Talk:Moby Dick—Rehearsed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Generally, plot summaries are written in the present tense, but this seems to be a summary a specific performance rather than of the work itself, so I left is in the past tense. I'm not sure if the Patrick McGoohan reference is a quote from the book or an abridgement. Either way, it could be cleaned up. JethroElfman 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this details a specific perfomance and not a general telling of a plot. Also, without a citation, it's hard to define the McGoohan reference. --Malecasta 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sallis / Christopher Lee??

In his autobiography Fading into the Limelight (Orion, 2006), the veteran character actor Peter Sallis records that he played the part of Flask in the stage production, and in the aborted film, giving an account of the production and the problems which led to it being abandoned. The article (presumably sourced from The Films of Christopher Lee, although it isn't entirely clear) says that Lee played the part. I imagine only one of these can be correct - which one? Ghughesarch (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. It has spurred me into ordering Mr. Sallis' book. It'll be awhile until I arrives and I get a chance to read it but until then I would say this. It is a possibility that they may both be correct in a way. If you know any of the tortured filming history of some of Welles' films you will be aware that filming could stop for days/weeks/months at a time. I could easily see Sallis being a part of the cast at one point and Lee at another. Lee's info seems pretty concrete but it also seems that he was only a part of the film. Thus, another possibility is that Sallis was associated with both the film and stage but he had a different role in the film. Each of these fine actors has had so many roles over the course of their career that the mists of time might be playing with their memories of their involvement in this film. This is all guesswork of course and, since the film is lost, we may never know the final answer. I was fortunate enough to see this play performed many years ago and your question brought back memories of that occasion so thanks for that also. More to follow down the road. MarnetteD | Talk 23:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that in both cases we have to rely on actors' memories of events - Peter Sallis is very clear on details of the filming, but then so is Christopher Lee in the online interviews I've seen on the subject. Though both were speaking long after the event, and both may, perhaps, be given to embroidering their careers (I find that slightly easier to believe of Lee than Sallis, for some reason). The Lee interviews and the Sallis book, however, do give essentially the same account - filming took place over a week or two, at the Hackney Empire, then the money ran out. Sallis continues with an anecdote about Patrick McGoohan being lured to Italy by Welles to do some further work on the film, though, the end of which (McGoohan finding Welles in front of backdrops, narrating Around the World with Orson Welles, and being amazed to find that it was all shot on a sound stage), doesn't ring true at all (not least because it clearly wasn't studio work). But Sallis doesn't mention Lee, and gets the rest of the cast right. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. My thoughts about extended filming time obviously don't apply. I concur with your feelings about the reliability of Sallis over Lee. I wonder what the 22 minute short film that they mention has to do with any of this. It is an interesting coincidence that Huston's film of Moby Dick was released in '56 the very next year! There is one other interesting coincidence going on. I hazard a guess that I may be the only other active editor that has this page on their watchlist. Your question might have sat here without a reply for who knows how long. So let me just say it has been pleasant to bump into you. The little bit of info that you have related from Fading into the Limelight has made me even more excited to read it. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 02:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to "meet" you too. Having just looked again at Peter Sallis' book, he's not actually explicit in saying he played the same part in the film as on stage, only that the film was made with the stage cast, and that he was in the film. But I'd have expected him to mention Christopher Lee as he comes across as a consummate (but very charming) namedropper! Ghughesarch (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seth Duerr as Ahab.jpg Deleted

An image used in this article, File:Seth Duerr as Ahab.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Fastily for the following reason: No license since 29 April 2011

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moby Dick—Rehearsed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312055743/http://www.tomahawkpress.com/tomahawk.html to http://www.tomahawkpress.com/tomahawk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]