Reactions to 'The Other Side of the Wind'

[jbrooks]

As reactions and reviews of "The Other Side of the Wind" are going to start coming in in a few days, I thought it might make sense to initiate a new thread to discuss those reactions (and to give reactions of our own once we get to see it).

So far, the most substantive reaction in print has been from Rian Johnson in Vanity Fair:

"As a Welles fan, this movie lands so hard,” says The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson, 44, one of a handful of people who have seen the completed film, minus its finished score; it runs an hour and 57 minutes, not including end credits. “On a style level, it’s cut in a way that feels slightly beyond where we are now. It’s got a very fast, collage-like feel. This movie keys directly into what’s grand and tragic about [Welles’s] later years. It taps directly into the fuse box of that tragedy. I’ve seen it twice, and I need to see it a dozen more times."

[Roger Ryan]

Here's a reaction from me: that trailer is fantastic and the footage looks amazing; that final shot of Norman Foster (what a hilarious closing line for the trailer) looks like it was shot yesterday.

[Jay]

The trailer easily exceeded my expectations. The footage looks nothing short of stunning.

[Le Chiffre]

The trailer is dazzling, although it doesn't seem to give much sense of what the film is about. That won't matter to Welles fans, most of whom probably already know what it's about, but others might be a bit baffled by it. The trailer is very well done, though, and yes, the footage looks beautiful. Agree, great punchline by Norman Foster.

[Florinaldo]

I am sure that whoever was in charge of putting together this trailer squealed with joy when they were directed to that shot of Norman Foster and the films cans; it would have been impossible to contrive a more perfect way to end it in light of the past 40 years of waiting for the movie.

Only three actors are mentioned; does Bogdanovich's character have that much more screen time than the real young male lead or is it just because of relative name recognifition?

I agree that it may come across a rather baffling to a good section of Netflix's subscribers, although the "At last, decades after OW's death, his final work" angle can generate some amount of curiosity. Anyway, would it have done great box office even if it had come out at the time it was shot or is it just of more interest to a specific small section of the movie audience?

[Jedediah Leland]

Anyway, would it have done great box office even if it had come out at the time it was shot or is it just of more interest to a specific small section of the movie audience?

An excellent question. I've long thought that If the movie had come out in 1970-5 (i.e. when Welles was still working on it), then it probably stood a very good chance of being a sleeper hit that tapped into the zeitgeist; but that by 1976, and certainly 1977, film tastes had changed enough that it would have seemed weirdly dated - and so it could easily have vanished into obscurity, after all that work. I think Welles himself implicitly acknowledged this with some of his comments in the early 80s, saying that he couldn't release the film as previously envisioned, because it would appear dated, but that he might be able to work the footage into some new mockumentary on Hannaford.

So to answer your question, yes, I think the long wait has helped the film. It can be judged on its own merits, as a historical piece. And NetFlix have a good brand for that kind of thing, with all the period pieces they make - their viewers are quite accustomed to watching historical series.

I also think the long wait has helped the film immeasurably from a technical point of view. The quality of the images on the trailer speaks for itself. I share the frustration of everybody here that the movie wasn't out there 20 or 30 years ago - but with hindsight, the Showtime deal that was very nearly brokered in 1998 could well have been another disaster, being based on scratchy workprint material, without access to the negative being envisioned, and missing many key scenes. This has been a long time coming, but it looks like they've done a proper, respectful job here - not another Jess Franco 'Don Quixote'.

[Jedediah Leland]

Or to paraphrase, "Old Orson Welles said it himself nearly a half-century ago: We will sell no film before its time."

[jtarvainen]

Hopefully someone will record the Telluride post-screening Q&A with Bogdanovich, McBride and Marshall. I'd love to hear how they feel about the finished film.

[RayKelly]

Variety talks about Oscar chances for The Other Side of the Wind - making the case to honor Bob Murawski, Gary Graver and others.

" it seems like an Oscar would be a mere trinket to acknowledge such a bold project so strikingly removed, aesthetically, from Welles’ first revered feature (and the greatest film ever made), “Citizen Kane.” But perhaps a special award would be warranted, not just for Welles and his punchy vision, but for the team that brought it out of film lore and, finally, onto screens for the world to see."

https://variety.com/2018/film/in-contention/could-orson-welles-compete-for-an-oscar-one-last-time-1202923199/,

[Wellesnet]

Alberto Anile,
First reflections after very first screening of ‘The Other Side of the Wind’:
http://www.wellesnet.com/first-reflecti ... -the-wind/

‘The Other Side of the Wind’ premiere coverage, first reviews:
http://www.wellesnet.com/other-side-win ... re-review/

[Jay]

Eric Kohn's review on IndieWire: "Orson Welles’ Unfinished Final Film Still Feels That Way, But It’s Essential Viewing Anyway - https://www.indiewire.com/2018/08/the-other-side-of-the-wind-review-orson-welles-venice-1201998975/

[Wellesnet]

Reviews are now coming in for Morgan Neville's documentary as well.
‘They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead’ premiere coverage, first reviews:
http://www.wellesnet.com/review-roundup ... n-im-dead/

[leamanc]

Question about They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead, after reading the review roundup: does it actually contain footage of Rich Little as Otterlake?

[Roger Ryan]

Question about They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead, after reading the review roundup: does it actually contain footage of Rich Little as Otterlake?

Rich Little is credited as "party guest" in the film, so he's there. We know he was playing Otterlake, but will the viewer who is not familiar with the history know? I'd be surprised if Little is addressed as Otterlake in the film so, for all intents and purposes, he is probably shown espousing an idea or two that sound like something Otterlake would say but come from just another hanger-on.

You can tell just how dense and exasperating Wind must be by the errors critics are making who have had the opportunity to see the film only once. One critic commented on what he thought was a blatant anachronistic reference to "cell phones" in Otterlake's opening narration, apparently not realizing that Otterlake is meant to be speaking to us from the present about an event that happened forty-odd years earlier (at least, that's my understanding without having seen the film). There also seems to be a big concern over the "politically-incorrect" sexism and racism shown in the film as if these were not actual topics the film was addressing, but belonged exclusively to films of this era. It's like saying Kane's physical and psychological abuse of his second wife was fine for audiences of the 40s, but deplorable by today's standards!

[leamanc]

You can tell just how dense and exasperating Wind must be by the errors critics are making who have had the opportunity to see the film only once.

Thanks for the info about Rich Little, Roger.

I have noticed what you’re talking about in the reviews. More than one has noted how “un-PC” the film is. It boggles the mind that anyone would apply 2018 standards to evaluating that.

In general, I feel like a lot of the critics just don’t “get it” even though they gave largely positive reviews.