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.

Mr. Dadier is My Hero

A while back I saw a film that I would guess many people haven’t seen mainly because it wasn’t very popular and it was absolutely horrible. The movie was High School High, a comedy that stars John Lovitz and Tia Carrera (Cassandra in Wayne’s World) about a man that begins teaching at an inner-city school. The reason why I mention this movie is because there are two scenes in the film that directly parody both Rebel Without a Cause and Blackboard Jungle. The film contains a scene where Jon Lovitz plays “chicken” with a few rebellious students as well as a scene where Tia Carrera’s character is sexually attacked by a student only to have Jon Lovitz who, as the scene progresses, accidentally removes more clothes from her than the student. Although I couldn’t help but think about this terrible piece of cinema while watching these two pictures, it didn’t affect my viewing or opinion that both Rebel Without A Cause and Blackboard Jungle were wonderful films.
With that irrelevant information being said, I loved Blackboard Jungle. I know that I say this every week but this is one of my favorite films that we’ve watched this semester. I may just be a sucker for this type of story. I love the idea of characters being pushed and their potential finally being recognized and brought out by a particular person. I could really see why this film was groundbreaking. I know someone stated this in class, but I was really surprised that the filmmakers were bold enough to create a film like this in the 1950’s, one that addresses the issues of race and rebelliousness that was so apparent at that time. While watching the film, I had a similar reaction to Sidney Poitier as I did to James Dean. It made me want to see more of his movies simply because he was so powerful, his voice demanding as much attention as his physical presence. Another character that I really loved in the film that many people really didn’t was the teacher, Mr. Dadier.
Glenn Ford’s portrayal of Richard Dadier to me was absolutely brilliant, and despite what many people stated in class, I found his character to be genuine, caring, and selfless. I think in order for us to really connect with this character and not just judge him based on his flaws we must understand that he isn’t the perfect hero. Mr. Dadier has flaws just like anyone else and I think that it’s a little too much to ask our hero to be completely perfect. One point that I really didn’t agree with was that Richard Dadier was secretly a racist and that his “good guy” persona that he had while teaching was all just an act. It was cited in class that the moment where he says to Miller, “you black…” was the moment where his true colors began to show and that he was actually quite a bad person. I think that this moment shows that he is human and makes the statement that this type of thing happens to all of us. No matter how good we are, we all slip at times, but that doesn’t mean that we are secretly a horrible racist person. And the fact that he immediately catches himself, is astonished by his reaction, and apologizes for what he said says a lot about his character, for it takes a truly understanding and non-racist person to take back that comment in the 1950’s.
Another point that was made was that Glenn Ford’s character was sexist and was very flirtatious with the new teacher at the school. Alright, part of this I would agree with. I was a little shocked when he gave his pregnant wife wine while saying, “The wine is for the wife.” But aside from this, I thought that he was a caring husband who never intended to hurt his wife in any way. Also, once again, this is the 1950’s. Some of his behavior, although appearing a little bit sexist or degrading now, was probably normal in that time period.
Finally, it was mentioned in class that he was physically violent towards Artie West, slamming him up against the blackboard. Yes this particular action was a little bit inappropriate and over the top, but I didn’t think that it showed anything more than how frustrated he was. After disarming West and slamming him into the board, Dadier, whose face is almost in tears, repeatedly hits him up against it. I realize that this probably wasn’t the right thing to do, but once again, he is flawed just like all of us and his frustration for this particular type of rebellious youth finally comes out. But with all this being said, I feel like Dadier is a positive and moral character that tries to help these students no matter how hard they make it for him.
I think another issue is that Glenn Ford’s appearance isn’t exactly the most appealing and not what we think of as being our typical perfect hero. He doesn’t have that same type of presence that Gregory Peck does as Atticus in To Kill A Mocking Bird or even Sidney Poitier does as Miller. A presence that seems to radiate off the screen letting us know that everything they do will be positive and for the greater good. Rather Ford’s character is somewhat rough around the edges and isn’t always prepared to do what is politically correct. But this doesn’t mean he is a bad, uncaring, or racist person. He is just a flawed hero that still serves his purpose by continually going back and selflessly trying to improve the lives of others.

"You've gotta do something. Don't you?"

    Man, I’m really enjoying the films we’re watching in this class! Rebel Without A Cause is yet another film that I have heard so much about and I know I should’ve seen before this point but I’ve just never gotten the chance. This one is up there for one of my favorites we’ve watched this semester. Every single film we’ve watched thus far has made me feel like I’m watching “important” cinema. It’s really exciting because I’ve never seen this many old films that really seem to be groundbreaking for their time and have thus become classics. Rebel Without A Cause, probably more so than any other film, clearly comments on American society including families, parent/child relationships and rebellious youths. 

     Before I get into the cultural significance of the film, I just want to say a couple things that I really really liked. First off, the movie looked really nice. I know that it resembled many older films but I found myself really liking all of the washed out colors. All of the browns, grays, dull greens and unsaturated blues really gave the film a vintage look and I loved how it contrasted with the Jim Stark’s bright red jacket.

       Speaking of Jim Stark, I really liked James Dean in this film. Dean is someone that of course everyone’s heard of and so many people loved. But I’ve always wrinkled my nose at the thought of him. I don’t think it has to do with jealousy. I really could care less that he received so much fame and all the ladies loved him and he is considered iconic and perfectly symbolizes coolness and rebelliousness. It has nothing to do with that. I think that sometimes when we hear so many positive things about someone or something, for whatever reason, we feel like we need to go against the grain and take the opposite stance. But, despite some overacting (“You’re tearing me apart!!!”), I thought Dean was very good in this. Watching this movie made me want to see his other films (which sadly is very few).

      The last thing that I want to mention is that I really loved the story. I love films that take place over the course of such a small amount such as one day or a couple of days. I don’t know what it is. I think I just like the idea of something so important or significant happening in such a short amount of time. It just seems powerful.            

      As I mentioned up top, this movie clearly comments on American families and the perception people had on rebellious youths during the 1950’s. The first thing that struck me as being odd was in the beginning when the cops were talking to Plato. They said that he was "shooting puppies." Shooting puppies!? I don't understand, I can't picture this. It seems really creepy. But then again Sal Mineo's character bugged me throughout the entire film. He was just so strange that I couldn't connect to his character. Like was he really that scared of lights that he had to hysterically run out in front of the cops with a gun in his hand?

        Much of the problems and arguments that occur between parents and their children throughout the film are due to their disconnect. The parents really don't seem to understand the kids and the kids really don't seem to understand. In the article, Cohen says, "Always however, adults attempted to exert much control- physical, spiritual, intellectual, moral, educational- as was their right and duty." This is made obvious n the film by the fact that the parents (especially the mother ) always want to move whenever Jim has problems. They use it as an excuse to start over but never actually talk to Jim before they make their decisions. Another part that I thought was interesting was when Jim leaves his home in the morning and his father's concern is made apparent. The father says to Jim as he walks away, "Listen, watch out about choosing your pals. Don't let them choose you." When I first heard this I felt like it was something that a parent would say to a little kid, not their son in his late teens. I guess it shows how scared parents actually were for their kids and the tight hold they tried to have on them.   

       I absolutely hated the mother. Every time she said "That's a fine way to behave" or "That's a fine thing" I wanted to punch her in the face. Now that I think about it I also hated the father. They just seemed entirely into themselves, not caring at all about their son and what he is going through. In the scene where Jim wants to go to the police and tell them about Buzz’s death, I couldn’t believe the parents’ reactions. First off, you know there’s something wrong with the mother when she enters the scene saying, “I was going to take a sleeping pill but I wouldn’t until I knew you were home.” And I couldn’t believe how big of a baby the father was in this scene. I mean, come one he’s the man of the house and all he does is sit behind Jim and put his hands over his head. Concerning the father character, I really don't think I've ever seen a father/son relationship portrayed in this way. It was such a unique take on it where the son was so dominant and the father was so weak. 

    One of my favorite parts of the film was when Buzz takes Jim aside before the "chickie run" and says that he likes him. When Jim asks him why they continue to do this, Buzz says, "Well you've gotta do something. Don't you?" This is such a great line. I feel like it perfectly expresses how the rebellious youths most of the time were just searching for something do and searching to find their place in the world. 

        Another thing that I thought was really cool in this movie was the mansion.  As I was reading the article I thought it was interesting when Cohen referenced Elaine May's comment about the importance of  the household in the 1950's. May says, "The most tangible symbol of that [postwar American] dream was the home- the locale of the good life, the evidence of democratic abundance." It was interesting that most of this film didn't take place in the home and whenever it did there was nothing but arguments and confrontations. The only place where we see all of the kids truly happy is when they first enter the empty mansion. I thought this was a clever take on the role of the "home" implying that without the parents even a rundown old mansion is better than their perfect little houses where everything is provided for them.  

     Overall there is way too much to say about this film. I really enjoyed the movie and much like the other ones we've watched this semester I've made a conscious effort to go back and view it multiple times afterwards. I find that this not only helps me catch things I didn't the first time around but I also find myself appreciating them more. Rebel Without A Cause, in particular, was a really fun movie to watch because I felt like I was learning about and witnessing a part of both film history as well as American history.