Reactions to 'The Other Side of the Wind'

[RayKelly]

Judging some of the tweets coming from bloggers who attended the New York Film Festival press screening yesterday, there are a few folks who clearly missed the point of the movie.

One person tweeted that while the film within a film footage was beautifully photographed, the party shots looked amateurish. The same writer posted several comments about how she was fixated on a man in the audience who looked like, but wasn't, Steve Bannon. Can't wait to read her formal review.

Another person claimed (with no support) that Welles had long-standing problems with women, which is reflected in racist. misogynist Jake Hannaford. The only people who would like this movie wanted are those who want to see a nude woman parade around on screen, she stated.

Based on a quick review, I would say 70 percent of the tweets were positive. A commenter said the film got a mixed reception from those in attendance.

[Le Chiffre]

The biggest change is having the opening narration done by a character in the film (Otterlake) rather than the filmmaker.

Yes, that is a big change, in the sense that a lot of people might assume that, within the diegetic world of the film, what they are watching is a "found footage" movie by Brooks Otterlake. But I'll have to see the film to see how it works.

[Roger Ryan]

The biggest change is having the opening narration done by a character in the film (Otterlake) rather than the filmmaker.

Yes, that is a big change, in the sense that a lot of people might assume that, within the diegetic world of the film, what they are watching is a "found footage" movie by Brooks Otterlake. But I'll have to see the film to see how it works.

Even in Welles' original script, someone put together the film as a "document" (the unseen narrator implies that he participated in collecting/editing the material together). Since Bogdanovich has claimed that Welles asked him to complete the film in the event of Welles' death, I think it's an elegant continuation of the film's self-reflexive aspect to have an older Otterlake piece together a film which documents Hannaford's last day (especially since the Otterlake of forty years later could very well be primarily making documentaries!).

As I mentioned on the first page of this thread, there were at least a couple of reviewers who seemed to misunderstand the introduction. One claimed that Otterlake's reference to cell phones was anachronistic (apparently believing that Otterlake's introduction was meant to have been recorded in the 70s). Another thought it was Bogdanovich himself introducing the film by informing the audience that what they would see is a fictional film shot by Orson Welles, as if the cinéma vérité-style footage might confuse audience members into thinking they were watching a real documentary (I'm really hoping this interpretation is way off the mark)!

The use of this kind of introduction calls back to how Welles intended to open his film adaptation of Heart of Darkness by explaining the concept of first-person POV. Since having Marlow represented by the camera throughout was a fairly radical concept, Welles sought to explicate the artistic choice at the beginning of the film so the audience would be prepared for it. Wind's equally radical idea of presenting a story via "found footage" required a similar introduction to prepare the audience.

[RayKelly]

Filip Jan Rymsza was asked about the opening narration on Twitter. Here is what he posted this afternoon:
"This was Peter’s inspired idea — to read it as his character, Brooks Otterlake, reflecting on the events of that evening. He added five lines to Orson’s original text."

[Le Chiffre]

That's good. A Welles/Bogdanovich fusion, then.

I think it's an elegant continuation of the film's self-reflexive aspect to have an older Otterlake piece together a film which documents Hannaford's last day...there were at least a couple of reviewers who seemed to misunderstand the introduction. One claimed that Otterlake's reference to cell phones was anachronistic (apparently believing that Otterlake's introduction was meant to have been recorded in the 70s). Another thought it was Bogdanovich himself introducing the film by informing the audience that what they would see is a fictional film shot by Orson Welles

That's funny. Maybe they should have filmed a closeup of Bogdanovich as the elder Otterlake when he says, "My name is Brooks Otterlake". Actually might not have been a bad idea, since Bogdanovich is more well known as an actor nowadays, from his stint on THE SOPRANOS. I do like the idea of the Bogdanovich intro, though it is a big change.

I think the elephant in our room is the fact that we have been anxiously waiting for this film for years, some of us for decades, and personally I've been waiting for it since the AFI broadcast of 1975- 43 years! Almost half a century! So objectivity is out the window for most Wellesians- anything professionally put together would more than satisfy us.

Quite right, Tony. I've been waiting 32 years myself, and considering what a miracle it is that the film is finally finished in some form, to actually dislike it is really not even an option for me.

[RayKelly]

One of the rougher reviews of The Other Side of the Wind. Posted by Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere. http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2018/09/sorry-but-welles-wind-isnt-much/

"It’s a bitter, cynical, sometimes darkly funny hodgepodge, an inside-new-Hollywood movie that was filmed on the fly between 1970 through ’75 in various formats, and a film that has a lot on its mind but has crawled so far up its own ass that the viewer can’t hope to enjoy much access. I can’t honestly call it a good film. It’s so damn spotty and splotchy. So scatter-gun, so haphazardly chop-chop and cut-cut. It never achieves a rhythm or a sense of flow-through or harmony of any kind. Within 10 or 15 minutes I was feeling exhausted. ... Orson half-admits to the audience that he’s just f--king around as best he can when an older sycophant guy tells a dark-haired producer-or-agent guy that there’s really no script, and the producer-or-agent guy walks out and says “tell Jake he’s just wasted my time.”

[tonyw]

One should expect more of the same - the Rotten Tomatoes, arrogant internet reviewer who has seen nothing and knows nothing - especially about Welles's experimental work.

[Terry]

Huh, Wells has been writing about movies since the 1970s. I do wonder if Murawski varied the pace of the cuts (in a musical way as I imagine Welles would have done, such as starting presto with a retard down to andante) or if he keeps the frenzied pace of the first party scene for all of it (which I hope isn't the case.) If I recall correctly, the scene with Huston being nasty to Dan Tobin isn't edited so densely.

[leamanc]

"It’s a bitter, cynical, sometimes darkly funny...

Wells says that like it’s a bad thing.

Wells is a veteran critic, so I’m not going to lump him in with the others who I think “don’t get it.”

But still, if you applied his outlook to Citizen Kane, that’s also a bitter, cynical, sometimes darkly humorous movie where the only thing that happens is a reporter fails to figure out a dying man’s last words.

[RayKelly]

But still, if you applied his outlook to Citizen Kane, that’s also a bitter, cynical, sometimes darkly humorous movie where the only thing that happens is a reporter fails to figure out a dying man’s last words.

Love this observation.

[Wellesnet]

From Christopher Schiller of Script:

The Other Side of the Wind is told with multiple lenses, both actually and metaphorically. These distort, refocus and color the story told. Used wisely in the hands of the masterful director these tools lay a kaleidoscope of potential in how the audience perceives the story. Welles was always one to know the importance of the visual elements in the framework of a movie. And he used it to full effect.

Read the full review at https://www.scriptmag.com/reviews/film-reviews/telluride-film-festival-film-review-the-other-side-of-the-wind

[RayKelly]

"Walking out, I immediately felt this was made solely for those who admire and revere the iconic Orson Welles. With an opening text that explains its existence, this doesn’t exactly invite a new generation of movie lovers into the world of Welles, or give them any reason to explore some of his other beloved works like Citizen Kane and The Third Man. The film can be downright infuriating as we see people having a conversation, with dozens of cuts through a two sentence conversation, and you can clearly see they’re not interacting let alone, not even in the same room. ... Netflix seems like an exciting home for the film as I couldn’t peg what person outside of film academics and critics are going to seek this out actively. Imagining that 10 minutes into the movie, the viewer will likely flip to a re-run of The Office or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt for a more pleasant evening, it would be most interesting to see how the casual person that stays until the end, feels about it all. " -- Clayton Davis | Awards Circuit - TWO AND A HALF STARS
Read his full review at http://www.awardscircuit.com/2018/09/25/nyff-film-review-the-other-side-of-the-wind-is-a-curiosity-for-a-particular-kind-of-cinephile/

[jbrooks]

I guess Clayton means "casual" persons like those who think "The Third Man" is an Orson Welles' film.

[RayKelly]

I guess Clayton means "casual" persons like those who think "The Third Man" is an Orson Welles' film.

Ouch.
And I did not count cuts during the screening I attended, but the "dozens of cuts through a two sentence conversation" seems a bit of an exaggeration.

[NoFake]

This review just hit my inbox, via the newsletter Hyperallergic:

https://hyperallergic.com/462250/48-years-in-the-making-orson-welles-last-film-is-finally-released