Director: Orson Welles
Producer: Albert Zugsmith
Screenwriters: Orson Welles, Paul Monash, and Franklin Coen
Cinematographer: Russell Metty
Music: Henry Mancini
Studio: Universal 1958
Main Acting: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh and Orson Welles
Long after the unmitigated tragedy of having The Magnificent Ambersons taken away and butchered by his studio, Orson Welles was back in the system making another film. He had previously been given a few other rare chances at directing in Hollywood proper (one of which made this countdown), but he basically was a nomad walking the earth like Caine from Kung Fu trying to scrounge up some money to pay for projects. With the generosity of Charlton Heston, Welles was hired to direct Touch Of Evil during the last days of classic film noir. Like the true artist that he is, Welles relished the chance to work with any kind of budget and set out to create a baroque visual masterpiece with an intriguing—if inscrutable plot—filled with all sorts of quirks and mishaps. The innovative aspects start right at the beginning with a wallop of an introduction featuring a three-minute-plus tracking shot that encompasses a glorious exposition of the whole border town. Slowly, the roving camera fixes upon newlywed couple Miguel and Susie (Heston and Leigh) as they unknowingly encounter a mysterious vehicle with an odd-looking couple trying to cross the border. From these early moments, we can speculate accurately that we will be watching something special. The camera does not stop moving and neither does the excitement from witnessing such a spectacle.
It would be nice to say that Touch Of Evil was some blockbuster success that put Orson back in the good graces with all the studio heads, but this was far from the case. The movie bombed and his career was now totally finished in Hollywoodland. To make matters worse, his film was also reedited by Universal and tampered with like almost all of Welles’ pictures since Kane. After giving the studio his rough cut they further tried to “enhance” his work and even hired a different director for reshoots. The movie has floated around in many versions since its 1958 release. Suffice to say that Welles was unhappy with the theatrical release and bemoaned his unlucky fate like a stock noir protagonist just missing the big time and now dropped inside the big house instead. The length of the rough cut became lost and only a shorter version was available for the longest time. In 1998, a restored example of the feature started making the rounds and this became labeled as the director’s cut which lasted 111 minutes total. The reformed Touch Of Evil was supposedly made from memos Orson Welles left about the shooting, production, etc. that minutely described his intended desires and methodology on how the picture should stand. This is the film noir I now hold in my possession and can only describe as a top five for the movement.
Like Jack Nicklaus winning the Masters at 46 years of age at the twilight of his professional career in 1986, Touch Of Evil was a fitting last hurrah for the genre. The ending of film noir is very similar to the beginning, in that concrete bookends are surely not absolute or set in stone. Odds Against Tomorrow made in 1959 doesn’t seem like it is all that different from the Welles picture in look or feel. Still designating Touch Of Evil as the last true noir does have a romantic tinge to it. In many ways, the explosion of technical acumen and bizarre convoluted story lines inhabited within the confines of the picture suggest a final blast of colorful fireworks on the fourth of July before the blackened sky finally envelops the night for good. A last virtuosic display of pyrotechnics to get the crowd in a frenzy and giving to one last rousing clap of the hands before a slow dispersal occurs. Everyone heading for home with huge smiles on their faces knowing that the last cake or repeater was sufficient enough in its grandness to satisfy as finale. Touch Of Evil rewards in this regard, as it is a bold enough film to accept that the decades-old genre must now die and be reborn into something similar but different.
Charlton Heston plays a Mexican. For some this is idiotic and gut-busting absurd. I remember going to a comedy club in Greenwich Village a few years ago where Louis C.K. was one of the acts. A redheaded comic with fair skin, he mentioned to the audience that he was Mexican and stood back as everyone laughed waiting for the punchline. None was forthcoming as he was telling the truth and continued to describe the preconceived notions many have of what constitutes someone south of Texas. If Louis C.K. could be Mexican than I have no problem accepting Heston as one (though the heavy makeup hurts). His overall acting along with Leigh and Welles is exemplary. The malignant, decadent Quinlan is a perfect visual specimen of corruption and depravity. The director really fit the part and his wide girth and faded looks is like the portrait of Dorian Grey coming to life and running amok. Somewhere in Quinlan’s fly-infested office lies a piece of artwork with an image of Charles Foster Kane circa 1941 that was meant to age in the way the book intended. The planting of evidence by the corrupt detective and his crazed attempts at framing those he considers guilty perfectly complements the shady settings of a quasi-legit border town where everything is engulfed in a shadowy ambiguous light.
For me Touch Of Evil is Orson Welles’ best picture. The music by Henry Mancini is so distinctive and cool that you expect someone to trot out with a martini in hand. The cinematography is richer than a blackout chocolate cake, and really amped up the noir expressionism to a level which was impossible to match from here on out. Visually Welles pulls no punches, and with Russell Matty lensing puts the final stamp on what film noir can do as a visual medium. What could be scarier than walking through those dark streets and seeing Quinlan waddle by you not knowing if he’s going to drop the hammer on your freedom. Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, but Touch Of Evil holds the keys to my heart. A great extended Lady From Shanghai like funhouse ride that also peeks into a Hearts Of Darkness like look at institutional corruption. Welles throwing everything and the kitchen sink at us without messing up the shiny laminated floors.
For me, TOUCH OF EVIL doesn’t place ahead of CITIZEN KANE, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, nor MACBETH among Welles-directed pictures, but as you glowingly illuminate here it’s the end of an era on display. And there’s quite a bit of craftsmanship to boot. It’s close too between his Hank Quinlan and his Harry Lime as Welles’ best performance. And yes, this is universally recognized as a signature noir, rarely finishing any lower than a top etchelon of the form. Henry Mancini’s score is justly famous, and certainly that famous tracking shot that opens the film is as celebrated as the opening of Vidor’s THE CROWD and Hitchcock’s NOTORIOUS. Russell Metty’s work is fantastic of course, helping Welles to negotiate one of the sleaziest stories imaginable with consumate artistry.
Fabulous and passionate review! Welles has opened the key to your heart indeed!
Hell, I like THE TRIAL more too.
That being said TOUCH OF EVIL is really fun.
Right on schedule and right about where I’d thought it would show.
While it might not be Welle’s highwater mark, it’s certainly better than 90% of the films from its release year and probably better than most from its decade. As with all of Welle’s films after KANE and AMBERSONS, but not including FALSTAFF (his best probably after KANE), TOUCH OF EVIL contains enough showtoppers to whallop and elephant and none the least worth mentioning is Welle’s central performance, a minutely detailed and effortlessly constructed study of excess, slovenliness and sloth. Standing there, chawing on a candy bar and leering like one would when you know you’re the law in a lawless land, Hank Quinlan is one of Welles most delicious performance confections.
The opening, no cuts, one take tracking shot following the explosive device from its first ticking to its explosion is just as dazzling and pretty much everything else after it rates and recieves the awe of Noir fans the world over. It’s about as bizarre and gothic as any Noir film made and made just a little more special because one of the visionary masters of all screen history is behind it.
Marlene Dietrich is another added jewel to this crown of an amazing foray into the crime genre. You can feel the sexual history between her and Welle’s character in every scene they share together.
Terrific choice if totally predictable by this point.
You did yourself proud with this marvelous little essay Maurizio!!!!
Way to go!!!!!!
“For me Touch Of Evil is Orson Welles’ best picture. The music by Henry Mancini is so distinctive and cool that you expect someone to trot out with a martini in hand. The cinematography is richer than a blackout chocolate cake, and really amped up the noir expressionism to a level which was impossible to match from here on out. Visually Welles pulls no punches, and with Russell Matty lensing puts the final stamp on what film noir can do as a visual medium. What could be scarier than walking through those dark streets and seeing Quinlan waddle by you not knowing if he’s going to drop the hammer on your freedom. Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, but Touch Of Evil holds the keys to my heart. A great extended Lady From Shanghai like funhouse ride that also peeks into a Hearts Of Darkness like look at institutional corruption. Welles throwing everything and the kitchen sink at us without messing up the shiny laminated floors.”
I don’t think I’m alone in saying this might be the best written and constructed paragraph you have ever composed for the count. The entire essay is a stunner. One of, if not THE, best review of the countdown.
My hat’s off to you kid!
Wow I didn’t think this essay was that great to be honest lol. I feel a few others were better, but thanks for the compliment. I wrote this a while ago and added that last highlighted paragraph last night while watching the Mavs vs Blazers. The original conclusion stunk to high heaven so I quickly wrote a new one…. maybe the bickering with Bob lead to some inspiration.
+++The cinematography is richer than a blackout chocolate cake+++
For me this film is second behind Citizen Kane in the Welles catalogue. I think we can agree that Mr. Roca has written his most impassioned review for the countdown. I detect a good part of him that would have liked to put this film at #1.
I completely agree to that – this is a marvelous writeup by Maurizio.
“Like Jack Nicklaus winning the Masters at 46 years of age at the twilight of his professional career in 1986, Touch Of Evil was a fitting last hurrah for the genre.” Touche!!!
Touch of Evil was most certainly a last hurrah by Orson Welles. It was really unfortunate the kind of indignation that he face during his career, but its gratifying for all cinephiles that his genius has outlived his life as a number of his films regularly find place in the pantheon of great movies. And Touch of Evil is one of those.
Watching Charlton Heston playing a Mexican was indeed very disconcerting. Some Mexican/Mexican-origin actor ought to have played the role, or, more aptly, his character should have been that of an American. That for me too remains the biggest glitch for this film.
But that apart, it does rank as a great film noir. And Welles, boy, wasn’t he absolutely brilliant as the sleazy, grotesque & corrupt cop!!! It was sheer pleasure watching Welles the actor stealing the show with such a powerhouse performance. In fact, I don’t if its me, his character & performance reminded me a lot of the obese & grotesque villain (played by Francis L. Sullivan) in Jules Dassin’s brilliant Night & the City.
“Watching Charlton Heston playing a Mexican was indeed very disconcerting. Some Mexican/Mexican-origin actor ought to have played the role, or, more aptly, his character should have been that of an American. That for me too remains the biggest glitch for this film.”
Couldn’t agree more, it’s absurd. The Lewis CK analogy doesn’t fit, because he isn’t trying to play or ‘look stereotypical’ Mexican as the Heston character is. CK is just as much Irish as he is Mexican, whereas Heston is written and presented as some sort of Desi Arnaz Latin American stereotype. The dyed jet black hair and face paint on Heston amounts to little more then Al Jolson blackface.
Had they just said ‘this character is Mexican’ and still cast a regular looking Heston it wouldn’t have been a big deal (because, as you point out with the Louis CK analogy Mexicans and Mexican Americans have quite a wide spectrum of ‘looks’), it’s when he’s dressed up as some stereotype Mexican look that it becomes offensive.
_ _ _
I like TOUCH OF EVIL, but it’s a pretty dry craft film. You’re meant to be wowed by camera moves, cuts, and music (in other words: film grammar) but compared to many great American films and Film Noirs it lacks the humanity or expression.
“Had they just said ‘this character is Mexican’ and still cast a regular looking Heston it wouldn’t have been a big deal (because, as you point out with the Louis CK analogy Mexicans and Mexican Americans have quite a wide spectrum of ‘looks’), it’s when he’s dressed up as some stereotype Mexican look that it becomes offensive.”
Hard to argue with this point. I just know some people that don’t even realize that Heston is wearing makeup and laugh at the idea of the NRA guy being a Mexican. For whatever reason, I can overlook these admitted un P.C. flaws and still enjoy Heston for his performance without dwelling on his atypical darker shade…
Heston may be stereotypical in appearance, but my recollection is that he doesn’t even attempt an accent. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, it undercuts any characterization of his performance as a stereotype. But had Welles made Touch a decade earlier, Pedro Armandariz would have been an awesome choice for the role of Vargas.
Samuel, to be fair saying it’s not that bad because he doesn’t attempt an accept, is implying that Mexican’s speak a certain way, which is code for some sort of Speedy Gonzalez like jive.
With or without it’s still offensive, just as Al Jolson in blackface is even if he doesn’t attempt to speak ‘jive’.
A very good and evocative review, Maurizio.
I too would place Touch of Evil as Welles’ best, perhaps with F For Fake close by. This is the one film of Welles’ in which he is perfectly cast as an actor. It is the best performance of his that I’ve seen, his larger than life persona fitting the metaphorical fat suit of his grotesque morality. The film is claustrophobic, sweaty and very well acted.
The final vindication of Quinlan’s hunch and Tanya’s (Marlene Dietrich) parting line are a brilliant coup de grace. There’s nothing better than a brilliant but bent cop.
As I am a fan of the look of the film but have not heard of a “Blackout Chocolate Cake” this is the first review that works as a recommendation for confectionery first and cinema second. Thanks.
Cake probably doesn’t count as confectionery but the gist of my comment stands.
I look forward to the rest of the countdown Maurizio.
“I look forward to the rest of the countdown Maurizio.”
I love the no weekends… now we have quite a cliffhanger for the last 4, which is pretty fun.
Jamie I feel the last four should be close to obvious at this point. The order is the key…
yeah, I’m pretty positive I know the four. Just the order is up in the air, and I don’t really care about that.
I actually did have to google that. I’m an American, that eats OK? lol. Not sure.
My favorite Welles is definitely “The Trial”. It’s actually one of the best literary adaptations I’ve ever seen. Captures the spirit and content of Kafka’s book surprisingly well. The only major difference is the end– going out with a bang instead of “like a dog…!”.
I just want to add the name of Akim Tamiroff to this long list of veneration. What a fine, unsung actor.
Indeed Mark! Right on! I love him in THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER, THE GERNERAL DIED AT DAWN, FOR WHO THE BELLS TOLLS and multiple turns for Welles and Preston Sturges. Fabulous actor.
Yeah, he was one of the best things in the dismal ‘The Trial’. Glad you think so, too.
Touch is a great film and a great noir, but Welles’s performance is not one of my favorites. Admittedly I’m not a big fan of Welles as an actor but his Quinlan always seems cartoonish to me, though this might be excused as the director using himself as an expressionist device. As a director, Welles made just about the most dynamic of noirs. I think of that car whooshing down the street with the skyline constantly receding, or the way the man simply materializes to leap from the bar as Vargas steps forward to reveal him — and I could go on and on. While some of Welles’s stuff might still alienate many viewers, I can’t help but think that Touch would be a hit today exactly as Welles made it.
I’m leaving the house with Lucille and two of the kids now to attend the opening night of the W.C. Fields Festival in Manhattan with showing of IT’S A GIFT and THE MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE. Field’s grandaughter and grandson will be on hand to introduce the first film. However I want to thank Samuel Wilson for spending as much time as he does at this site, contributing comments that by any standard are among the best online. To say that he is deeply appreciated is actually the understatement of the year.
My second favorite Welles picture behind Citizen Kane. Very atmospheric picture and Welles’ most nuanced performance. His death scene at the end in the river is one of the greatest ugly, depressing deaths in all of cinema. Only thing I wish was better is that the subplot of the marijuana and everything does seem dated in it’s depiction. Such a great film though it’s hard to complain.
It seems that the overwhelming consensus is that Touch Of Evil and Citizen Kane are Welles’ two best films Jon. An opinion I also happen to share. I agree that Orson does a splendid job acting in this one. In fact unlike some, I think he was a fine actor. The performances he gives in most of his own films are more than satisfactory in my eyes.
Maurizio I absolutely love Welles’ acting, however it’s mostly for the vocal performance. I don’t think he has a lot of physica range (unless by range you mean playing thin and playing fat) or emotional range. It’s always his vocal performance that I find mesmerizing. I could listen to him talk all day.
Hi! Maurizio Roca…
Once again, a very thought-provoking, very interesting (I like what you had to say about Welles’ film) and very well-written review Of a film that I have unfortunately, watched only once on TCM (Even though I officially, own the film (unopened) as part Of the Universal Collection)…
Therefore, I must re-visit Welles’ “Touch Of Evil” once again in the very near-future.
Maurizio Roca said,”The ending of film noir is very similar to the beginning, in that concrete bookends are surely not absolute or set in stone.”
Finally, no truer words were ever spoken!
[Postscript: I know that some film noir aficionados and novices have reached the conclusion that Welles’“Touch Of Evil” is the last film noir…even though others think that “Kiss me Deadly” and “Odds Against Tomorrow” is considered the last film noir…I feel to each his own…Which ever film that you consider the first or last film noir is your opinion or choice.
Now, I on the other hand, believe that Hitchcock’s “Psycho” is the film that “killed” or slightly wounded film noir” and sent “her” to television.[I placed this information about film noir resurfacing on television after re-reading author Eddie Muller’s interview over there on Green-zine …Which I have linked here…Greencine and from listening to members, on a film noir message board that I use to frequent.]
Interviewer:
So noir ended because people stopped paying to see it
Eddie Muller:
“Noir didn’t really end. It moved to television. In the 50s, Hollywood had to re-gear itself to fight the onslaught of television. To lure people to theaters, studios had to show them things they couldn’t see at home. That meant color, widescreen, hordes of swarming extras – stuff that is the antithesis of noir. But many of the same writers, directors, actors and performers who gave life to noir on the big screen moved to television. There’s a gold mine of 1950s TV noir waiting to be rediscovered and put on DVD…”
I know other fans Of film noir don’t place Hitchcock’s “Psycho” on the list, but if you ever by chance read author Eddie Muller’s book Dark City:The Lost World Of Film Noir [The Final Chapter]…you may not agree with him and his conclusion about Hitchcock’s film “Psycho” being the film that nailed the the final nail in the coffin Of Film noir, but he [Muller] makes some excellent points that easily won me over to believe or consider the 1960 film “Psycho” as the last film noir.
I’am also always aware that “Psycho” was made in 1959 and finally, released in 1960 a year after that style of film making official called Film noir ended…[ Or transitioned to television…] Therefore, placing Hitchcock’s 1960 film “Psycho” in the vicinity.
Thanks, for sharing!
DeeDee 😉
Well I think Psycho is a straight up horror film. I guess it does rely on some noir like visuals (which many old horror and sci-fi movies do), but it just doesn’t feel like part of the movement at all. I think it’s a real stretch to say that Psycho is classic film noir. The whole motivation of the film is to scare the viewer and unleash frightening imagery. Saying it belongs as part of a horror noir sub genre might fly, but as a pure noir… no way. The film is the epitome of horror and should stay as such. No Hitchcock (other than The Wrong Man) sits comfortably in the noir canon for me.
Great choice. This would certainly make my top 5 noirs. I also think this might be the most evocative and well-written review you’ve put up yet. Nice job.
just for fun, since you guys were ranking Welles movies up there, and I love Welles, here’s how I’d probably rank ’em:
1. Citizen Kane
2. The Magnificent Ambersons
3. Touch of Evil
4. F for Fake
5. Chimes at Midnight
Hi! Maurizio…I did a little research on your “beloved” Brooklyn Chocolate Blackout Cake”
Here goes an image Of Chocolate Blackout cake…
and two links Recipes For Chocolate BlackOut Cake and
Chocolate Black0ut Cake for those who would like to bake and make the cake too!
Unfortunately, I’am not familiar with the bakery called Ebinger nor have I ever heard Of Chocolate Blackout Cake.
However, Thanks, for sharing!
[Postscript: I plan to remove the image…Of the cake.]
DeeDee 😉
Maurizio Roca said,”Well I think Psycho is a straight up horror film. I guess it does rely on some noir like visuals (which many old horror and sci-fi movies do), but it just doesn’t feel like part of the movement at all. I think it’s a real stretch to say that Psycho is classic film noir. The whole motivation of the film is to scare the viewer and unleash frightening imagery. Saying it belongs as part of a horror noir sub genre might fly, but as a pure noir… no way. The film is the epitome of horror and should stay as such…”
Maurizio, your point is well-taken…However, I must admit that you are at a true disadvantage when it comes to me and my agreement with author Eddie Muller, and his referring to “Psycho” as the last film noir…Because you have to read author Eddie [Muller’s] book in order to understand how he [Muller] was using the film “Psycho” as a “metaphor” in order to point out the end Of [or signaling the end Of] film noir and the beginning Of the horror genre…Even if you, read his book and still don’t agree with him…I still think that he makes great point(s) and his examples seems to fit like square pegs into square holes.
Maurizio Roca said,”No Hitchcock (other than The Wrong Man) sits comfortably in the noir canon for me.”
I agree with you to a certain extent…However, among some film noir aficionados and novice(s) (myself included) Hitchcock’s Vertigo,” “Strangers on a Train,” “Notorious,” “Rope,” “Shadow Of A Doubt,” “Suspicion,” and even “Rebecca” are considered psychological film noir. [Two Of the authors on the list even included Hitchcock’s “Rear Window…” as a film noir.]
According to this consensus list The Complete Consensus List his [Hitchcock] films that I mentioned do sit comfortably in the canon Of film noir.
I think that author Foster Hirsch on Bernard Schopen’s blogsite sums “Hitch” and his place in the world Of film noir…“perfectly!
I must also admit that I don’t swear by the complete consensus list, but I do use the list as a guider.
DeeDee 😉
‘Shadow of a Doubt’ seems definitely Noir, but I feel his ‘truest’ Noir film (and in my personal top 5 Hitchcock’s) is ‘The Wrong Man’. Strangely not named (though Maurizio does above)…
Jamie said,”Shadow of a Doubt’ seems definitely Noir, but I feel his ‘truest’ Noir film (and in my personal top 5 Hitchcock’s) is ‘The Wrong Man’. Strangely not named (though Maurizio does above)…”
Hi! Jamie…
You basically, pointed out the reason that I didn’t place Hitchcock’s “The Wrong Man” on my list…Because Maurizio Roca, and author Foster Hirsch [in the article that I linked above mentioned the film…]
Therefore, I didn’t include it on my list since Maurizio, considered it one Of Hitchcock’s film with film noir elements.
DeeDee 😉
“Marlene Dietrich is another added jewel to this crown.”
Dietrich in this film, with a cigarette dangling from her mouth, utters one of my all-time favorite lines: “You don’t have a future — your future is all used up.”
Regarding the casting of Heston as a Mexican, I don’t have a problem with it, considering the context of the era in which the film was made. Granted, the makeup was unnecessary, but people should know by now that many Mexican’s don’t “look” what seems to many to be stereotypically Mexican.
Mercedes McCambridge deserves a shoutout for her unique role in this film.
And speaking of the “metaphorical fat suit” mentioned above by Stephen, I’d like to add that, according to what I’ve read, Welles indeed wore padding for this role to make himself look even more bulbuous than he was at the time.