I'm sort of ashamed to admit that Touch of Evil is my first encounter with this genius. I know it shouldn't have taken me this long, but better late than never I suppose.
Roger Ebert has this 1958 quasi-classic on his Great Movies list, so I knew off the bat I had to fake liking it even if I despised it. Thankfully, it never came it that. Then again you guys wouldn't know the difference even if it did.
The film opens with that stinking (fine, striking) shot that no one seems to be able to stop talking about. It acts as the slam-bang-wow how many tries did that take-attention grabbing opening and I have to say it is damn impressive. Still, I'm gonna go ahead a skip it...we've heard it all. Shot's spectacular, enough said.
However, going off in that direction...the cinematography in this film in general is excellent. Welles does very cool things with lighting and seems to be constantly coming up with new and creative ways to prevent the camera from being stationary (that first shot being the perfect example...damn, now here I go talking about it.)
One interesting, less discussed shot is (and bare with me while I try to remember it) toward the end of the film - maybe already at the bridge. The camera sways back and forth (up and down, don't quote me) following some long wooden looking object as it makes rhythmic, see-saw type movements. Not sure why, maybe it was motion sickness or something, but I found it to be incredibly effective in creating a discomforting atmosphere in the last scene.
The lighting is tip-top, film noir fun. Swimming in shadows and drenched in darkness...just the way I like it.
Another thing that is frequently discussed with this film is what Welles does with race and stereotypes. This one I won't skip because I feel there's a good amount to discuss with what he does.
First of all, we have ammo enthusiast Charlton Heston in brown face - not even taking a stab at the Mexican dialect (he sticks to his guns I guess). That's good for a laugh no matter what the occasion. I know it seems kind of silly at first but it's actually brilliant when you start to analyze it.
All the other Mexicans in the film seem to perfectly embody what white people were afraid of about Mexicans in that era. Except of course Heston's character...Vargas. He is almost the opposite, far removed from of all of the stereotypes. He is the Mexican that does not fit the expectation.
But that Mexican doesn't actually exist...like literally. It's not a Mexican at all, it's Charlton Heston! So what is Welles saying, damnit?! I'm not sure exactly so I guess that means it's art or something like that. Just kidding I don't buy into all that snob mumbo-jumbo. But really, what he does with Heston alone is totally thought provoking and (whatever I'll say it) it's art.
Anyway, Welles the film maker has some game apparently, but what about Welles the writer or Welles the actor? Kind of sounds like a stuffed up Brando or something.
I thought he was incredibly natural at saying the dialogue (might of had something to do with the fact that he wrote the script) and it even sounded improvised at certain times it was so convincing. A powerhouse performance to be sure. But it was more than a powerhouse somehow, I felt like. It was almost like he was Police Captain Hank...like he wasn't even playing a part. Hmm...
I noticed that joke about how Hank got fat (told by his bartender- mistress-fortune-teller-lady) and looking at earlier photos of this guy, it seems like he might have been taking a shot at himself. I know it's to the character, but he's playing that character and Welles really did get frickin' fat.
I can't help but to think that maybe Welles was actually delving into his weaknesses as a human with his character (and a little less specifically) his script. Maybe he's not simply playing a part, but a part of himself. Maybe that's why he was so god damn good at it. When Hank hit a wall, he started drinking...that's basically what Welles did post-Evil.
I mentioned Ebert at the beginning (love the guy) and he talks about how there is a strange familiarity between Welles's character in the film and Welles in actuality. Ebert points to a different line of dialogue than I did, however it is still a line that is spoken by the bartender-mistress-fortune-teller-lady.
Hank asks her what his future will be like, to which she responds, "you haven't got any." Guess what Orson did after Touch of Evil? Nothing, got drunk and sat on some half written scripts and unedited footage. How much of himself did Welles put into this script? Could he have known how similarly things in his near future would be to the character he created? Man, that's weird.
I just saw the movie that one time so those are the only two quotes I got and one was Roger's, but I believe there is a lot of the real Welles in this film...whether or not it was intentional.
Think about it...the booze, the weight, the lines by the bartender-mistress-fortune-teller-lady. Ebert for god's sake, Roger Ebert, that should be enough.
Whatever, it's just interesting to think about. How much of an artists real self goes into their work...especially when the artist has such complete control of all aspects like Welles did in Evil. We looked at a painting by Adolf Hitler the other day in a different class...there were no people in it.
