|
Member
(05-21-2012, 12:53 AM)
|
NeoGaf Film Club Week 1 - Touch Of Evil (1958)
#1
Touch of Evil is a 1958 American crime thriller film, written, directed by, and co-starring Orson Welles. The screenplay was loosely based on the novel Badge of Evil by Whit Masterson. Along with Welles, the cast includes Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Joseph Calleia, Akim Tamiroff, and Marlene Dietrich.
Touch of Evil is one of the last examples of film noir in the genre's classic era (from the early 1940s until the late 1950s).  Different Cuts of the film (May Contain Slight Spoilers) Three versions of the film have been released:
Welles's rough cut as submitted to Universal no longer exists. That cut was worked on and trimmed down by Universal staff, and in late 1957 Universal decided to perform some reshoots. Welles claimed these were done without his knowledge, but Universal claimed that Welles ignored the studio's requests to return and undertake further work. It was at this point that Keller came aboard: some of his material was entirely new, others replaced Welles scenes. Welles screened the new cut and wrote a 58-page memo to Universal's head of production, Edward Muhl, detailing what he thought needed to be done to make the film work. However, many of his suggestions went unheeded and Touch of Evil was eventually released in a version running 93 minutes. In the mid-1970s, Universal discovered that it held a 108-minute print of Touch of Evil in its archives. Aware that there was a growing audience of cineastes with a strong interest in Welles' work, the studio released this version to cinemas in 1976 and later issued it on video, billing it as "complete, uncut and restored." In fact, this print was not a restoration at all, but a preview version which post-dated the Welles memo but pre-dated the release version. While it did feature some vital Welles scenes that Universal cut from the release version, the preview version also featured more of Keller's material than the release version. In 1998, Walter Murch, working from all available material, re-edited the film based on the Welles memo, with Bob O'Neil, Universal's director of film restoration, and Bill Varney, Universal's Vice President of Sound Operations, participating in the restoration. As Welles's rough cut no longer exists, no true "director's cut" is possible, but Murch was able to assemble a version incorporating most of the existing material, omitting some of the Keller scenes (though some were retained, either because they had replaced Welles scenes which no longer existed and were necessary to the plot, or because Welles had approved of their inclusion). In addition, some of Welles's complaints concerned subtle sound and editing choices, and Murch re-edited the material accordingly. Notable changes include the removal of the credits and music from the three-minute opening shot, crosscutting between the main story and Janet Leigh's subplot, and the removal of Harry Keller's hotel lobby scene. Rick Schmidlin produced the 1998 edit, which had a limited but successful theatrical release (again by Universal) and was subsequently made available on DVD. The DVD includes a reproduction of the 58-page memo.  Trailer .jpg) US: DVD/Blu-Ray (not yet released) UK: DVD/Blu-Ray (contains all cuts and versions of the film) (Region B locked) Netflix: Not Available Hulu: Not Available Amazon Streaming: Link
Last edited by pauljeremiah; 05-21-2012 at 12:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
Banned
(05-21-2012, 01:06 AM)
|
#5
Originally Posted by pauljeremiah:
|
|
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
(05-21-2012, 02:09 AM)
|
#7
This film's a particular good example of the use of "deep space."
http://imagemoving.blogspot.com/2011...h-of-evil.html |
|
Hemp Hemp Hooray
(05-21-2012, 02:14 AM)
|
#9
Originally Posted by XiaNaphryz:
|
|
Member
(05-21-2012, 02:18 AM)
|
#10
Originally Posted by wenis:
|
|
Member
(05-21-2012, 04:27 AM)
|
#22
Originally Posted by Nert:
Originally Posted by jossueinacoma:
|
|
Member
(05-21-2012, 11:02 AM)
|
#23
Originally Posted by Esnel Pla:
|
|
Member
(05-21-2012, 12:46 PM)
|
#26
I'll maybe watch it again this week if i can find one of the different cuts from the one that i watched a while ago.
Touch of Evil like Citizen Kane is one of Welles films where you can see what a great artist he was but also that his story telling was all over the place. My opinion stands that his best films are the ones the studios hampered with the most to kinda fix this shortcoming of his. So my personal favourites are The Magnificent Ambersons and The Lady from Shanghai. |
|
his true nature revealed
(05-21-2012, 10:50 PM)
|
#30
Just posted in other thread, and seen you can rent on Amazon or buy, but dunno when it'll come. Will check HMV tomorrow.
Definitely need to see more Welles films, I've only seen F For Fake. |
|
Member
(05-22-2012, 05:58 AM)
|
#36
So I just finished watching the film. Some spoiler free impressions since it is still pretty early in this thread:
- The opening scene was great. Really impressive for something shot 55 years ago. I love long cuts like that. - The cinematography was excellent. I liked the shots where plot progression was taking place in the foreground and background simultaneously. - The actual story and acting were just ok. To an extent, the performances are a product of their time, but some of the stuff was pretty goofy even for a 50s era film. The stupidity of Janet Leigh's character for instance (who still managed to look great in 50's sleepwear). |
|
The Win is Forever
(05-26-2012, 02:41 PM)
|
#40
Wow ok. I got my netflix dvd on 23rd. Finally decided to watch it today.Just popped it in and it kept spitting it out, im like wtf? Is my blu-ray player broke?Check to see if the dvd is scratched.. nope.. giant crack on one side from the outter edge to center circle.I have the worst luck with netflix dvds. I swear people in ohio try and fuck up netflix dvds on purpose
|
|
Member
(05-27-2012, 12:44 PM)
|
#41
Originally Posted by jakncoke:
|
|
Member
(05-27-2012, 03:37 PM)
|
#42
Since we are now in the second week, we can now freely talk about & discuss the film.
Here are my thoughts (does contain spoilers): Is there really any great difference between the original release version of "Touch of Evil" and the 1998 restoration? In my opinion, yes. The difference is subtle but very significant. In fact, while I'd say that while the former is an excellent movie by any standard, the latter is (in my opinion) one of the two or three greatest films ever made. The 1998 restoration took a quirky but fun film and revealed the unmitigated masterpiece beneath. Yes, in a sense the change was only one of subtle nuances, but that made all the difference in the film coming together as a coherent work of art. The standard blurb on "Touch of Evil" used to be that it was the "greatest B-movie ever made," with critics taking perverse delight in seeing the "grand master" reduced to bad tv movies, commercials, embarrassing acting roles, and low-budget movies like "Evil" in the twilight of his career. (The fact is, though he did anything to finance his endeavors, some of his greatest work came at the end of his career, in my opinion.) Then, with the new restoration, says this conventional wisdom, we can discern better the A-film awkwardly crying to be free, and we can then reflect on the B-movie alterations forced on the flick by the low-brow studio, etc. To my mind, this 'A' and 'B' stuff is pretty meaningless. A film is either good or bad, regardless of budget or caliber of stars. Writing, acting, and direction determine a film's true status. And this is exactly what comes to the fore with the '98 restoration: the direction suddenly makes sense, thereby illustrating the genius of the writing, and in turn bringing out the depths of the acting. (For example, the famous line at the end-- "He was just a man..."(etc.) is no longer just a cool-sounding, but essentially meaningless line to add atmosphere to the end of a b-flick; it becomes a final focal point through which the entire film's meaning can be pondered.) But without going on and on about it too long, I can sum up what the '98 restoration actually restores in one word: balance. The studio cut up the film to focus on the (I'll use the term again) B-movie male hero, the Charlton Heston character. He dominates long stretches of the film, and we soon get the sense that the plot follows a familiar formula: the one true good guy fights corruption in a sordid world. James Stewart could almost play the part. However, the restoration follows Welles' original editing plan, in which the story is evenly balanced between Ramon Vargas (Heston) and his wife Susan (Janet Leigh). The plot alternates evenly from a Ramon scene to a Susan scene to a Ramon scene, etc. (some Susan scenes were cut for the original release and restored in '98). What does this do for us? Well, the sense of balance, and the new juxtapositions of scenes, facilitate new depths of meaning in the film. In short, it is a film obsessed with binarisms: man vs. woman, Hispanic vs. Anglo, South vs. North, "Third World" vs. "First World," poor vs. rich, police state vs. democracy, law upholders vs. law breakers, respectable society vs. the demi-monde, darkness vs. light (black hair vs. blonde, light streets vs. dark alleyways, neon vs. shadow, etc.), good vs. evil. The delicately balanced binary direction not only brings out these dichotomies in more vivid relief, but it begins to play with our expectations of what each opposition is about, surreptitiously asking us to rethink them, perhaps to seek some of what we thought was the "other" in the self, and most importantly, to recognize the self in the other. Suddenly the film's title and the closing line-- "He was just a man, like any other"-- take on a great deal of meaning. With this sense of opposition, every scene of the film deepens, as the control of details we're used to observing in, say, Citizen Kane, can now be seen here. The famous opening scene, with its long winding continuous shot, is amazing in either version. However, in the restored version, the credits are taken away so that you can actually see every aspect, and Mancini's blaring theme music is cut, so that you can actually hear the street scene. As a result, so much of the film's greater motifs can be seen to have their start here. As the Anglo-Hispanic couple weave their way through traffic toward the border, they come in and out of close proximity with a big American car, one that will explode once it crosses the border. They walk past Anglo tourists and Hispanic locals. As they pass cars and establishments, various types of music blare out, with U.S. and Mexican music alternating. They pass in and out of light and shadow, weaving now into the foreground, now into the background... until they cross the border with a bang. And from that moment on, every detail of the film stands up to scrutiny in a way that few if any other directors are capable of maintaining. |
|
The Win is Forever
(05-27-2012, 04:04 PM)
|
#44
Originally Posted by pauljeremiah:
|
|
Member
(05-27-2012, 04:10 PM)
|
#46
Originally Posted by jakncoke:
|
|
Member
(05-28-2012, 07:05 PM)
|
#49
Saw the film last night for the first time, even though I've seen the opening scene about a dozen times.
On the lighter side I liked how Orson Wells composed himself as a drunk, I wonder how much "acting" he did for that role On a more serious note, I really enjoyed this film. It exemplifies film Noir almost to the "T". I can go on about the story, but what I am attracted about this film is what happened behind the camera. How its initial failure pushed him to return to Europe...where ToE actually was a success. any who, Charleston Heston as a mexican! |
