I’ve been trying to find out more information on the history of this film. Philppe Goddin’s book Chronologie, vol 5, which contains snippets of correspondence between the various parties involved, gives a few more clues as to the sequence of events.
The legend says that the film was shown only once in 1947 (dates vary) after which it was pulled due to bankruptcy. Tintin magazine announced its screening at the ABC theatre from 21 December until January 11 and posters for the film show the same dates.
Just a month before it’s release Hergé refused to prolong the producer’s contract “without having seen the film and judged its quality and effectiveness.” It seems a tad strange that Hergé had not yet seen or approved the almost completed film this late in the day. To quote Goddin:“it’s worrying.”
The Christmas 1947 edition of Tintin magazine had a page set aside for the film, but a few days later (according to a letter written to a reader by Raymond Leblanc, the magazine boss) there was “deep regret that we recommended this film” which Leblanc goes on describe as a “fait accompli.”
In January 1948 Hergé replied to the producer, Wilfried Bouchery, who had questioned him on certain improvements to be made to the film. He saw four possibilities: Remake the seaplane scene – the ‘special effect’ was too apparent (having seen it I know what they mean) -. redo the camels in the desert – “it is essential that these animals move and move” -, and condense the unnecessarily long scenes where the Thom(p)sons enter the mosque and Tintin visits the Arab house.
Goddin’s book also mentions that in Feb 1948 Leblanc watched an “nth version” of Crab at a cinema somewhere. In March/April Bouchery showed his film to a Dutch owner who wanted to rid Crab of all the drunken scenes (just as the American publishers Golden Press wanted to do with the book version over a decade later). The producer told Hergé that if necessary he would carry out these cuts himself. In the summer of ’48 a new version had been made, reduced to 40 minutes (although it sounds as if all the best bits were cut out!), but by then the producer despaired of ever finding a distributor for it.
Clearly, the main reason for the film’s failure was that Hergé, ever the perfectionist, was never entirely happy with it. Even so, it’s amazing that it’s taken this long to be dusted down and given a reappraisal. I also thought it had been shown somewhere else quite recently (prior to the festival), but it was billed as having been screened for “only one day in 1947” – which might not actually be true but I suppose gives it added mystique! |