When it comes to starting off a film with a bang, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil manages to do that both on a technical level and a quite literal level. In one of the most celebrated opening sequences in cinema history, a bomb is planted in a car on the Mexican side of the U.S./Mexico border and, in one flawlessly conceived shot, is followed as it makes its way into the U.S. only to erupt into a ball of flames, taking a rich American developer and his mistress with it.
What follows is an unremarkable story with a somewhat convoluted plot that rises above its run of the mill roots via its superb craftsmanship, a rare instance of style over substance. Although Welles is known for his exceptional use of sound as a result of his background in radio, this film and Citizen Kane make a pretty good case for his nearly unparalleled grasp of using the camera as a storytelling device as well. Not to take any credit away from his DPs, but these two films are some of the finest ever shot.
Touch of Evil stars Charlton Heston (buttered up in paint to look Mexican) as Roman Miguel ‘Mike’ Vargas and Orson Welles (who’s so unappealing that he literally appears to be buttered up) as the racist police captain, Hank Quinlan. Neither of the characters is very appealing. Vargas is uncomfortable to watch just because he’s painted up in the Hispanic version of blackface and due to bad dialogue (“Do you realize I haven’t kissed you in over an hour?”). Quinlan on the other hand is played beautifully by Welles and the unease and disgust felt towards him is exactly what was intended.
The drama ensues when Vargas tries to get to the bottom of what happened in a case that Quinlan says is out of his jurisdiction. In Quinlan’s eyes, Vargas is an idealistic cop on the wrong side of the border and worst of all — a Mexican.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Mat Brewster
Great review! I want to take issue with the idea that there isn't much substance to this film. But it really is B movie material, it's just so darn fun to watch I easily overlook and forgive this fact.
Watching this always saddens me a bit though seeing what Orson could do and how he was compromised over and over on so many films.
2 - Bliffle
My understanding has been that Welles took the acting role for money, then, later, took over the direction when the original director proved incompetent.
3 - Victor Lana
I've seen this movie several times, and I have come away each time with a lasting impression of Welles's assiduous technique (as both actor and director). He lays himself as bare as possible (kind of like Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby) and is not afraid to be ugly as evil gets (which is the whole idea).
The camera angles, the haunting soundtrack, and most of all the film noir sets and lighting...man, it's hard not to like this one. And, there's Marlene Dietrich. That was a casting coup if ever there was one.
4 - Rodney Welch
Ben, I think you're absolutely on the money with this one, even if you do make a little too much of Charlton Heston playing a Mexican (a Hollywood joke that even made its way into Tim Burton's Ed Wood.) Welles' screenplay here simply is not up to the level of Welles' direction; it's a technical masterwork, a veritable textbook of style of a generation for directors and DPs, but it's just not that engaging emotionally or intellectually (although people certainly do try.)
You know, it's always been a rather contentious topic as to whether Welles had any involvement whatsoever in the script of Citizen Kane, or whether, as Pauline Kael famously charged, it's entirely the work of co-writer Herman Mankiewicz. While I feel certain Welles had a major hand in it, a film like Touch of Evil certainly makes you wonder why no subsequent Welles' script was ever as good as Kane -- they don't have anywhere near the same heart or the same lightness of touch, and the dialogue is never as deft; you remember scenes from Touch of Evil but not lines. Kane by contrast was one of the most quotable movies ever. (Truffaut used to get inspired by listening to the dialogue while shaving.) You got to know the characters in Kane and you cared about them deeply; not so with Touch of Evil. It's a B picture of genius, but not a great film.