The Genius of Orson Welles

Being probably the only film student that hasn’t seen Citizen Kane, I was completely surprised and blown away by Orson Welles’ Touch Of Evil. The story itself is incredibly well written with some of the most interesting characters we’ve seen this semester. But what I took away from the movie was Orson Welles’ unconventional style that many have said was way ahead of his time. Now I had heard many things about this film before watching it in class including the film’s impressive opening shot. This is a really interesting place to begin looking at this film because we’re able to look at Welles’ talented cinematography and how the camera is not used to simply record the action rather it is meant to be a part of the action as well.

So let’s start with the cinematography. While watching Touch Of Evil the first time through I asked myself, “How many days did they have access to a crane on set!?” Most films don’t have the luxury in their budget to afford many crane shots unless it is completely necessary or vital to the film’s presentation or plot. In Touch Of Evil it seems like Welles took full advantage of not just a moving camera but the most complex, obvious, and most expensive ways to show that movement. This dynamic movement is never more apparent than in the iconic first shot of the film that everyone seems to be fascinated by.

The film begins with a close-up on a bomb that is being placed into a car. Immediately after this is shown, the camera tracks and eventually moves upward, our perspective climbing until we are level with the rooftops. The camera continues to track along the tops of buildings as we see the car that has just been planted with the explosive drive down the street in the distance. After showing this, Welles introduces us to two of the films main characters, Mike and Susie Vargas. One thing that the filmmakers establish right away with this shot is in many ways a theme of the film. Orson Welles uses his unconventional camera movement to express this idea of connectivity that we have with one another even though we are frequently unaware of this connection.

Overall the film is just incredible to look at. He does so much not only with movement but also with framing. I’ll be honest, watching that motel “rape” scene made me feel so uncomfortable and claustrophobic simply because of how tightly framed the shots were. It was just very violently intimate and disturbing to me. I read a review that Roger Ebert did of the film. I thought it was interesting because Ebert claimed that when first watching the film you must set aside the plot that is so confusing at times and just admire what is on the screen.

Now that I’ve addressed the technical aspects of the film, I want to get into some of the things that really interested and in some ways shocked me about the film. The story, like I said before is genius. I’m really surprised how engaging films like this and Double Indemnity are. I guess I always thought that I would be able to appreciate older films but never actually love them. But these movies are proving this belief wrong. I’m finding that what I recognize and love most about films are the characters. And characters, if done well, are both iconic and timeless (just look at Mike Vargas and Hank Quinlan).

I found Luz Calvo’s article to be particularly interesting. I’m actually getting kind of sick of people applying Freudian theory to their film analyses but I did find some of the things very relevant and similar to other films we’ve discussed this semester. One thing about Touch Of Evil that I actually really like is that although it clearly addresses social issues, the film isn’t consumed by these ideas. It’s strange. I think that it has something to do with the idea of seamlessness that I brought up in Singin’ In The Rain and classical Hollywood cinema. It’s like Welles is such a great filmmaker that he can seamlessly create a story that has so much underlying meaning but is also so entertaining that the film holds up without these hidden messages. I don’t know if we can really say the same for White Zombie.

Calvo mentions that the film addresses issues of colonialism and claims that the motel scene is a metaphor for this. I completely agree. This idea has come up in films like Stagecoach and White Zombie and I think it is particularly relevant here. Welles is also doing interesting things with stereotypes considering the fact that the people who are made out to be the villains (Mexican gang) don’t actually do as horrible things as we initially believe and are eventually double crossed by the true evil of the film, Detective Quinlan. In this way, Quinlan is much like Legendre in White Zombie. It seems now that the whole “corrupt cop” thing is becoming cliché and somewhat stereotypical. I wonder if that was the case back then or if it’s something new.



Although I think that overall the story is flawless, there were some strange things that I couldn’t help but be puzzled by. First off, I didn’t like that Charlton Heston was playing a Mexican. I read somewhere that Heston believable pulls off this role without seeming exaggerated or fake. I couldn’t disagree more. Are you telling me he couldn’t have changed his voice just a little bit in order to make his character seem a little more believable? I’m sorry but although the moustache was clever for a little while, I couldn’t honestly buy the fact that Charlton Heston was actually Mexican.


Also, what was up with the butch woman that showed up for 20 seconds of the film? I didn’t understand why she was there, and actually didn’t even know that it was a woman until looking at the reading.

One thing that didn’t necessarily bother me but certainly struck me was how much the motel scene reminded me of Psycho. Hitchcock made Psycho two years later and he seems to have taken a lot of what was in this film and put it in his own. Janet Leigh is in both films, the locations look very similar (or at least have a similar feel), and I think there are also some weird parallels between the night manager and Norman Bates.

Overall, I felt like this film was very interesting and extremely well crafted. It’s amazing how a filmmaker can address particular issues, stereotypes, and tensions and yet somewhat conceal these themes by creating a movie that is visually stunning as well. If there is one film that we’ve watched this film that I really admire for craft and style, it’s this film. I feel like I’ve been introduced to a genius filmmaker who I should’ve been aware of a long time ago.