Just a Little Evil
Sep 2nd, 2008 | By Rick | Category: Classic Cinema, ReviewsIn honor of the successful conclusion of noir month over at MovieZeal, I watched Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil when it was on Turner Classic Movies the other night. I’d never seen it before, and here are a few observations (be sure to read Phillip Johnston’s fine review here).
Orson Welles (left) and Charlton Heston
It may be most famous for that tour de force opening, quoted by everyone from Robert Altman to Alfonso Cuaron to Béla Tarr. It begins with a bomb and ends with an explosion, and in between is some amazingly virtuoistic moviemaking. The bomb is placed in the trunk of a large, American car, and the camera follows it in one shot through the streets of a little border town. It stops at stop lights, gets blocked by other cars, and — with the camera still tracking — disappears behind buildings. All the while, the suspense builds — when will the bomb go off? The camera doesn’t cut until it does, and the car is blown impressively into the air.
The idiotic casting of Charlton Heston as a Mexican, complete with dark makeup and a mustache, reminds me a little of Peter O’toole in Lawrence of Arabia. Although you kind of get used to it as the film progresses, he’s never all that convincing. No matter, really — it’s more than made up for by the sexy and smart Janet Leigh and the sly, shambling performance of Welles as the corrupt police captain Hank Quinlan.
Heston and Janet Leigh
One thing that impresses me about the film is that the combination of camera angles, dark, noirish cinematography and innovative editing serves to keep us slightly disoriented throughout its course. It’s not that it’s hard to follow, but it does keep us just a bit off-balance, a tad unsettled as the film hurtles to it’s conclusion.
RSS 2.0
“One thing that impresses me about the film is that the combination of camera angles, dark, noirish cinematography and innovative editing serves to keep us slightly disoriented throughout its course. It’s not that it’s hard to follow, but it does keep us just a bit off-balance, a tad unsettled as the film hurtles to it’s conclusion.”
Rick, all I can say is one word….”Welles”
Hi! Rick,
Since this was your first-time viewing the film….What great observations and points!… pointed out by you about the film “Touch of Evil”…(or as it’s known in the “Film Noir” world “TOE”) that most fans of “film noir” think is the film that ended the cycle.
(Or at least, open the “theatre doors” so to speak, in order to “usher” in the next wave of films called neo~noir that would follow in the early 60s)
Thanks,
I could really explain exactly why this film has never resonated with me, and why everytime I sit down to watch it I am overcome with ambivalence and tedium. Perhaps in large measure it has something to do with the bizarre casting of Heston or from plot convolutions, but there’s no denying (as you aptly and eloquently note) that the film has a buffo opening, and both the stunning cinematography and score render it an atmospheric and eye-filling enterprise.
Kudos on your splendid capsule!
And don’t forget the dynamite planting in the bathroom/interrogation scene. That’s all one take too and it’s amazing. As is the film for me, no tedium here. And as for Chuck he was instrumental in getting Welles on board to direct the movie so I definitely cut him slack on this one.
darkcitydame4e: Thanks for the comments. I’m not a big advocate one way or another of Welles, but I like this film. Personally, I’m not big on labeling things … if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Noir, neo-noir …
Sam: Maybe it’s because the story/plot is just so-so. It’s pretty standard, actually, and Welles doesn’t seem interested in it per se. Rather, it seems to be an excuse for Welles’ adventurous and innovative filmmaking techniques and outlook.
Yeah, Jonathan you’re right: I will give Heston props for that. Without Welles, TOE would only be a fraction of what it is. Also, Janet Leigh elevates it in my mind at least. And as you point out, that bathroom scene is killer.
I also think that Welles builds suspense expertly around Leigh’s fate in the hotel owned by the Mexican thug. He toys with us: the minute Heston’s character finds out who owns that hotel, he’d be off, but he doesn’t until it’s too late. At one point, another character says “Do you know who owns that hotel?” but before he can say, there’s a diversion. We in the audience are going “Go on, tell him!” Genius.
Heston really is terrible in this, but you think Peter O’Toole was mis-casted in Lawrence of Arabia?!
What, my dear friend, are you smoking?
Never mind that. I misread. Damn my eyes.
I don’t think O’Toole was miscast, as you figured out, but the darkening of the his skin via makeup was what it reminded me of.
I should learn to be a little more clear!
“Personally, I’m not big on labeling things … if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Noir, neo-noir …”
Hi! Rick,
I am so glad to tell you this, but you’re not along!…in the “world” of film noir…there are “two camps”…among the followers of films with noir elements….”One camp” that feels exactly, the way that you do, when it comes to films that are considered film noir being placed in separate categories and the other “camp” that feels the complete “opposite” and they think that there was a “transitional” period. (and why films that are considered film noir and neo~noir must be placed in separate categories at all cost!)
Of course!…I fit into the “latter camp”…instead of the “former camp.”
Thanks, dcd
You say to-mah-toe, I say to-may-to … thanks for the comment.
[...] Touch Of Evil (50th Anniversary Edition) (1958) [...]