Anyone notice...

How was Perkins's dialogue inferior? Welles brought the story into the twentieth century and so K, being the veritible everyman that he is, speaks more like a man from 1963 than one from 1912. The Advocate's dialogue is more archaic because he is an older, and more enigmatic character. Remember our hero K is very much dwarfed by the system he fights, and the Advocate is the closest thing to a face put to this system in this film. The reason the preiest does not tell the tale, Welles explained in an interview with "Cahiers du Cinema" around the time of the release, that the scenes with the priest were cut due to an actor's sickness and that putting the parable about The Law at the beginning and then having the Advocate tell it in short later made for much better flow. You must remember that the story has changed mediums and that the tale has been brought up to date.

PRIDE

Also, Welles' isn't stealling lines from the star, he's the director & it's his movie. This film is a clasic example of the director as the auteur. The decision to make K's lines less like the original makes him more of a contemporary character.