TOE thread

[ToddBaesen]

-

Here's some interesting excerpts from Charlton Heston's Journals relating to TOUCH OF EVIL.

_


In late December of 1956, Universal pictures sent Charlton Heston a script for consideration by Paul Monash, based on the novel BADGE OF EVIL by Whit Masterson. After reading the script, Heston phoned Universal to find out who would be directing. Universal explained that no director had been set, but that Orson Welles was signed to play the corrupt police Captain, Hank Quinlan. Heston suggested that Welles would be a good choice to direct the film as well, and indicated he would agree to make it, if Welles was at the helm.




WORKING WITH A GENUIS by CHUCK HESTON
-----------------------

Jan 1, 1957 St. Helen, Michigan: It's pleasant to have some space and time to read scripts. So far the Universal thing, BADGE OF EVIL seems the best but who directs?

Jan 2: My next movie prospect is still uncertain. I don't like LABYRINTH or JANE EYRE enough to do them. No word from Universal about Welles directing as well as acting in their piece.

Jan 3: I read and turned down a Robert Montgomery TV show that would have netted me a lot of dough: this gave my sense of ethics and integrity enough food to allow me to phone my agent, Herman Citron and urge him to push Universal on the picture with Welles. It's only a police-suspense story, like the ones they've been doing for thirty-some years, but I think with Welles it might have a chance to be something.

Jan 4: Citron says Universal agrees with my suggestion and has offered the directing job to Welles. If he accepts, I'll do the film for seven and a half percent of the gross. This seems fine to me, though I'd be glad of a little cash in the meantime. Now we have to see if Orson wants to get back in the swim again. I hope he does… he seems to me one of film's few geniuses, and I'd like to work with him.

Jan 8: Citron called to tell me Universal had accepted our gross deal and closed with Welles. I'm really pleased about this. I think we have a chance at a better picture than almost any I could make now. I'm bound to learn a great deal from Welles, in any case. I think he has what I need now.

Jan 14 Los Angeles: I arrived on time, but the day as usual, wasn't nearly long enough for all the stuff I had to do in it. The main stuff, of course, was meeting Welles. he seems to be all he's said to be, which is a good deal. In five days on the pictures he's rewritten the script. Almost all of it's different, and almost all of it's better. There's a lot to do, still, but he might bring it off.

Jan 21: I woke a little late and reread Orson's rewrite of TOUCH OF EVIL. It now lacks only good dialogue to make it a really meritable script. The makeup test was a great success. Bud Westmore made me look so acceptably Mexican they're cutting the covering lines about my not being Mexican. Orson thinks a moustache is in order; if I start today I can just make it. We also had a Mexican tailor begin work on a suit, which will help.

Jan 22: I picked up the finished script, Orson's second draft, on TOUCH OF EVIL and found it a great improvement over what we began with.

Jan 26: I spent the greater part of the day at Universal, sitting in while Orson cut twenty-five pages out of his script. Al Zugsmith's party for Welles tonight was interesting. We drove Orson, who proved a superb talker. We got into a provocative argument over viewing rushes, which bodes well, I think… I like to work with directors I can argue with.

Feb 4: Today was spent in plumbing Orson, trying to find out where we are, exactly. I didn't. Janet Leigh, it turns out, has a broken arm, but they're unwilling, or unable, to recast the part, so she will play it. Joseph Calleia will do the part of Miller (Menzies in the finished film); offbeat casting, but not bad.

Feb 8: There is a stirring of unrest out at Universal about the way Orson's going about the film. They seem to fear what I hope: that he'll make an offbeat film out of what they'd planned as a predictable little programmer. They're bitching about budget and schedule and a dozen other things, but Orson is holding firm.

Feb 10: Rehearsal again at Orson's House. I still don't have a clear idea of the hole I should cut in the air with this man, but the scenes themselves are rounding out. I'm shying away from a specifically Latin characterization: I know that I have to go further than I am now with it. Fortunately, I think we can bully them out of some more rehearsal time, perhaps till Friday.

Feb 13: We dyed my moustache black; it's better and so is the script. Orson's ability to improve on a routine piece of screenwriting is amazing. As I suspected in the beginning, I'm likely to learn a good deal here.

Feb 15: Orson was ill yesterday and rehearsals were under way again today, both shaky but undaunted; we’re still rehearsing unofficially at his house. It's difficult to get beyond a certain point without sets, but he's resourceful at providing actors with problems to solve. I still don't feel I've done anything at all toward making this cop Mexican but I will. I tend to work shallowly at this stage, too often.

Feb 18: First day of shooting. Well, we began shooting with a drama I've no doubt Orson planned. We rehearsed all day, lining up a dolly shot covering the entire first scene in Sanchez's apartment. We never turned a camera all morning or all afternoon, the studio brass gathering in the shadows in anxious little knots. By the time we began filming at a quarter to six, I know they'd written off the whole day. At 7:40, Orson said, "Okay, print. That's a wrap on this set. We're two days ahead of schedule." Twelve pages in one take, including inserts, two-shots, over-shoulders; the whole scene in one, moving through three rooms, with seven speaking parts.


-

[jaime marzol]

great stuff. i have the welles chapters out of 3 heston books, and the article touch of genius. what is this from?

[jaime marzol]

cole:

the carringer book says it was something else, and welles changed it to fanny. it was one of those covert sexual thing he liked to do, the book said. i have not read ambersons. don't know what her name was.

[jaime marzol]

sex does sell, always has. but it seems to me the way welles did things like he made touch of evil, it was to amuse himself. he also amused metty , and tamiroff. you know those 3 huddled about all the framing, and lighting on janet leigh's breasts.

[Cole]

Jaime – If that’s what the Carringer book states, it’s wrong. From beginning to end, the book referred to George’s aunt as “Fanny.” The only name that was changed in the movie was George’s uncle, who in the book was also named George. For the movie Orson changed the uncle’s name to Jack, and undoubtedly he did this to avoid the small confusion of having two main characters with the name George.

I haven’t read the Carringer book myself, but if he took the position that Orson inserted a lot of hidden sexual messages into the movie, Carringer used made-up facts to support this claim.

[jaime marzol]

does not surprise me that carringer is wrong. in my eyes, all his opinions, and assumtions are wrong, so why not his facts.

this is where i found it:
carringer's ambersons book, page 197, footnote 60:
"the name by which everyone called agnes moorhead , changed from maggie in tarkinton novel. Welles loved covert allusions of this sort."

cole, are you sure about this? if you are right, then carringer is less competent that i thought he was.

he is right about welles loving covert allusions. i have found so many hidden covert sexual allusions in touch of evil, that has just set welles fans foaming at the mouth (some on this site). they think i'm making it up, but it's right there on the screen for anyone who cares to search.

would be really surprised if fanny is fanny in the book also.

if cole is right, then my first impressions were right; carringer and his books, suck.

[Welles Fan]

Jaime, I have a copy of the novel, and all through it, Aunt Fanny is indeed referred to as...Aunt Fanny. Fanny was not an uncommon name at the turn of the century. Also, in the Criterion Laser, Carringer claims that the scene with George, Fanny and the boiler is re-shot because Moorhead was so over the top in that scene. Is this true?, because she's really pushing it in the scene as it exists now. If that is the toned-down version, one can see why the preview audiences might have laughed at that part.

Also, as to the framing and lighting on Janet Leigh's breasts-when weren't they ever treated in that fashion? I don't think I've seen a film with Leigh that didn't feature her breasts front and center. ...Or maybe I was spending so much time watching them, I didn't notice other things in the movies? hmmm....

[jaime marzol]

in the scene with susan in uncle joe's office:

a) the shot is lined up so it looks like uncle joe's gun is lined up with susan's breasts, as he waves the gun up and down.

b) uncle joe shoves the gun in his pants and leigh was probably directed to follow the path of the gun with her eyes. she looks down right at uncle joe's crotch.

c) tamiroff can be seen looking to make sure his cigar shadow falls right between leigh's breasts.

d) tamirof lunges with phallic cigar in mouth right to susan's lips.

e) once again camera lines up the shot so it looks like tamiroff is holding phallic cigar to leigh's lips.

f) tamirof turns around and is clearly seen looking right at leigh's breasts

g) as uncle joe puts on his coat the shot is lined up so that it looks like uncle joe's arm thrusting through the coat sleeve is headed towards susan's breasts. play this little segment a few times and tell if it's not suspicious the way tamiroff stops where he does, and how metty lined up the shot.

h) as leigh backs out of his office, uncle joe licks his lips; this one is blatant.

these are the ones just off the top of my head.

if this doesn't sound like much, you should see how incriminating it looks when you collect these clips and play them side by side.

[ToddBaesen]

-

Carringer isn't wrong. The reference is to Isabel saying to George, "wouldn't you like to have (the maid) Aggie fix something for you in the dining room. In the novel the maid's name was Maggie. So it was Welles changing the maid's name to Agnes Moorehead's nick-name of Aggie. It has nothing to do with Aunt Fanny's name being changed.

[jaime marzol]

todd:
that makes sense. too bad. was more fun to think that carringer was wrong. i'm not a carringer fan.

[dmolson]

Jaime
its' fun to put all those ideas together, makes for a great college paper thesis. I'm sure you're not the first to interpret all or at least some of these signs, but I personally only recognize a couple of those 'items' you've described. Perhaps Welles really wanted to spice up the film, slip a handful past the censors, or maybe you've got a great imagination.
On Carringer, I've found his book on Citizen Kane as very interesting and helpful. I think perhaps you're a little too tough on him, but I won't allow my imagination to read that as 'jealousy'...:^)

[ChristopherBanks]

Jaime, I have a copy of the novel, and all through it, Aunt Fanny is indeed referred to as...Aunt Fanny. Fanny was not an uncommon name at the turn of the century. Also, in the Criterion Laser, Carringer claims that the scene with George, Fanny and the boiler is re-shot because Moorhead was so over the top in that scene. Is this true?, because she's really pushing it in the scene as it exists now. If that is the toned-down version, one can see why the preview audiences might have laughed at that part.

Only the first part is re-shot. You can easily tell where the splice occurs, the lighting goes from flat to stark and the sound suddenly changes to that of two people talking in an empty mansion instead of a dead soundstage.

[jaime marzol]

dolson:
these things i mentioned are right there on the screen, it's not imagination. some of the books on film crit i've studied teach you not to be a passive viewer. too often today all we have to do is pay admition, sit in theater and enjoy arnold schwartznegger destroying the mall. this is fine for modern films, no brain needed, it's all handed to you. but it would be a mistake to think that the same 'no thought' process can be applied to films by welles, hitch, von sternberg, von stroheim, etc. there is so much beneath the surface to be enjoyed, that to sit through a fim like KANE, or REAR WINDOW, without applying tought paterns, without identifying symatec clusters of meaning, infered meanings, casting theories, you rob yourself of a lot of film watching enjoyment. yes, film watching, if you steer away from eddie murphy type films, could be a rewarding, and intellectual experience.

and i don't expect everyone to agree with my findings. schollars to this day still quibble about what shakespeare meant, and intended. it's largely a matter of opinion.

the few who have read my book were totally surprised by it, and i've heard on more than a few occassions that reading my book taught them a different way to look at films. this is great. that was my intention. the books i read taught me a new way to watch and enjoy films. i'm just trying to pass the enjoyment on to others. and that it's as much fun finding this stuff as it is cataloging it to the written page with text, captures, and circles and arrows. i'm not trying to smear welles, like some blindfolded screaming ninis have said.

but the blindfolded screaming ninis have given me some pleasure, and reasurance that i'm headed in the right direction. maybo some close minded critics will see it, blast it in their columns, and i'll make sales.

on carringer:
no jelousy. if the stuff was good i would embrace it because i love everything welles did. another knowledgable schollar's take on welles is always welcomed, and treasured.

haven't you noticed that carringer never assigns credit to welles for anything? haven't you noticed that in his writing, it's always some one else's idea, it's never welles. according to carringer, in the wellesian topics he chose to write about, welles is not the resident genius, every one else is. this is what i dislike, and disstrust about works by higham, and kael. carringer just hides his contempt for welles a bit better than higham, and kael. i guess this comes from reading what is below the surface as well as what he puts up front for you too see.

this is my opinion on it. i don't expect any one to read this and change their opinion, but next time you read carringer on welles, maybe a little bit of this info will be in the back of your head and some of this might come to light.

dan, what do you think about carringer putting the blame on the unravelling of ambersons on the oedipuss complex? he wrapped up his essay by offering up, "where is hamlet in the welles canon?" as if this answered everything. and i paid $30 for that book.

rosenbaum feels the same way about carringer. either we are both jelous of him, or we have seen something that maybe others havent yet. who knows, it's a crap shoot when it comes to opinions.

[jaime marzol]

dan:
ever see huston's KEY LARGO?

we at first hear about the e.g. robinson character, "he is rich, or he thinks he is the way the others jump when he talks," "he's a lady killer," "he only comes out at nigh." we, the audience, know they are gangsters.

we finally see mr big. he is bathing in aa tub. he stands up and his image reaches the top part of the frame. he steps out of the tub and shrinks in size. he steps off a podium the tub is on and shrinks some more. he stands in front of a mirror and his reflection only covers the bottom quarter of the mirror. the average person thinks nothing of it, or thinks the mirror is high. once you read books about film enterpretation, you know the director is telling you that this is a small man, and if he dies in the end, he will die a cowards death.

the gangsters being in key largo instead of NY, is a sign that their day is over. this is later underlined when under duress, curly hoff gives the same schpeel about the good old days that the e. g. robinson character gives his old pal ziggy, who he hasn't seen in years.

ever watch UNDER THE VOLCANO? next time see how many signs you can find that the director hid in the work, that tell you that this main character will die in the end.

those are the types of things i enjoy in film watching. and this gives you new avenues of understanding to look for in old favorites. these are the types of things that my book will teach the reader, without the reader ever suspecting he is being taught something.

[jaime marzol]

the other thing i don't dig about carringer's books is that he focus on anything but the work. you read the book he wrote on kane but it did nothing to help you understand why this film is so high up on lists. he says not one word about style, form, narrative meaning. it's all production fact driven, and then i don't feel he's honest there, so his books don't turn my screws like naremore's book does. i can find more worth in a single chapter of naremore's book than i can find in carringer's collected works on welles.

i would also put that single naremore chapter against keal's, and higham's collected works on welles.

but this is only my opinion, which i'm posting to an opinion forum, not attempting to piss off any one.

(i have to tread carefully around here these days. if i have to come back into this post and insert a happyface i will, but i hate using happy faces)