TOUCH OF EVIL thread 2

[blunted by community]

dmolson, that is all great stuff in the movie, and it's what welles brought to the picture. it's known in some books as the extra-narrative. i agree that the main narrative is trite, and in the hands of another director, it would be just as trite but would not have the great sexual rtension that welles brought to this picture. i refer glenn to man in the shadows - that narrative is as trite as TOE, but look at what a difference a director makes. man in the shadows is what touch of evil would have been in the hands of another director.

[Glenn Anders]

By Gad, I think we are again in agreement. Blunted, how did we do that? We must be mellowing on this site.

Perhaps, it is only late maturity.

All the best,

Glenn

[R Kadin]

Forgive my cultural impoverishment, blunted, but what, exactly, is "man in the shadows"? Book? Film? Both? Neither?

[Sir Bygber Brown]

I agree with Orson - i never thought Quinlan was a genius - its hardly genius to plant evidence. He's a man who does terrible things, but a man all the same - that's what makes him a terrific character. My favourite Welles character.

[blunted by community]

man in the shadows is a crappy b-film that welles was in for universal before they let him direct TOE. it was directed by jack arnold, a crappy director. says a lot about how universal felt about welles, giving arnold new and improved equipment
(panavision), and giving welles old and crappy equipment.

now glenn will come along and try to argue the virtues of jack arnold. the truth is that he was as crappy a director as most of the guys that were on the universal roster in the late 50s.

[blunted by community]

after welles created magic with old and crappy equipment, universal was not satisfied with what welles did. the guys that looked at touch of evil and decided that welles' picture needed help, have credits like the mole people, Ma and Pa Kettle movies, creature with the atom brain, tarzan's fight for life (1958), 6 million dollar man, bonanza, abbot and costello movies. gives you a warm feeling of security that the guys at universal were right on it making sure they could release the best picture possible from that mess that welles assembled.

in hestons diary it said that while filming touch of evil crowds were showing up to the rushes, they were applauding and cheering.

i would say the execs were hit with a movie that looked like no other movie they had seen before, and had welles not had the crazy-welles reputation trailling him, they might have seen it for what it was. but they didn't, they put their mediocre fingers in the pie and reshaped a masterpiece.

i think i've said enough now

[Sir Bygber Brown]

Creature with the atom brain...

You crack me up!

Is that a real movie?

ps, i'm still laughing!

[Glenn Anders]

Now, Blun-n-n-n-ted, once more your attempts to paint me as a crass philistine fail. I am eagerly awaiting quality, when Harry Alan Towers completes his monumental remake of TOE. He has has not made a picture since his 1995 tryptich of masterpieces: THE MANGLER, BULLET TO BEIJING, and MIDNIGHT IN ST. PETERSBURG -- all co-written, as you would know better than anyone here, by Welles and Peter Welbeck.

Onward and upward toward quality, I say!

Glenn

[R Kadin]

Thanks for the clarification, blunted. So, we're talking "Man in the Shadow" (singular). Got it.

That being the case, then, your reference to it supports a point made earlier, i.e., that, in order to appreciate an important part of TOE's significance, one has to see it in context, wherein (taking "Man in the Shadow" as an example of what was then the norm) the pivotal corruption lies outside, not within, the police force.

More intricately, though, Welles doesn't merely turn that convention on its head (far too simplistic a trick for our man); instead, he actually makes room in the force for, not one, not two, but at least three different breeds of cop: Quinlan and Vargas being the polar opposites with Menzies caught in the middle.

Importantly to Welles's intent, it's Menzies that emerges as the real hero - just as the everyman in the rest of us would need to rise to the occasion should we ever likewise allow institutionalized corruption a foothold. Nothing trite or too linear about that, I'd argue.

[Sir Bygber Brown]

I came in at the end of this conversation - they're not really remaking TOE, are they?

And Menzies is a more pathetic sort of creature - he's really just Vargas' pawn at the end there. He's a follower - all he needs is someone to seem like the leader, and to tell him what to do. When Vargas tells him he shouldn't have been blindly putting his faith in Hank, Menzies just switches over to obeying Vargas' orders!

That's my take on it.

[Glenn Anders]

Walter Murch suggested that a small but important restoration he made in TOE was a cut which showed Menzies as a far more complex and sympathetic figure than we might have thought otherwise. Menzies has known Quinlan whole, over many years, and out of friendship, and from his original professional admiration, he has attempted to protect Quinlan from the World and from himself.

Glenn

[R Kadin]

Then I owe a real debt to Mr. Murch, since that's very much an opinion I came to about Menzies thanks to the restored version.

Like it or not, folks, while it's part of the fun in most narratives to identify with the story's prime movers, more often, most of us resemble Menzies a great deal more than we ever will a Quinlan or a Vargas. Welles knew that and he knowingly chose a conventional, two-dimensional, pulp fiction format as his backdrop to help that otherwise dissonant theme stand out.

Remember, it was an America not long over its tumultuous affair with McCarthyism that Welles was addressing. Quinlan is his McCarthy-figure and Welles wanted to make sure that he sent a strong signal to the only people who, in his estimation, could put a stop to the McCarthy/Quinlans yet to come. So, in appreciating TOE, the one thing one doesn't want to do is misread the Menzies character. IMHO, that is.