Happy 50th Anniversary, Night of Dark Shadows

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting an article about the 2001 Vista Theatre's NoDS 30th Anniversary celebration:

Another take on the event:

"LA Weekly November 2-8, 2001

Shadows of Their Former Selves

Devotees of DARK SHADOWS, undoubtedly the quirkiest entry in the history of TV soapdom, gathered at the VISTA THEATER recently for a 30th-anniversary screening of Night of Dark Shadows , the 1971 feature-film spinoff from the series about the ghoulish goings-on at creepy Collinwood Estate (vampires, ghosts, werewolves and even a phoenix figured among its characters). Fans provided running commentary about the series stars who alighted from a big black limo, including tall, gray and handsome DAVID SELBY (who’s even better-looking at 50-something than when he played hot young Quentin Collins); petite, perky LARA PARKER (the notorious Angelique, pictured); jovial JOHN KARLEN, a far cry from Collinwood’s sullen groundskeeper Willie Loomis; dainty DIANA MILLAY (Laura Collins), disappointed that there were “no vampires in the crowd”; leather-jacketed CHRIS PENNOCK (Jeb Hawkes), looking very hip in long white hair and mustache; and NANCY BARRETT (Carolyn Stoddard), gracefully enjoying the spotlight once more, albeit with tongue firmly in cheek. Before the screening, the stars gamely participated in a handprints-in-the-cement ceremony in front of the theater. Only problem was it took at least three takes for each of them to write their names in the wet cement, causing CHIP SELBY, David’s wife, to note that “they made the movie in less time!” And an auction of Dark Shadows memorabilia (proceeds going to the Women’s Care Cottage) fetched $100 for a genuine Barnabas ring, which, the auctioneer assured us, was “adjustable.” (Eat your heart out, Harry Winston.) Speaking of Barnabas: Alas, Jonathan Frid, the sexiest vampire since Bela Lugosi, lives quietly in Canada and doesn’t do the D.S. circuit anymore. Fangs for the memories!

Mary Beth Crain"

I don't have the actual article, so I can't share the photo of Lara Parker. And unfortunately, a search of LA Weekly's archive brought up the text of the article without the photo...

...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting two more posts regarding the reaction to sharing the 2001 Vista Theatre's NoDS 30th Anniversary celebration posts from VantageNet:

I know that I'm repeating myself but I am really enjoying these posts from the Vista theater. I wasn't able to make the trip out to California at the time. Don't remember why at this point, most likely financial considerations.
Thank you also for reminding me of Dean Wilson. We were pretty close friends back then and I do have memory of going to Universal Studios with him, Helen Samaras and Stuart Manning.

When I found what was on the disc, I wondered whether or not I should share what I'd discovered from the NoDS 30th. Not that I didn't want to - I just wondered if it was a good idea. But I asked Midnite and she thought it sounded like a great idea. So, people might have her to thank more than they do me.    And people are checking out the links, so it looks like we made the right choice.

Look for another link to be posted shortly...

...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Wrapping up Scene 83 ...

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...

   As far as "today's" quotes go, they are indeed today's, November 18th's, this time around.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And revisiting a sixth page made by the sadly unidentified VantageNet poster about the 2001 Vista Theatre's NoDS 30th Anniversary celebration:

NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS IS 30! - 6

And there is still one more page from this to come...

...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And revisiting a final page made by the sadly unidentified VantageNet poster about the 2001 Vista Theatre's NoDS 30th Anniversary celebration:

...

NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS IS 30! - 7

It's interesting that in the seeming tradition of NoDS' original run, they went with the B Poster for the newspaper ad and the A Poster for display in the theatre.

And it's even more interesting that they reprinted the photo spread from the NoDS Herald in the souvenir program.

...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting some other Web sites featuring photos from the 2001 Vista Theatre's NoDS 30th Anniversary celebration:

And finally when it comes to the NoDS 30th, lest you think there aren't any more photos from Midnite or Dean, be sure to check out these pages on MsCriseyde's David Selby Web site:

midnite's photos

midnite's photos 2

dean's photos


You may also want to check out the photos from the event on Cheryl Singletary's Web site:

Cheryl's Dark Shadows Website - Page Eleven

Cheryl's Dark Shadows Website - Page Twelve


Sadly, too many other sites from back then have disappeared into the ether...

...

Oddly, when I just checked to make sure Cheryl Singletary's Web site is still up and running, at first each page brought up a message that said the page wasn't working, but after a few seconds it came right up.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting even yet more from the 2001 Vista Theatre's NoDS 30th Anniversary celebration:

... I forgot to share something from Darren's Restoration Web site:

I was going to share his take on the NoDS 30th festivities, but for some strange reason I can't find the page I'd saved from his site where he'd summarized the event. However, I'd stored a second copy elsewhere of a photo he'd shared of the stars signatures/handprints in cement. It's the clearest one I think I've ever come across because it looks like the cement may have been completely dry when he took it:

(Click here for a 875X187 version)

And that may close out the subject of the NoDS 30th, well, unless I do come across Darren's take, which I probably will some day when I'm not looking for it...

...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting how Scene 84 and the beginning of Scene 85 appear in Grayson's script:

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]

Revisiting how much of the beginning of Scene 85 is so different in DC's script:

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?

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting some posts in response to the question of whether or not Angelique was actually encouraging Charles to kill Laura along with Scene 85 itself and a few other points:

It certainly sounds that way to me.

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

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.

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]

Revisiting the way the beginning of Scene 85 actually plays in the film:

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.

   And when it comes to the "18th's slideshow's quote," it was November 19th's this time around, and therefore, the "19th's slideshow's quote," was November 20th's, and "today's quote" is indeed today's, November 21st's.

 

[Uncle Roger]

There's a great deal of back story missing from the 1810 sequence. How and why such seemingly mismatched couples as Gabriel/Angelique and Charles/Laura got together in the first place. Money? Social position? Producing an heir, though someone had to have survived to have produced Elizabeth Stoddarrd? I think that the adulterous relationship between Charles and Angelique is self explanatory.
I've not seen a lot of NODS related fan fiction, though I suppose it must be out there somewhere.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

   I really enjoyed the piece that Kathy Resch wrote and which I started sharing back in Reply #1529. Her take on things filled in an awful lot that was left to the imagination, especially Gabriel's fate. It would be quite interesting if she ever wrote any other NoDS material...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

For some strange reason I'm always having to backtrack when it comes to the topic of this post regarding Scene 84 (and another post that will follow):

... I noticed something in Scene 84 that I'd never noticed before - yet more proof that no matter how many times one watches something (and I've watched NoDS so many times that I've lost count), one can still notice something new. And to be somewhat fair to myself, when I saw NoDS in theaters and when I've watched it on Blu-ray, what I noticed today is not as noticeable as it is in the VHS version of the film. But considering the vast majority of times I'd watched NoDS, I'd watched it on VHS by virtue of the fact the VHS has been available for over 30 years, there may not be a good excuse that I didn't notice what I did today until today - well, except for the fact that my attention is normally completely on Quentin in the brief period what I noticed today comes and goes on screen.

But none of that is telling you what I did notice. And what I did notice would certainly seem to answer a question fans of the film have wondered though presumed they knew the answer to. And that question is did Charles paint the portrait of Angelique that hangs in Collinwood's Gallery? We've often said the answer is obvious that he did, but we didn't have real proof. But real proof would indeed seem to be in the film, albeit briefly, in Scene 84.

So, without further teasing, here's a screen cap from the Blu-ray that shows the proof -

(Click here for a 1000X532 version)

- and don't feel bad if you don't immediately see it - but here's a frame taken from the Laser Disc version of the film that shows the proof much better -

- so as you can see it's a sketch of Angelique wearing the same dress and necklace that she wears in the portrait -

- and even though it's not the same pose, it would certainly seem to be ample proof that Charles painted her portrait...

(ADMIN: Edited to replace TV video screen capture)

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And before we get back to Scene 85 here's another post related to Scene 84 that's definitely worth revisiting:

...

... a video of how the score in Scene 84 on the DVD/Blu-ray has an obvious cut -

(Cut made at 7 sec.)

- that the VHS doesn't -

- and that's because the scene was obviously rescored after the cut footage was removed, and as such the score is slightly different on the VHS than it is on the DVD/Blu-ray release. The full score that should play and does play in the 129 minute version is like this -

- because approximately 20 seconds was cut from the 129 minute version to help to shorten it per James Avery's order to DC. And what was cut has been discussed before, often with regard to this part of ProfStokes' post listing what recovered footage was shown at the 2004 Fest -

..., Quentin discovering a sketch that Charles had made of Angelique, ...

-and as a reminder we actually see this sketch in the footage that is still in all versions of the film, but because the VHS shows much more at the bottom of the film's frames, it's much more visible on the VHS than it is on the DVD/Blu-ray. Last year I'd shared versions of both -

...

...

- and because I didn't have working video capturing software at the time, I had to share a photo I'd taken on a TV from the VHS. But now that I do have working video capturing software, this is what the VHS actually looks like -

(Click here for a 880X661 version)

...

...

But now that I have the Laser Disc, again it's quite interesting how much sharper the Laser Disc (a capture from which I've added to reply #245 and reposted above in reply #1366) is compared to the VHS -

Laser         VHS

- particularly notice the difference in the mirror's reflection and the candles in the candelabra....

...