image Home       image Fowles,       image Fitzgerald,       image r04 06 (9)       image R 22MP (3)       image 45 (3)       

Linki

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
FILMS, 4
th
EDITION
THE MARIUS TRILOGY
Variety
(New York), 25 April 1933.
Jacobson, H. L., ‘‘Homage to Raimu,’’ in
Hollywood Quarterly
,
Winter 1947–48.
Monthly Film Bulletin
(London), October 1949.
Pagnol, Marcel, ‘‘Adieu à Raimu,’’ in
L’Ecran Française
(Paris),
3 October 1951.
‘‘Marius
Section’’ of
Image et Son
(Paris), July 1958.
Fieschi, J.-A., and others, interview with Marcel Pagnol, in
Cahiers
du Cinéma
(Paris), December 1965.
Leprohon, Pierre, ‘‘Raimu,’’ in
Anthologie du cinéma 2
, Paris, 1967.
Polt, Harriet, ‘‘The Marcel Pagnol Trilogy,’’ in
Film Society Review
(New York), October 1967.
Delahaye, Michel, ‘‘La Saga Pagnol,’’ in
Cahiers du Cinéma
(Paris),
June 1969.
‘‘Pagnol
Issue’’ of
Avant-Scène du Cinéma
(Paris), July/Septem-
ber 1970.
Turk, Edward Baron, ‘‘Pagnol’s Marseilles Trilogy,’’ in
American
Film
(Washington, D.C.), October 1980.
female sexual desire, fantasy, and self-realization are far beyond its
era.
Märchen vom Glück
inspired other forays into experimentation in
mainstream Austrian and West German entertainment films in its
time, most notably Wolfgang Liebeneiner’s futuristic satire on Aus-
tria and the Cold War,
1 April 2000
(1952). Nevertheless, its unfortu-
nate long disappearance makes it a missing piece in Austrian cinema
history that has yet to find its deserved classic status.
—Robert von Dassanowsky
THE MARIUS TRILOGY
MARIUS
France, 1931
Director:
Alexander Korda
CESAR
Production:
French Paramount; black and white: running time: 120
minutes: length: 11,000 feet. Released 1931.
France, 1936
Producer:
Marcel Pagnol;
screenplay:
Marcel Pagnol, from his own
play;
production designer:
Vincent Korda;
art director:
Alfred Junge.
Director:
Marcel Pagnol
Production:
Marcel Pagnol; black and white; running time: 117
minutes; length: 10,500 feet. Released 1936.
Cast:
Raimu (
César
); Pierre Fresnay (
Marius
); Orane Demazis
(
Fanny
); Alida Rouffe (
Honorine
); Charpin (
Panisse
).
Screenplay:
Marcel Pagnol;
photography:
Willy;
music:
Vin-
cent Scotto.
Publications
Cast:
Raimu (
César
); Pierre Fresnay (
Marius
); Charpin (
Panisse
);
Orane Demazis (
Fanny
); André Fouche (
Cesariot
); Alida Rouffe
(
Honorine
); Paul Dullac (
Escartefigue
).
Books:
Fronval, Georges,
Raimu: Sa vie, ses films
, Paris, 1939.
Olivier, Paul,
Raimu; ou, La Vie de César
, Paris, 1947; as
Raimu; ou,
L’Epopée de César
, 1977.
Dubeux, Albert,
Pierre Fresnay
, Paris, 1950.
Tabori, Paul,
Alexander Korda
, London, 1959.
Beylie, Claude,
Marcel Pagnol
, Paris, 1972; as
Marcel Pagnol; ou,
Le Cinéma en liberté
, 1986.
Kulik, Karol,
Alexander Korda: The Man Who Could Work Miracles
,
London, 1975.
Fresnay, Pierre, with François Possot,
Pierre Fresnay
, Paris, 1976.
Leprohon, Pierre,
Marcel Pagnol
, Paris, 1976.
Perisset, Maurice,
Raimu
, Paris, 1976.
Ford, Charles,
Pierre Fresnay: Gentilhomme de l’ecran
, Paris, 1981.
Pagnol, Marcel,
Confidences
, Paris, 1981.
Castans, Raymond, and André Bernard,
Les Films du Marcel Pagnol
,
Paris, 1982.
Pompa, Dany,
Marcel Pagnol
, Paris, 1986.
Vincendeau, Ginette, and Susan Hayward, editors,
French Film:
Texts and Contexts
, London, 1989.
Stockham, Martin,
The Korda Collection: Alexander Korda’s Film
Classics
, London, 1992.
Publications
Articles:
Variety
(New York), 25 November 1936.
Esquire
(New York), February 1938.
New York Times
, 28 October 1948.
Today’s Cinema
(London), 15 February 1951.
Monthly Film Bulletin
(London), March 1951.
Image et Son
(Paris), September-October 1968–69.
Also see list of publications following
Marius.
FANNY
France, 1932
Director:
Marc Allégret
Articles:
Production:
Marcel Pagnol; black and white; running time: 120
minutes; length: 10,800 feet. Released 1932, not released in UK
until 1950.
New York Times
, 14 April 1933.
New Yorker
, 14 April 1933.
743
 THE MARIUS TRILOGY
FILMS, 4
th
EDITION
Producer:
Marcel Pagnol;
screenplay:
Marcel Pagnol;
music:
Vin-
cent Scotto.
versions were also shot (in this case German and Swedish). The film’s
trimph prompted Pagnol to write a follow-up,
Fanny
, also for the
theatre but clearly with a film in mind.
César
was written directly as
a screenplay and performed on stage only after the release of the film.
The shift from stage play to film is reflected in the proportion of
outdoor scenes, from the studio-bound
Marius
to
César
, where 25
minutes of the film were shot on location.
In the heated debates surrounding the coming of sound, Pagnol
went against the dominant anti-sound trend, headed by people like
René Clair. On the contrary, he declared that ‘‘any sound film that can
be projected silently and still remain comprehensible is a very bad
film.’’ True to this principle, Pagnol always considered the writer the
true
auteur
of a film, and the
mise-en-scène
of the trilogy unashamedly
puts the image to the service of the dialogue. Whether the films were
technically directed by Korda, Marc Allégret, or Pagnol himself, they
are ‘‘Pagnol films,’’ and the trilogy is, undoubtedly, theatrical, both in
its overall ‘‘classical’’ structure, and in the presence of a ‘‘chorus’’ of
minor characters who comment on the main action. It also draws on
the tradition of stage melodrama: the illegitimate child, the overbearing
father, the unexpected return of Marius in the dead of the night. Above
all, it focuses on dialogue, written in Pagnol’s unique blend of
classical French and Marseillais idiom, spoken with the strong
southern accent—its mark of local specificity and paradoxically its
recipe for universal success. The trilogy was both leader and part of
a new nation-wide fashion for the ‘‘midi’’ in the early 1930s,
triggered off by sound cinema, although Marseilles and Provence had
long boasted their own literary, theatrical, and music-hall traditions.
Indeed, out of the Marseilles music-hall and theatre came most of the
trilogy’s actors: Raimu, Charpin, Alida Rouffe; Demazis was from
Oran; Fresnay was the only non-southerner and he painstakingly—
and successfully—learned the accent for
Marius.
These actors were
central to the trilogy’s success, cementing its unity and functioning as
powerful box-office draw. But performance is also of structural
importance to the films. Characters constantly perform for each other
in the key spaces of French popular culture—the café, the shop, the
street—while the actors act ‘‘for’’ the spectators in a manner reminiscent
of the live entertainment traditions they came from, a common feature
of French cinema of the 1930s. And just as the trilogy constantly
mixes melodrama with comedy, they vary their register, from
outrageous excess to intense sobriety (Raimu in particular excels at
it). Accent, milieu, and performance lend the trilogy a naturalism
which, despite its theatrical structure, makes it one of the recognised
precursors of Italian Neo-Realism.
Family, patrimony, and community are at the core of
Marius
,
Fanny
, and
César.
Marius may be the archetypal romantic hero—
crossed with Ulysses—but he is ultimately marginal. Whether Marius
is present (in
Marius)
or absent (throughout most of the rest), the
central figure is César, who is in turn father, godfather, and grandfather,
the domineering and garrulous patriarch who decides or interferes
with everyone’s fate; the centrality of the role is given even more
weight by Raimu’s talent and charisma. A more benign patriarchal
figure is that of Panisse, the shopkeeper who gives both name and
inheritance to Fanny’s son, allowing him to climb the social scale
from bartender’s grandson to student at the highest-ranking (Parisian,
of course) university,
Polytechnique.
Meanwhile, Fanny’s role is to
produce a son and accept her marriage to Panisse, 30 years her senior,
as atonement for her ‘‘sin.’’ To say that Pagnol’s universe is
Cast:
Raimu (
César
); Pierre Fresnay (
Marius
); Oriane Demazis
(
Fanny
); Charpin (
Panisse
); Alida Rouffe (
Honorine
); Mouries
(
Escartefigue
); P. Asso (
M. Brun
).
Publications
Articles:
Variety
(New York), 21 June 1948.
New Republic
(New York), 2 February 1948.
New York Times
, 13 February 1948.
Today’s Cinema
(London), 19 July 1950.
Houston, Penelope, in
Monthly Film Bulletin
(London), August 1950.
Also see list of publications following
Marius.
***
When Marcel Pagnol adapted his play
Marius
for the cinema in
1931, he was a relatively well-known young playwright who had
recently left behind his modest Marseillais beginnings and a teaching
career. By the time
César
, the third part of the trilogy, came out in
1936 (and was the no. 1 box-office hit for that year), he had become
one of the most popular filmmakers in France, was running parallel
careers as novelist, journalist, and publisher, and had founded his own
film production company. His ‘‘empire’’ was completed by the
opening of his own cinema in Marseilles for the release of
César.
For
although Pagnol had to move to Paris to ‘‘make it,’’ his roots
remained in the south, and the trilogy is first of all a tribute to
Marseilles and its people.
Critics at the time may have preferred the cinematically innovative
work of Renoir or Grémillon, or the committed manifestos of the
Popular Front, but audiences flocked to see Pagnol’s films and in
particular the trilogy. Constant repeats on French television show that
time has done nothing to erode this tremendous popularity, and some
of the trilogy’s phrases have entered the national vocabulary (‘‘tu me
fends le coeur!’’). Apart from a first-class cast, Pagnol’s joky claim
that ‘‘I only write about clichés’’ may give a clue to this lasting appeal
and relevance: like all Pagnol’s films,
Marius
,
Fanny
, and
César
share a direct concern with simple but basic psychological and social
relations, and primarily the family. The plot is simple: in Marseilles’s
old harbour, Fanny (a shellfish seller) and Marius (who works in his
father’s bar) love each other, but Marius longs for the sea. After he
sails away (at the end of
Marius)
, the pregnant Fanny has to marry the
older and wealthier Panisse to save the family’s honour. Marius
comes back to claim his ‘‘wife’’ and son Césariot, but his father,
César, sends him packing; this constitutes the plot of
Fanny.
César
opens with Panisse’s death (20 years later), upon which Césariot
learns the truth about his paternity and seeks out his real father. Fanny
and Marius are finally reunited. Although its ending seems positively
to demand a sequel,
Marius
in fact was written as a single stage play.
First performed in March 1929, it was an instant hit, so much so that
Pagnol and Alexander Korda filmed it for Paramount in Paris, with
almost the same cast. As was the practice at the time, foreign language
744
FILMS, 4
th
EDITION
M*A*S*H
Frank Burns
); John Shuck (
Painless Pole
); Roger Bowen (
Colonel
Henry Blake
); René Auberjonois (
Dago Red
); Jo Ann Pflug (
Lieuten-
ant Dish
).
oppressively patriarchal is to state the obvious. Clearly the films
corresponded to dominant discourses about gender roles—either
actual at the time of their release, or nostalgically desired later.
However, Fanny is not, as most of her Hollywood counterparts at the
time, ‘‘punished’’ by death or madness; she lives to bring up her son,
happily as it turns out, accepted by the whole community, and
eventually reunited with her romantic lover.
Fanny
, the central
episode of the trilogy, is largely devoted to her. Interestingly, although it
is rated the weakest of the three films by most critics, it was the most
popular at the box-office, a success which cannot be simply ascribed
to a masochistic identification on the part of women spectators. No
doubt moral acceptance of Fanny’s illicit pregnancy had to do with
the dubious ‘‘natalist’’ ideologies of the time, but it was also a way of
exposing and vindicating a woman’s place in an oppressive society.
In this respect, the dialogue of the trilogy gives Fanny space to vent
her frustration at the patriarchs who rule her life.
Beyond individual characters, the trilogy stages a tight-knit
community which vanished sociologically and geographically (if
indeed it ever existed) under the bombs of World War II. In an urban
setting, the films create a warm, close, pre-industrial society in which
caring and nurturing are taken on by the whole group: César is
a patriarch who prepares the food and sweeps the floor. Within this
nostalgic structure, the melodramatic form allows the trilogy to state
completely contradictory—and hence more ‘‘realistic’’—values:
sexuality as both socially divisive and cohesive, escape as both
condemnable (Marius) and desirable (Césariot). Reconciling opposites
is the privilege of myth, a status which these crackly, stagy, old-
fashioned melodramas have undoubtedly attained.
Awards:
Oscar for Best Screenplay—Material from another me-
dium, 1970; Best Film, Cannes Film Festival, 1970.
Publications
Books:
Feineman, Neil,
Persistence of Vision: The Films of Robert Altman
,
New York, 1976.
Kass, Judith M.,
Robert Altman: American Innovator
, New York, 1978.
Sind, Lawrence H.,
Guts and Glory: Great American War Movies
,
Reading, Massachusetts, 1978.
Kolker, Robert Philip,
A Cinema of Loneliness: Penn, Kubrick,
Coppola, Scorsese, Altman
, Oxford, 1980; revised edition, 1988.
Bourget, Jean-Loup,
Robert Altman
, Paris, 1981.
Karp, Alan,
The Films of Robert Altman
, Metuchen, New Jer-
sey, 1981.
Giannetti, Louis,
Masters of the American Cinema
, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981.
Kagan, Norman,
American Sceptic: Robert Altman’s Genre-Com-
mentary Films
, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1982.
Wexman, Virginia Wright, and Gretchen Bisplinghoff,
Robert Altman:
A Guide to References and Resources
, Boston, 1984.
Plecki, Gerard,
Robert Altman
, Boston, 1985.
Wood, Robin,
Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan
, New York, 1986.
Keyssar, Helene,
Robert Altman’s America
, New York, 1991.
Cagin, Seth,
Born to Be Wild: Hollywood and the Sixties Generation
,
Boca Raton, 1994.
O’Brien, Daniel,
Robert Altman: Hollywood Survivor
, New York, 1996.
Sterritt, David, editor,
Robert Altman: Interviews
, Jackson, 2000.
—Ginette Vincendeau
THE MARRIAGE OF MARIA BRAUN
See
DIE EHE DER MARIA BRAUN
Articles:
Trutta, G., in
Harper’s Bazaar
(New York), March 1970.
Bartlett, Louise, in
Films and Filming
(London), March 1970.
Johnson, William, in
Film Quarterly
(Berkeley), Spring 1970.
Dawson, Jan, in
Sight and Sound
(London), Summer 1970.
Time
(New York), 13 July 1970.
‘‘What Directors Are Saying,’’ in
Action
(Los Angeles), July-August
and November-December 1970.
Gow, Gordon, in
Films and Filming
(London), August 1970.
Tavernier, Bertrand, ‘‘D. W. Griffith se porte bien, moi aussi,
merci!,’’ in
Positif
(Paris), October 1970.
Cutts, John, ‘‘
MASH
,
McCloud
, and
McCabe
,’’ in
Films and Filming
(London), November 1971.
Grisolia, M., ‘‘Entretien avec Robert Altman,’’ in
Cinéma
(Paris),
July-August 1972.
Baker, C. A., ‘‘The Theme of Structure in the Films of Robert
Altman,’’ in
Journal of Popular Film
(Washington, D.C.), Sum-
mer 1973.
Corliss, Richard, ‘‘Outlaws, Auteurs, and Actors,’’ in
Film Comment
(New York), May-July 1974.
M*A*S*H
USA, 1970
Director:
Robert Altman
Production:
Twentieth Century-Fox; color, 35mm, Panavision; run-
ning time: 116 minutes. Released 1970.
Producer:
Ingo Preminger;
screenplay:
Ring Lardner, Jr., from the
novel by Richard Hooker;
photography:
Harold E. Stine;
editor:
Danford Greene;
art directors:
Jack Martin Smith and Arthur
Lonergan;
music:
Johnny Mandel.
Cast:
Donald Sutherland (
Hawkeye
); Elliott Gould (
Trapper John
);
Tom Skerritt (
Duke
); Gary Burghoff (
Radar O’Reilly
); Sally Kellerman
(
Major Margaret ‘‘Hot Lips’’ Houlihan
); Robert Duvall (
Major
745
 M*A*S*H
FILMS, 4
th
EDITION
M*A*S*H
‘‘Altman Seminar’’ in
Dialogue on Film
(Beverly Hills), Febru-
ary 1975.
Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Improvisations and Interactions in
Altmanville,’’ in
Sight and Sound
(London), Spring 1975.
Wood, Robin, ‘‘Smart-Ass and Cutie-Pie: Notes Toward an Evalua-
tion of Altman,’’ in
Movie
(London), Autumn 1975.
‘‘Altman Issue’’ of
Film Heritage
(Dayton, Ohio), Fall 1975.
Pittman, Bruce, in
Take One
(Montreal), August 1976.
Pitiot, P., and H. Talvat, ‘‘Robert Altman de
Mash
à
Nashville
,’’ in
Jeune Cinéma
(Paris), September-October 1976.
Jacobs, Diane, ‘‘Robert Altman,’’ in
Hollywood Renaissance
, New
York, 1977.
Michener, Charles, interview with Robert Altman, in
Film Comment
(New York), September-October 1978.
Desmarais, James J., in
Magill’s Survey of Cinema 3
, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980.
Yacowar, Maurice, ‘‘Actors as Conventions in the Films of Robert
Altman,’’ in
Cinema Journal
(Evanston, Illinois), Fall 1980.
Olin, Joyce, ‘‘Ring Lardner, Jr.,’’ in
American Screenwriters
, edited
by Robert E. Morsberger, Stephen O. Lesser, and Randall Clark,
Detroit, 1984.
Freedman, C., ‘‘History, Fiction, Film, Television, Myth: The Ideol-
ogy of
M*A*S*H
,’’ in
The Southern Review
(Baton Rouge,
Louisiana), no. 1, 1990.
Freedman, C., ‘‘
M*A*S*H
och anti-antikommunismen,’’ in
Filmhaftet
(Uppsala, Sweden), December 1990.
Tibbetts, John C., ‘‘Robert Altman: After 35 Years, Still the ‘Action
Painter’ of American Cinema,’’ in
Literature/Film Quarterly
(Salisbury), vol. 20, no. 1, January 1992.
Breskin, David, ‘‘Robert Altman: The Rolling Stone Interview,’’ in
Rolling Stone
, no. 628, 16 April 1992.
Norman, Barry, in
Radio Times
(London), vol. 279, no. 3649, 11
December 1993.
Buchsbaum, T., ‘‘
M*A*S*H
,’’ in
Film Score Monthly
(Los Angeles),
no. 58, June 1995.
***
M*A*S*H
, one of the most popular films of the early 1970s,
achieved stardom for Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould, spawned
a successful television series, and gave its innovative director, Robert
Altman, his first financial and critical success.
746
FILMS, 4
th
EDITION
THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH
Nigel Green (
Ludovico
); Skip Martin (
Hop Toad
); John Westbrook
(
Man in Red
); Gay Brown (
Senora Escobar
); Julian Burton (
Se-
nor Veronese
); Doreen Dawn (
Anna-Marie
); Paul Whitsun-Jones
(
Scarlatti
); Jean Lodge (
Scarlatti’s Wife
); Verina Greenlaw
(
Esmerelda
); Brian Hewlett (
Lampredi
); Harvey Hall (
Clistor
).
In
M*A*S*H
—and to a greater extent in his later films—Altman
abandons conventional Hollywood narrative techniques in favor
of a very personal style characterized by overlapping dialogue,
improvisational acting, elliptical editing, wide-screen Panavision
compositions, telephoto shots (specifically shots through windows
and past obstructing foreground objects), and the development of
a large community and of major characters within a limited time and
space. These techniques alter conventions of narrative structure in
two ways. First, the improvisational acting, the multiple babble of
overlapping dialogue, and the frequently voyeuristic telephoto shots
(particularly the shots of explicit gore in the operating scenes)
generate a sense of spontaneity and authenticity usually found in
documentary, rather than narrative, films. Second, the large number
of characters arranged within the wide Panavision frame, the com-
pression of space caused by the telephoto lens, and the continuous
barrage of overlapping dialogue, music and P.A. announcements on
the soundtrack combine to create an aural and visual denseness that
demands much more of a viewer’s attention and active participation
than does the shallow-focus cinematography, the separation of major
characters from peripheral characters, and the one-speaker-at-a-time
dialogue of conventional narrative.
When
M*A*S*H
appeared in 1970, audiences—caught up in the
spirit of rebellion generated by the civil rights movement, the women’s
movement, the drug culture, the demonstrations against the Vietnam
War, etc.—revelled in the film’s iconoclastic humor, its joyous
deflation of patriotism, religion, heroism, and other values cherished
by the establishment. The film became an immediate box office
success, earning over $36 million in domestic rentals by 1983. The
critics also favored
M*A*S*H
, but while they praised its innovative
techniques, some critics thought that the film’s humor was too smug
and the scenes involving the trip to Tokyo and the football game were
flaws in the film’s structure. Today critics feel that
M*A*S*H
is
inferior to most of Altman’s later films (none of which proved as
successful at the box office), though the film is still highly regarded
for its innovative narrative techniques and its effective humor.
Publications
Script:
Beaumont, Charles, and R. Wright Campbell,
The Masque of the Red
Death
, in
Avant-Scène du Cinéma
(Paris), 15 May 1980.
Books:
Will, David, and others,
Roger Corman: The Millenic Vision
, Edin-
burgh, 1970.
McCarthy, Todd, and Charles Flynn,
King of the Bs
, New York, 1975.
Turoni, Giuseppe,
Roger Corman
, Florence, 1976.
Marcus, Fred H.,
Short Story/Short Film
, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1977.
McAsh, Iain, F.,
The Films of Vincent Price
, London, 1977.
de Franco, J. Philip,
The Movie World of Roger Corman
, New
York, 1979.
Hillier, Jim, and Aaron Lipstadt,
Roger Corman’s New World
,
London, 1981.
Naha, Ed,
The Films of Roger Corman
, New York, 1982.
McAsh, Iain F.,
Vincent Price: A Biography
, Farncombe, Sur-
rey, 1982.
Bourgoin, Stephane,
Roger Corman
, Paris, 1983.
McGee, Mark Thomas,
Fast and Furious: The Story of American
International Pictures
, Jefferson, North Carolina, 1984.
Morris, Gary,
Roger Corman
, Boston, 1985.
Eisner, Joel,
The Price of Fear: The Film Career of Vincent Price
,
Staunton, 1993.
Williams, Lucy C.,
The Complete Films of Vincent Price
,
Secaucus, 1995.
McGee, Mark Thomas,
Roger Corman: The Best of the Cheap Acts
,
Jefferson, 1997.
Corman, Roger,
How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood &
Never Lost a Dime
, New York, 1998.
Frank, Alan,
Films of Roger Corman
, London, 1998.
Price, Victoria,
Vincent Price: A Daughter’s Biography
, New
York, 1999.
—Clyde Kelly Dunagan
THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH
UK, 1964
Articles:
Director:
Roger Corman
Films and Filming
(London), February 1964.
Hollywood Reporter
, 24 June 1964.
Variety
(New York), 24 June 1964.
Kine Weekly
(London), 25 June 1964.
Milne, Tom, in
Monthly Film Bulletin
(London), August 1964.
New York Times
, 17 September 1964.
Marill, Alvin H., ‘‘Vincent Price,’’ in
Films in Review
(New York),
May 1969.
‘‘Corman Issue’’ of
Cinema Nuovo
(Turin), January-February 1984.
Del Valle, D., ‘‘Roger Corman,’’ in
Films and Filming
(London),
November 1984.
Production:
Alta Vista/Anglo Amalgamated; Pathécolor, Panavision;
running time: 84 minutes. Released August 1964.
Producer:
George Willoughby;
screenplay:
Charles Beaumont and
R. Wright Campbell, from the story by Edgar Allan Poe;
photogra-
phy:
Nicolas Roeg;
editor:
Anne Chegwidden;
sound:
Richard Bied,
Len Abbott;
art director:
Robert Jones;
music:
David Lee.
Cast:
Vincent Price (
Prince Prospero
); Hazel Court (
Juliana
); Jane
Asher (
Francesca
); David Weston (
Gino
); Patrick Magee (
Alfredo
);
747
  [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • zolka.keep.pl

    		•