Some posts worth revisiting related to yesterday and today's quotes in the slideshow:

...

And I wonder if that "insane dress" Gregory "whips out" and is "so perfect" for and "very" Tracy but "completely un-Quentin" would have been the same dress that Tracy wears in upcoming Scene 88 (as well as the deleted upcoming Scene 87)?

(Click here for a 452X700 version)

True, the script doesn't reference Tracy actually buying it. But then the script doesn't reference Claire buying the dress she wears in Scene 88 (and Scene 87), but Alex reacts to it as if it is new. So...

But if it is the dress, even though it doesn't seem outlandish, it is formal. And yes, formal would definitely seem to be "un-Quentin" because, if we can judge by much of what he wears throughout most of the film, the man has never come across a denim shirt he hasn't fallen in love with and bought. 

I guess that it could be considered outlandish, compared to some of the off the rack stuff from Ohrbach's. Maybe it's just me but I felt that Claire and Alex seemed a lot more hip than Tracy and Quentin.

I guess that it could be considered outlandish, compared to some of the off the rack stuff from Ohrbach's.

So true. Although there is that yellow dress that Liz even wears in hoDS...

Maybe it's just me but I felt that Claire and Alex seemed a lot more hip than Tracy and Quentin.

You have a point. As the film stands, because Scene 82 was never shot, we have no idea that the Jenkins, or at least Claire, met Quentin in Paris, and because Scene 83 was never shot, we have no idea that Tracy seemingly lived in New York City. For all we know as far as Quentin goes, all of his life he remained "around" and "mean and surly" wherever he was born until some point before he met and married Tracy. But at least with Tracy we do learn that she presumably has some exceptional knowledge about Early American artists to the point that Alex seeks her advice about seeing a gallery owner in New York who's an expert on the subject.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The next four stills. So, here's #39 -

(Click here for a 471X700 copy of the previously posted version)

- #40 -

(Click here for a 560X700 copy of the previously posted version)

- #41 -

(Click here for a 548X700 copy of the previously posted version)

- and #42 -

(Click here for a 700X548 copy of the previously posted version)

And this group is the last of the stills mostly related to scenes (or in the case of #41, just for the fun of it) -

...

The shot of the skeleton hanging from the tree was just on-set goofing around. I have the contact sheets from this shoot, and it's not supposed to be Angelique- it's Charles's skeleton and is dressed in his rotted shirt- that's why there's that shot of Selby standing next to it, as it's his character.  They were shooting publicity shots of Selby, and the crew just ties a rope to the skeleton and pulls it up off the ground to get the shots with Selby, then afterwards a few shots of it by itself in the tree.  I was thrilled to find that contact sheet, as it always appeared to be some shot of Angelique's body rotted to nothing and hanging there, and intriguing, but impossible scene to match to any of the scripts.

...

And for the shots of the skeleton with Selby, click here and here.

- the remaining 10 stills would mostly be considered character portraits, four of which I haven't already shared on the forum.

More to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Now that we've reached stills #40, #41 & #42, I want to revisit the article that Famous Monsters of Filmland did for the film because, with exception of the color cover, it's also put together strictly from stills provided in the Editor's Portfolio (stills #2, #15, #16, #25, #33, #35, #40, #41 & #42). Here'a link to a post The Doctor and K9 made when he generously shared a PDF of the article:

... Famous Monsters of Filmland ...

For some reason they chose to print mirror images of stills #40 & #42 along with the cover - but I suppose that was their prerogative.

And two other things I want to share are the Table of Contents page from the issue-

(Click here for a 732X974 version)

- which captions the cover and also features a cropped version of still #25. Oddly the page number under that indicates the article as page 13, which is actually the page the article ends on. But hey, maybe it was their prerogative to do that too...

Plus, a different issue FMoF also published cropped version of still #9 -

- 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...

Stills #1 & #21 as well as #22 were definitely magazine favorites in the early publicity for the film, but as more and more material for the film began to be published stills #9 and #16 certainly gave them a run for their money in latter publicity. Interestingly enough, though, while still #16 & #22 are included in the NODS Pressbook, stills #1, #9 & #21 are not.....

 

[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...