Happy 50th Anniversary, Night of Dark Shadows

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting more of how the beginning of Scene 111 is scripted in DC's script:

Continuing Scene 111, beginning with Sunday's quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Alex: 'I told you. I saw someone in a long white dress.'

- coming up, followed by Monday's quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Quentin: 'Your imagination is getting the best of you.'

- coming up, followed by today's quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Alex: 'No it didn't. I saw Angelique and she tried to kill me.'

- coming up.

And so far as any differences in the dialogue, the directions, and the descriptions go, at this point we can't compare the script to the film because this scene only appears in the 129 minute version of the film. However, DC's script has changes to Alex' quote for today. In the script "No it didn't" is crossed out and Alex' lines are indicated as "All right, Quentin - I'll tell you what. I really saw Angelique and she tried to kill me." And we can also get into DC's notations for the scene, which first indicate that when Alex starts those lines the camera cuts to his close-up (from the previous 2 shot) - and then after Alex says Angelique's name, the camera cuts to a close-up of Quentin. Though, as we've learned from scenes in the shorter versions of the film, we can't necessarily expect that all of DC's notations are the ways in which the scenes in the film actually play.

And when it comes to how Alex saw Angelique, if one blows up the scene of the figure walking toward the greenhouse, one can sort of deduce that the figure is Angelique -

- and it is somewhat odd that the script doesn't identify her specifically - but Sam Hall and DC are quite possibly the only ones who know why. ...

...

   As far as "Sunday's quote" goes, it was January 20th's this time around, "Monday's quote" was January 21st's this time around, and "today's quote" was January 22nd's this time around.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting even more of how the beginning of Scene 111 is scripted in DC's script:

Continuing Scene 111, beginning with yesterday's quote, Quentin's reaction to Alex insisting Angelique tried to kill him -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Quentin: 'God damn it! That's impossible.'

- coming up, followed by today's quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Alex: 'Quentin, she had a reason to stop me. I found out alot about your family. You already know about Charles Collins. But do the name's Gabriel and Laura mean anything to you?'

- coming up.

And so far as any differences in the dialogue, the directions, and the descriptions go, at this point we can't compare the script to the film because this scene only appears in the 129 minute version of the film. However, we can get into DC's notations, and in this section of the scene they indicate that after Quentin says it's impossible and before Alex begins to explain how Angelique had reason to stop him, the camera switches from a close-up of Quentin to a 2 shot. Though, as we've learned from scenes in the shorter versions of the film, we can't necessarily blah, blah, blah, blah.

And yes, both "alot" and "name's" are misspelled that way in the script...

  As far as "yesterday's quote" goes, it was January 23rd's this time around, and "today's quote" was January 24th's this time around.

 

[Uncle Roger]

Piccolo Pupa was not her birth name. It apparently means Little Doll in Italian; her birth name was Giuliana Coverlizza. She was a protege of Danny Thomas and appeared on his sitcom and most of the variety shows of the day. Ghost In The Invisible Bikini was intended to introduce her to a wider audience. Its lack of success sent her back to Italy where she was a major recording star.
BTW, the original version of the film featured a major musical number featuring her and Aron Kincaid. Well, major for American International. The footage has never been seen and may be considered lost. There were a lot of reshoots on this movie. All of the scenes with Boris Karloff and Susan Hart were done after principal photography was completed.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting the still used for the latest graphics:

The latest different graphics -

- have all been made using various portions of this still -

(Click here for a 700X599 version)

- which to my memory hasn't been officially published anywhere - rarely, though, it does pop up for sale on places like Heritage Auctions...

A couple other different graphics using the still will be showing up in the next 10 days (yes Scene 111 is a long scene)...

You will probably recall that still is #29 in the NoDS Editor's Portfolio.

And counting today, Scene 111 still has 9 days to go in this current run.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

BTW, the original version of the film featured a major musical number featuring her and Aron Kincaid. Well, major for American International. The footage has never been seen and may be considered lost. There were a lot of reshoots on this movie. All of the scenes with Boris Karloff and Susan Hart were done after principal photography was completed.

Very interesting, I didn't realize that. Though at least the loss of that musical number doesn't seem to have affected the plot, such as it was. And given its critical and commercial results, it's hardly a surprise that it was the last in AIP's beach movies. Though the film certainly has it moments and standout performances.

But see, the lack of success of the original might have given DC some thoughts to remaking it - especially considering he would have probably thought adding intense blood and gore would have improved it because, well, in his mind they improved everything... 

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Continuing to revisit Scene 111 as it appears in DC's script -

...

- beginning with yesterday's first quote, Quentin's reaction to Alex asking if the names Gabriel and Laura mean anything to him -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Quentin: 'Why should they?'

- coming up, followed by yesterday's second quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Alex: 'Because of those little...day dreams of yours.'

- coming up, followed by today's first quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Quentin: 'Those daydreams don't mean a thing.'

- coming up, followed by today's second quote -

Page 50/Scene 111 - Alex: 'Yesterday, you said you wanted to talk about them.'

- coming up.

And when it comes to any differences in the dialogue, the directions, and the descriptions, at this point we can't compare the script to the film because this scene only appears in the 129 minute version of the film. And DC didn't make any notations for this section of the scene, so supposedly the camera continues with a 2 shot. Though, as we've learned from scenes in the shorter versions of the film, we can't necessarily blah, blah, blah, blah.

And yes, in the script daydreams is incorrectly spelled as "day dreams" in Alex' line...

   And when it comes to "yesterday's" quotes and "today's" quotes, this time around they appear in the slideshow on January 25th and indeed on today, January 26th, respectively.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Revisiting more of Scene 111 as it appears in DC's script:

Picking up Scene 111 after Alex' remark that the day before Quentin wanted to talk about his daydreams:

CONT'D                                         CONT'D   111                            QUENTIN                  Now I don't.                            ALEX                  Because of last night?                            QUENTIN                  Alex...last night, I thought                  Gerard a burglar.

And that's when the first part of today's quote -

Page 51/Scene 111 - Alex: 'That's all, huh? Then why were you screaming, "She's mine, brother, she's mine."'

- comes up, followed in the script by:

Quentin just stares at him.

And that's when the second part of today's quote -

Page 51/Scene 111 - Alex: 'I think you were living out one of those day dreams...You were Charles, and Gerard was brother Gabriel...and you were fighting over...Angelique.'

- comes up.

And when it comes to any differences in the dialogue, the directions, and the descriptions, at this point we can't compare the script to the film because this scene only appears in the 129 minute version of the film. However, DC has a notation that the camera switches from a 2 shot to a close-up of Quentin after Alex brings up how Quentin was screaming, "She's mine, brother, she's mine." Though, as we've learned from scenes in the shorter versions of the film, we can't necessarily blah, blah, blah, blah.

And when it comes to Quentin screaming, "She's mine, brother, she's mine", interestingly enough we don't hear him scream that in the version of the film as it stands, so it will be interesting if it is in the 129 minute version. One would presume it is, or else Alex' remark from this scene, if it is a part of the scene in the 129 minute version, would make no sense.

And yes, once again in the script daydreams is incorrectly spelled as "day dreams" in one of Alex' lines. How weird is it that it's only misspelled in his lines?

   And so far as "today's quote" goes, it is indeed today's, January 27th's, this time around.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I've hinted at a project I've been planning for January and that project, which is getting into the various NoDS posters in depth, is starting today. The first couple of points are things that have already come up in this topic:

First up, when it comes to the US A Poster, something I've already pointed out is how this still -

...this still -

(Click here for a 547X700 version)

- a cropped version of which appeared in the NoDS Herald with the caption "Condemned as a witch and adulteress, Angelique hangs from a rotting tree branch, mute testimony of Man's treachery." (Hmmm - not so sure how rotting the branch was. How would it have supported her weight - especially when she initially fell from the platform?), a heavily cropped version of which was part of Famous Monsters of Filmland's NoDS article (a PDF of which The Doctor and K9 shared in Reply #132), and a heavily lightened (so that it could be printed over) version of which was shared on page 15 of the movies soundtrack's booklet.

And I've mentioned this before, but quite obviously it was used as a basis for part of the artwork for the A version of the NoDS poster:

(Click here for a 800X818 version)

...

And you'll probably recall that still is #2 in the NoDS Editor's Portfolio.

More to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And if this part of the A Poster looks familiar -

- it's because, as I've pointed out before, it was inspired by this still:

(Click here for a 1400X1098 version)

And it's interesting that Angelique's arm is on the outside of Charles' arm in the poster's artwork, yet it's on the inside of his arm in the actual still. It's also interesting that Angelique is semi-transparent, certainly implying she's a ghost, yet she's human in the actual still and the scene it's related to in the film...

More to come...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And revisiting more of Scene 111 as it appears in DC's script:

Picking up Scene 111 after Alex states his belief that the night before Quentin was Charles, Gerard was Gabriel, and they were fighting over Angelique:

Quentin shakes his head over Alex's fantasy.

And that's when today's first quote -

Page 51/Scene 111 - Alex: 'Quentin, what were you doing in the tower at two in the morning?'

- comes up, followed by today's second quote -

Page 51/Scene 111 - Quentin: 'Working.'

- coming up, followed by the script continuing with:

ALEX                  At night?                            QUENTIN                  Don't you ever write at night?

And when it comes to any differences in the dialogue, the directions, and the descriptions, at this point we can't compare the script to the film because this scene only appears in the 129 minute version of the film. However, DC has a notations that after Quentin shakes his head, the camera switches to a 2 shot. Though, as we've learned from scenes in the shorter versions of the film, we can't necessarily blah, blah, blah, blah.

   And as far as "today's" quotes go, they are indeed today's, January 28th's, this time around.

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And getting back to the A poster's artwork, I've often suspected that perhaps the image of Angelique hanging that appears in the mouth of Angelique's rotting face -

- might have been somewhat inspired by this shot in the film of Angelique hanging -

- or perhaps a still similar to it. Or perhaps even this still -

(Click here for a 700X476 version)

- given how the elbows of the figure inside Angelique's mouth are similar.

And speaking of that shot of Angelique hanging, it appears in the film as a "subconscious memory" Quentin has in Scene 77. But given that, as I explained in Reply #478, footage of Angelique's body swinging as the tree branch creaks doesn't appear in the 94 minute version of the film, I'm wondering if that same footage is part of what was cut from the flashback? It's been over 50 years since I saw the 97 minute version, so my mind is a bit hazy on the exact details of what was seen. And even when it comes to having seen the recovered footage at the 2004 Fest, I don't recall the exact details of what was shown of the hanging sequence. But that shot does have the same sort of coloring that was used for the flashback...

More to come...

 

[Uncle Roger]

You know, I've been looking at the NODS poster for years and never noticed what was in Angelique's mouth.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Next up, something that we haven't dealt with in years and something that I personally find completely out there as highly questionable analysis. And that would be author Harry M. Benshoff 's dissection of a certain section of the A Poster, which just so happens to be featured in the above post. His dissection is featured in the Dark Shadows installment of the TV Milestones series of books. And to kick things off I'm going to share several posts from a topic from 2011 when the book was published (and you can check out the actual text from the book and the copy of the poster and its caption by downloading the attachment to this post):

Taken from the topic "Dark Shadows -TV Milestones by Harry M. Benshoff" -

I do have to say that I'll never look at the poster for NoDS in quite the same way after reading his dissection of it.     

   Speaking of dissection, lol.

MB and Midnite, you're both teasing us dreadfully.  Please provide a summary of Benshoff's argument about NoDS, or at least, about the poster.

Gratefully,

G.

MB and Midnite, you're both teasing us dreadfully.  Please provide a summary of Benshoff's argument about NoDS, or at least, about the poster.

Okay, G... This link takes you to a lovely color version of the NoDS poster that's in the book:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28285678@N00/2761108472/in/photostream/
Underneath it, Benshoff's caption (typo included) reads:  The Night of Dark Shadows one-sheet poster from 1971 suggests that Angelique possess a monstrous and devouring vagina dentata.

Ha ha!

Talk about a venus flytrap . . .

Benshoff's caption (typo included) reads:  The Night of Dark Shadows one-sheet poster from 1971 suggests that Angelique possess a monstrous and devouring vagina dentata.

I honestly think his analysis of NoDS oversexualizes it. There are things that he comes up with that I doubt many in the audience have ever thought - certainly not those of us who were still only in our early teens when we saw it. And he actually has a whole line of thought devoted to just what men might think about the movie that I think is really out there and most probably nothing Sam Hall or DC ever intended - probably not even subconsciously. But then, when one is writing an academic treatise, I suppose one is bound to come up with some overanalysis here and there in order to justify that what one is writing IS an academic treatise.

I haven't gotten around to reading any of the other sections of the book yet, but I'm certainly curious to see how he's going to analyze the series...

But then, when one is writing an academic treatise, I suppose one is bound to come up with some overanalysis here and there in order to justify that what one is writing IS an academic treatise.

Bingo. One of the problems with the first "generation" of works about a specific "text" or issue is that they spend a lot of time talking about the fact that no one has talked about that this before and justifying the need to address it. Once they move beyond that, because there's no clearly defined group of scholars and publications dealing with the subject and any peer review necessarily involves "peers" that don't have nearly as much knowledge as is required to judge as adequately as they probably should, a lot of stuff that probably ought to be questioned flies in under the radar.

The weird thing is that he seems to be almost exclusively viewing NoDS through its poster rather than through the movie itself. Do any of the men involved with Angelique look like they think she's some "monstrous sexual creature" or that they fear her "monstrous and devouring toothed vagina"? Not in the movie that I've seen. Charles and Quentin look to me like they enjoy every amorous second with Ang. And Gabriel and Gerard are even willing to resort to physically fighting to get back in Ang's bed, as it were, after they've been replaced there by Charles and Quentin, respectively. And it doesn't come off to me as if Ang has a "castrating female desire". But if so, not only are men literally fighting to be castrated by her, they keep going back for more and more of the same. But I guess to Benshoff's mind we're supposed to ignore all that and accept his analysis as a correct one. 

I think the author's analysis of what was in the mind of the artist that created the poster might be correct. Who knows if the guy even saw the movie? He might have been given some stills to work with and cranked out the poster. Remember, this was a creation of the publicity department, not DCP. The author saw the poster and probably jumped to the conclusion that this line of thinking was in the minds of the director and writers. If you have a preconceived notion, it's often easy to find support for it.

What strikes me as extraordinary about the imagery of the poster is how the flesh on Angelique's face has partly decayed, but her eye makeup and false eyelashes look as fresh as if they had just been touched up moments before.  I wonder whether there was ever an attempt to show a close-up of the corpse which got cut from the completed film but might have survived in a publicity still?  I have certainly never seen it, if so.

I think overall, given what has been written about the content of the book and the illustrations, I'm just as glad I gave it a big miss...

G.

And another problem I have with Benshoff's dissection is that it completely ignores the fact that, as discussed in the above post, an image of Angelique's hanging appears inside the mouth of the illustration of Angelique's decaying face, which also means there are actually five images of Angelique in the poster, not just the four that Benshoff accounts for. Perhaps he was hoping no one would notice or perhaps simply overlook that fifth image because perhaps he had no way of factoring it into his dissection. After all, as The Doctor and K9 wrote: "If you have a preconceived notion, it's often easy to find support for it" - however, it's just as easy to ignore pesky bits that might cause problems with a preconceived notion. I mean, look no further than the opinions of some of today's politicians for perfect examples of the latter...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

You know, I've been looking at the NODS poster for years and never noticed what was in Angelique's mouth.

Perhaps you and Benshoff both. Though in your case I strongly suspect it's not because you have some outlandish theory about what the NoDS A Poster represents...

 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Who knows if the guy even saw the movie? He might have been given some stills to work with and cranked out the poster.

As I've been pointing out, it would definitely seem to be the case that the poster was created from stills. I've already pointed out two instances where that is most certainly the case, and there's also evidence for a third still having been the inspiration for the hanging image inside the mouth of Angelique's decaying image. As such, I've often wondered if the depiction of Angelique's ghost in the artwork is also based on a still? If so, regrettably, I've never come across it. And I've also never come across a still of the pallbearers carrying the coffin up on their shoulders. Interestingly enough, they don't carry it that way in the film - but as we know when it comes to other stills, the stills don't always accurately reflect how a scene plays in the film. As for the decaying Angelique, I suspect that might have been pure imagination - but who knows?

And as for the one who created the poster having seen the film beforehand, I doubt that would have been possible because of how DC's final edit wasn't completed until a very short time before the film was going to be released.

And speaking of the person who created at the very least the A Poster's artwork, thanks to a listing from 2019 of the sale of the NoDS 14X36 Insert Card on the Heritage Auctions Web site, his name is John Solie. Apparently he was quite renowned for his movie poster art, for which he was highly sought after, as well as other types of artwork. Considering his high profile in the movie business, I'm quite surprised that his name doesn't seem to have ever come up in articles written about NoDS, particularly when they've referenced the A Poster. If it wasn't for the fact that quite by accident last October I came across that listing, I still wouldn't know he did the artwork.