The Touch of Evil (1958): The Last Noir

If you are at least a bit of a movie buff, then most likely you know who George Orson Welles is. Even if you think you don’t know. Two words: Citizen Kane. In fact, the author’s cinema of Wells, in which he was both the director, producer, and screenwriter, and played the main role. As well as the directorial debut of Comrade Orson, which remains the most famous film of his entire filmography. So, it seems to me that I am one of the many for whom Citizen Kane was the first Orson Welles movie I watched. And this movie, to be honest, didn’t really impress me, so of the rest of the already not very extensive set of films made by Comrade Wells, I watched only a few. But of those that I did look at, the one that delighted me the most was the one that is the topic of this article – Touch Of Evil 1958, in Russian translation known as Touch Of Evil (although, of course, the more correct version is still a Touch Of Evil).

Versions of the film Touch of Evil and Wells’ conflict with Universal

Before making an opinion about this film, I would like to note that there were only three official releases: the theatrical version, the preview version and the reconstructed version. The theatrical version is the subject of much controversy. The fact is that Wells didn’t like Hollywood, and Hollywood didn’t like him. As Charlton Heston, who plays one of the main roles in the Touch of Evil, used to say,

“(Wells) was endlessly charming with his crew and cast, but I saw him insulting the studio bosses on purpose. Very stupid. These are guys with money. If they don’t give you money, you don’t make any movies.”

One way or another, but the management of Universal Studios at some point removed Wells from the editing process. And as you probably guessed from the first two paragraphs, George also liked to act as an editor of his films, so Universal’s decision offended him very much. Nevertheless, Wells stayed in touch for some time and even wrote a detailed memorandum of more than fifty pages, detailing which one he personally would like to see the final version of the film. However, after some time, Comrade Orson finally spits on everything, and leaves the studio one-on-one with his creation.

Universal is awesome. They don’t know what to do with the movie at all. Wells’ vision seems too strange to them. In the end, they decide to shoot additional scenes with a new director in order to make something more understandable and marketable out of the Touch of Evil. Some actors – for example, the already mentioned comrade Heston – are trying to refuse to act out of loyalty to Wells. Specifically, Charlton is pointed out that the shooting of additional scenes is specified in his contract, and he has no right to refuse – in general, the additional scenes are somehow filmed, the film is somehow edited and the theatrical version is released.

The preview version was discovered when some professor at the University of California, Los Angeles requested a copy of the Touch of Evil to show his students. Somehow, he was not sent the latest version at all, but, as is commonly believed, one of the early versions. In particular, critic Jonathan Rosenbaum believes that this particular film is the closest to what Orson Welles personally wanted to see. This version of the film was publicly released in 1976, and it was this version that was considered the “director’s version” for a long time.

And finally, the sample of 1998 was assembled from the available materials, sort of trying to match the Wells memorandum as closely as possible. It is this version that is called reconstructed, now it is considered to be the closest to the director’s vision, and therefore it has been most quoted recently. However, it is worth noting that this opinion is far from uniform. Some critics, for example, note that after viewing side by side the theatrical release of the 58th and the reconstruction of the 98th, we can confidently say that Universal studio did not ignore George’s requests at all, and the original version definitely took into account the wishes of the director, along with his multi-page notes. And in general, the difference between the two montages is not so great: almost all elements have remained the same, many scenes are identical, the changes are extremely subtle – almost subconscious – and in some places the Universal studio version is even better.

Certain opinions say that additional scenes – that of the reconstructed version, that of the preview – unreasonably delay the film and disrupt the pace of narration. So that… not everything is so clear. And which of the three interpretations to watch is up to you personally to decide. However, I will probably make the task a little easier: the original edition of the 58th, apparently, has never had a translation into Russian, so if the English original is not an option for you, then there are only two reprints to choose from.Personally, I preferred the 1976 version.

Impressions of Noir Touch of Evil

So, now that we’ve figured out what exactly I watched, it’s finally time to voice my impressions of what I watched. I’ll start by repeating what has already been said: The Touch of Evil, in my opinion, is much better than Citizen Kane. Over the years that have passed between the filming of these two films, Comrade Wells has clearly gained both acting and directing skills. You may remember Charlton Heston from the main role in the film about the Green Soylent of 1973, but already in the 58th year comrade Heston was damn talented and able, so in this film he also leaves entirely positive impressions. Finally, the last of the central roles was played by Janet Lee, who also has a hefty share of acting skills, as a result of which she will naturally become famous just a couple of years later, due to her role in the famous Psycho film by Alfred Hitchcock.

Many of the supporting actors who starred in this film are also familiar to me – and many of them are also talented. For example, Akim Tamirov – yes, an Armenian from the Russian empire at that time – plays the role of the main antagonist in the Touch of Evil and at that time already managed to get a Golden Globe for his skill. Or Marlene Dietrich, whom I personally especially love for her role in the awesome adaptation of one of Agatha Christie’s novels, Witness of a Crime, released a year before the film Touch Of Evil. Or Harry Shannon, whom I met through the same Citizen Kane. Or Zsa Zsa Gabor, which… Oh, in general, the cast in the Touch of Evil is something. I don’t see so many very memorable names in one list very often. However, even unknown – either personally to me, or in principle – I also really liked the supporting actors. For example, a local gang of Mexican briolinschiki, which is a pleasure to look at.

Make-up artists in the film Touch of Evil

Yes, specifically our guys are really present in this movie – and they are, as usual, on the dark side of the force. It’s not that the available makeup artists were really villains, but, nevertheless, they earn extra money, fulfilling the instructions of the local criminal authority “Uncle” Joe Grundy, and it is the makeup artists who as a result become the cause of very important events for the plot. In general, I must say that, in general, not counting specifically the films about the briolinists, the guys in leather jackets have quite a lot of screen time here. And they are shown, by the way, quite… adequate, or something. Nevertheless, the image of a “rebel without a reason” is worn to the point of horror, and connections with organized crime are very much in the face of the local gang: they bring some kind of justification to their actions; there is a hint of the ultimate goal, or something… All this, in general, makes Wells’ noir black-and-white hot rodders more serious guys than their alternatives in many other films.

The Touch of Evil is Orson Welles’ best film?

The plot as a whole is served… in an interesting way. I can’t say exactly why, but the film feels somehow… feverishly, or something. There is a touch of some kind of surrealism of everything that is happening. However, exactly the same thing seemed to me in Citizen Kane, and even more so in the Welles-filmed Trial of Kafka’s novel, and in all other Orson films, too. So, perhaps this can be called a director’s style. All these slow plans, actors filmed from below… For some reason, a certain effect appears in my mind… minimal phantasmagoria. I even wonder if this effect persists in the theatrical version.

Henry Mancini was responsible for the soundtrack in this film. Yes, the one that the Pink Panther is another famous name in the piggy bank Touch of Evil. And yes, Comrade Mancini also gave his all: everything that you probably expect to hear at the words “Henry Mancini” is exactly what you will hear. Except that rock ‘n’ roll turned out to be too much jazz for the briolinschis – like, half (or even more) jump blues; a lot of brass. But this is my only complaint.

And, in conclusion, I would like to say that Touch Of Evil is still noir.Moreover, this movie is popularly known as the “last noir movie.” That is, from the classics, of course. Neo-noir doesn’t count. So, taking into account the peculiarities of the genre, I do not agree with those critics who found the 1976 version of the film I watched to be too long. No, of course, I really haven’t seen the theatrical version, but still… It seems to me that everything was in its place. Noir – it’s so stringy, viscous. It’s like a western or a road movie, but heavier… And if you throw out these ten minutes with a tail, it seems to turn out too hastily. Although, again, I’m speculating. But, one way or another, the bottom line is that I liked the film to everyone and absolutely comprehensively. I would like to replace Citizen Kane in the popular consciousness with the Touch Of Evil, because, as it seems to me personally, Touch Of Evil is the best film by Orson Welles. Yes, I repeat, I haven’t seen all his films yet, but, damn it, it’s very, very difficult to raise such a high bar even higher.

So the Touch of Evil of 1958, I boldly advise everyone. This is Orson Welles, after all. Yes, I said that he is overrated, but it’s time to clarify that I don’t think Comrade Wells is overrated much: Orson is definitely a skillful and comprehensively talented person who has his own, unusual vision and is able to transfer it to the screen. So here we have a classic noir film, which at the same time is an author’s film, and therefore in an original performance and with many interesting elements. Add to this a whole scattering of deservedly stellar names in all positions – what more can you ask for? In general, a very, very interesting movie, which is definitely worth spending one evening on.