touch of evil

Chit-chat, current events
Post Reply
melwalton
Posts: 503
Joined: October 14th, 2007, 5:58 pm

touch of evil

Post by melwalton »

I read an article today that said the movie 'Touch of Evil' 1958 was cut contrary to Orson Welles wishes, then. forty years later, 1998 ) with Welles long gone ) the cuts were restored,
The article didn't say why? Or by whom?
I think ( not certain ) that I saw the earlier version, The one Welles wanted would probably have been more interesting just because of Welles preferring it. Any info, or comments, anyone? .... mel
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

Someone will correct me but I think the recent TCM showings is the restored version. Welles always had problems with studios. Heston indicated he sugggested that they let Welles fo the film. He said they were kicking around some names and he reminded them Welles had made a few good films.

Haven't seen the different versions to compare but I can't help but think Welles' version would be better.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
melwalton
Posts: 503
Joined: October 14th, 2007, 5:58 pm

touch of Evil

Post by melwalton »

Chris
I missed the recent showing. Had I known in time. Now, I'm bursting with curiousity. I agree Welles version would be more interesting just because it's Welles. .... mel
melwalton
Posts: 503
Joined: October 14th, 2007, 5:58 pm

touch of Evil

Post by melwalton »

Chris
I missed the recent showing. Had I known in time. Now, I'm bursting with curiousity. I agree Welles version would be more interesting just because it's Welles. .... mel
melwalton
Posts: 503
Joined: October 14th, 2007, 5:58 pm

touch of Evil

Post by melwalton »

Chris
I missed the recent showing. Had I known in time. Now, I'm bursting with curiousity. I agree Welles version would be more interesting just because it's Welles. .... mel
User avatar
ChiO
Posts: 3899
Joined: January 2nd, 2008, 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by ChiO »

I posted what is below the asterisks on TCM's Board awhile back.

Since then, I've read Rosenbaum's Discovering Orson Welles (University of California Press, 2007) (I'm not a Welles or Rosenbaum stalker-- no, really, I'm not). In it there is a 10-page essay & afterword entitled Touch of Evil Retouched, which is an expanded version of an essay published earlier in Premiere and Bogdanovich's 1999 version of Best Movie Writing, where Rosenbaum goes into his role as consultant to the re-release.

Key passage:

It would be no exaggeration to say that no work of this kind has ever been done before -- work that was neither a restoration nor a "director's cut" in any ordinary sense, but delicate revamping based on executing postproduction instructions that had been drafted 40 years earlier. [ChiO note: a reference to the 58-page memo, mentioned below, that Welles wrote to the studio immediately upon seeing the studio's cut in which he complained & pointed out "errors" in how the film had been edited] Interpretation of Welles's requests was necessary, because no matter how straightforward they were, executing cuts and sound changes is never the same thing as describing them. And it was impossible as well as unthinkable to pursue what Welles might have wanted TOUCH OF EVIL to be in 1998. All we had to focus on was what Welles wanted in late 1957, which proved to be more than enough.

Producer Rick Schmidlin headed up the project and, with Universal's agreement, retained Rosenbaum as a consultant and Walter Murch as the editor.

* * * * *
Touch of Evil Genius, or All's Welles That Ends Welles
Posted: Nov 8, 2007 7:47 PM

I saw one of my favorite noirs, Touch of Evil, last night -- my first time seeing it on the big screen. It reestablished that some movies just have to be seen in a theater. As impressive as the opening shot is on my TV, I got goosebumps watching it last night. And when Quinlan gets out of his car, he really fills the screen.

Jonathan Rosenbaum moderated the screening and talked about his involvement in the re-cutting to get nearer to the Welles vision, or at least the vision he put into his 58 page memo to the studio. He showed a couple of clips from prior versions that were changed for the latest version. One was a single shot in the earlier versions that has been deleted, and that deletion arguably changes the psychology of the Sgt. and, therefore, the motivation and meaning of his shooting of Quinlan. He also showed a 6 minute clip from Don Quixote .

The real kick was a half-hour TV pilot that Welles did in 1958 (producer: Desilu), The Fountain of Youth . Fascinating, unorthodox (I could almost hear the TVs being turned off nationwide) and extremely droll. It was about narcissism and Welles, as the objective narrator, had more camera time than any of the actors. He looked like he was having fun playing a practical joke.
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
User avatar
traceyk
Posts: 294
Joined: May 25th, 2007, 11:59 am
Location: Ohio

Post by traceyk »

I have only seen the restored version of this movie. Was I the only one who got restless whenever Janet Leigh was onscreen? I thought the honeymoon plotline was so uneccesary, though it did make for some truly creepy scenes (Dennis Weaver's voyeuristic, hooped-up desk clerk, Mercedes McCambridge as the gang leader). Loved the scenes between Orson Welles and Marlene Dietrich, though. Even given the difference in their ages, there was chemistry there. They should have done another film together.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Tracey until then I'd never thought about the difference in Marlene and Orson's ages, it's so unnoticeable in the film.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
traceyk
Posts: 294
Joined: May 25th, 2007, 11:59 am
Location: Ohio

Post by traceyk »

Yeah, Dietrich was about 13 years older, but you're right--you don't notice., their chemistry is so good.

Kind of like Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole in The Lion in Winter. I've read reviews which criticize Hepburn's age, but in real life, Eleanor of Acquitaine was much older than Henry. And in 1183, she would have been just about 60--the same age as Hepburn when she made the film. Anyway, wonderful chemistry between them. You can "feel the chains" as Eleanor says.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
Post Reply