criterionforum.org

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:25 am**

Hmm, interesting. Where did you get the 1970s cut captures from? The quality seems quite good, though jaggy - is that jagginess in the source?

1.85:1 looks like the composed ratio, though.

Cheers, Dave.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:16 am**

The fourth set aren't actually identical frames... the second one is missing the 5th person.

As for the fifth set, it seems to me that the 1970 capture has a bit too much empty space... and the extra metal across Tamiroff's chest and the extra fabric around his neck make the image appear more confusing. But perhaps that's just when the image is out of the context of the frames around it.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:22 am**

Thanks Dave-- opinions after anamorphing them in my head: aside from the Deitrich still (where there seems a slight excess of compositional air over her head), I like the academy ratio on my vhs, which is why I've held off on the DVD. Especially the first cap with the diminishing size of the architectural arches, the cutoff of the top of the largest archest blows the whole effect of perspective.

I say we create a screen-cap sticky, as an accent to Gary's site, for those films that he doesn't review (almost no silents on his site whatsoever.) Lots of folks would find it a godsend I'm certain.

I've been holding off on ARKADIN as I'm only moderately interested at best in such a monster treatment given to such a ho hum candidate.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:55 am**

According to imdb and other sites, before shooting began, Welles wanted to film "Touch of Evil" in widescreen. HOWEVER, Universal "ordered" him to shoot it in 1.33:1 (or 1.37:1, whatever). So, Welles conceded on that point, shooting (and therefore composing) every shot to the 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

Flash forward to 1998, when they were restoring the film, they wanted/"offered" to retain the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, but present-day Universal "ordered" the restoration team to prepare the new version in widescreen. That's how the restoration was projected and later put on DVD.

Is this correct? Unless there's anything more to the story, it seems that the restoration BOTCHED up the movie. Because even though Welles wanted widescreen, he didn't compose it in widescreen (due to "orders"), he composed it in 1.33:1, correct? There's no way to 'undo' that, not unless Welles made sure every shot could be cropped to widescreen and still retain a composition he was a satisfied with.

I just ordered this DVD cheap so I'll see how it looks, but on paper, this sounds like a mistake, one that he restoration team tried to avoid.

BTW, looking at the caps, the extra space in the 'old' version actually feels intentional to me, especially when it's indoors. The low angle shots are more apparent as the ceiling becomes very visible, whereas the cropping eliminates much of the ceiling and, IMO, diminishes the impact.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:14 am**

This is an age old debate, but I've read many places that Metty did compose the shots knowing that they would be matted down when shown in theaters, and that Welles was very much aware of this as well. I do believe 1.85:1 is the correct theatrical aspect ratio, and that's the version I always watch.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:43 am**

ORSON WELLES LETTER TO THE NEW STATESMAN - LONDON REGARDING TOUCH OF EVIL

May 24, 1958

Sir:

Without being quite so foolish as to set my name to that odious thing, a 'reply to the critic', perhaps I may add a few oddments of information to Mr. Whitebait's brief reference to my picture TOUCH OF EVIL (what a silly title, by the way; it's the first time I've heard it). Most serious film reviewers appear to be quite without knowledge of the hard facts involved in manufacturing and, especially, merchandising a motion picture. Such innocence, I'm sure, is very proper to their position; it is, therefore, not your critic I venture to set straight, but my own record. As author-director I was not and normally would not be-consulted on the matter of the 'release' of my film without a press showing. That this is an 'odd subterfuge', I agree; but there can be no speculation as to the responsibility for such a decision.

As to the reason, one can only assume that the distributor was so terrified of what the critics might write about it that a rash attempt was made to evade them altogether and smuggle TOUCH OF EVIL directly to the public. This is understandable in the light of the wholesale re-editing of the film by the executive producer, a process of re-hashing in which I was forbidden to participate. Confusion was further confounded by several added scenes which I did not write and was not invited to direct. No wonder Mr. Whitebait speaks of muddle. He is kind enough to say that 'Like Graham Greene' I have 'two levels'. To his charge that I have 'let the higher slip' I plead not guilty. When Mr. Greene finishes one of his 'entertainment's' he is immediately free to set his hand to more challenging enterprises. His typewriter is always available; my camera is not. A typewriter needs only paper; a camera uses film, requires subsidiary equipment by the truck-load and several hundreds of technicians. That is always the central fact about the film-maker as opposed to any other artist: he can never afford to own his own tools. The minimum kit is incredibly expensive; and one's opportunities to work with it are rarer less numerous than might be supposed. In my case, I've. been given the use of my tools exactly eight times in 20 years. Just once my own editing of the film has been the version put into release; and (excepting the Shakespearean experiments) I have only twice been given any voice at all as to the 'level' of my, subject matter. In my trunks stuffed with unproduced films scripts, there are no thrillers. When I make this sort of picture -- for which I can pretend to no special interest or aptitude -- it is not 'for the money' (I support myself as an actor), but because of a greedy need to exercise, in some way, the function of my choice: the function of director. Quite baldly, this is my only choice. I have to take whatever comes along from time to time, or accept, the alternative, which is not working.

Mr. Whitebait revives my own distress at the shapeless poverty of Macbeth's castle. The paper mache' stagy effect in my film was dictated by a 'B-Minus' budget with a 'quickie' shooting schedule of 20 days.. Returning to the current picture, since he comments on the richness of the urban scenery of the Mexican border' perhaps Mr. Whitebait will be amused to learn that all shooting was in Hollywood. There was no attempt to approximate reality; the film's entire 'world' being the director's invention. Finally, while the style of TOUCH OF EVIL may be somewhat overly baroque, there are positively no camera tricks. Nowadays the eye is tamed, I think, by the new wide screens. These 'systems' with their rigid technical limitations are in such monopoly that any vigorous use of the old black -and-white, normal aperture camera runs the risk of seeming tricky by comparison. The old camera permits use of a range of visual conventions as removed from 'realism' as grand opera. This is a language not a bag of tricks. If it is now a dead language, as a candid partisan of the old eloquence, I must face the likelihood that I shall not again be able to put it to the service of any theme of my own choosing.

ORSON WELLES
ROME

Where does the Welles-wanted-widescreen story come from? I've heard it before (probably on the Wellesnet forum), but does anyone have a reliable source?

And in case anyone hasn't seen it, here's Rosenbaum's recent comment:

it was never the intention of Murch, me, or our producer Rick Schmidlin to replace the film's original release version or the longer preview version that supplanted it in the 70s. We were hoping that all three could be released in a DVD box set. Universal, are you listening?

I suspect the answer is No.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:24 am**

Wonderful Welles letter.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:45 pm**

I found this quote from a cached page on google. It originally came from http://www.wellesnet.com/ which is down for some reason.

RICK SCHMIDLIN: 1:33 was the ratio Citizen Kane was shot in, as was the practice at the time. Touch of Evil was composed by Welles in 1:85 but shot full frame at the order of the studio. Welles was very aware on the composition he shot the film in. Welles never complained about the ratio because he screened it a 1:85. I guess those who prefer the studio version feel more is better, but that is going against the way the picture was shot and was meant to be seen in theaters. This was supported by both Russell Metty and Philip Lathrop by the records on the original studio screening and the theatrical release screenings. A little homework on this matter goes a long way.

So going back to my original post, I guess they didn't botch it up, the widescreen choice was a result of "a little homework," not caving into some corporate decision at Universal's home video dept.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:00 am**

It's back up again.

Not familiar with the site, but the quotes seemed to be pulled from posts made by R.S. on the site's message board. However, I feel like he had enough of various, disgruntled posters on that site getting all bitchy in their dismissal of his remarks.

I could give Rosenbaum a call at the Chicago Reader (he's not exactly a hard person to get a hold of...hell, I could probably jump on the El and WALK over to the Reader), assuming the issue doesn't irritate him. As much as he cares about this film, it's very possible he doesn't enjoy getting pelted with complaints/questions from irritated fans about this issue.

Posted: **Fri May 02, 2008 5:57 am**

I read on a thread (that I'm buggered if I can find again) there were plans for a dvd edition of all 3 versions. But now on Wellesnet there's this-

Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Orson Welles’ noir masterpiece TOUCH OF EVIL

Since it appears that Universal Home video will not be re-visiting their bare-bones DVD release of Touch of Evil to commemorate it’s 50th Anniversary (although there are still 8 months left to hope)

Would the owner of the aforementioned information kindly step forward and leave his sources in a brown paper bag with the concierge. Thank You.

Posted: **Fri May 02, 2008 6:12 am**

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:I read on a thread (that I'm buggered if I can find again) there were plans for a dvd edition of all 3 versions.

That comment was made here. Surely such a package would be part of Universal's Legacy Series.

Posted: **Fri May 02, 2008 5:50 pm**

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I've seen Touch of Evil projected in 35mm and shown in 4:3 on TV and Academy Ratio doesn't look right to me - too much headroom in almost every shot that's not a tight close-up. (I've seen the two later versions, not the original studio cut.)

I also read that Welles quote as being a defence of filming with spherical lenses as opposed to Scope processes.

Were any commercial cinemas still showing Academy Ratio in 1958?

Posted: **Fri May 02, 2008 6:18 pm**

Look at the fourth set of caps down from the top, in the first post by david. There is a light effect created on the ceiling that gets cut off in the widescreen cropping. Clearly Metty went into the next "room" (or set exterior) and positioned a masked lamp on the floor to aim at the ceiling on set and in shot, specifically to be seen. In the high-cost, pennypinching world of filmmaking on a union set, where every extra detail costs quantifiable money (from adding a scarf onto an actress, to moving a set decoration around) that causes execs to roll their eyes with impatience-- you can be sure that lamp was put there for that effect to be in the shot.

And anyhow, those who arent convinced probably cant be convinced...

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2008 8:00 am**

We screened this at Doc Films in 1.37 only a couple months ago. This was definitely framed for that aspect ratio. HerrSchreck is right to point out the lighting effect in the fourth set of caps as evidence to support this argument, because there are a couple other moments in the film, perhaps more than a couple, where effects of a similar sort are implemented. With screen captures it might be more difficult to chalk these effects very definitively to the intentions of the filmmakers. Proceeding from these low-resolution stills, an argument could also be made that they account for little in the grand scheme of the film. But when the film is running through a projector, we see shadows move across that ceiling. We get a sense of a very claustrophobic, cave-like space, which distorts the very figures it encompasses. We begin to see stylistic affinities between this kind of image and similar sequences in "The Trial" or "The Magnificent Ambersons" etc. If you're familiar with how Welles emphasizes ceilings and the entrapping elements of different types of architectures in his other films, you shouldn't be surprised to see them return here. So it becomes very apparent that all these effects are crucial to the stylistic integrity of the film.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2008 2:38 pm**

The Summer Movies section of tomorrow's NY Times makes mention of a 50th Anniversary edition of Touch of Evil for July, but that's all it says.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2008 2:56 pm**

Anyone know about the Dvd editions?
I've got US, UK and Japanese editions to choose from.
Are they all the same print?

Posted: **Sun May 11, 2008 6:48 pm**

Discussion of This Island Earth and The Incredible Shrinking Man moved here.

Discussion of John Candy, Liberace, fine French Champagne, and frozen peas moved here.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2008 5:15 pm**

Here's the NYTimes piece previewing DVD releases for Summer '08. "Touch of Evil" is mentioned on the second page, in the "Other Releases" section.

Does anyone have any additional information on this?

-BJ

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2008 7:30 pm**

Well-spotted, Jeb!

New York Times wrote:Also in July, a 50th-anniversary release of Orson Welles’s thrilling baroque “Touch of Evil.”

July? If that is the case, we should be seeing an official announcement pretty soon.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2008 9:57 pm**

davidhare wrote:You can also safely assume Criterion would have been interested in a three disc box but Universal's attitude to the property is that the 98 version was the final word.

Well, the story I've heard is that all production on the previous release (which was to include the other versions and a short doc about the re-edit) was stopped by the threat of a lawsuit by Beatrice Welles. It seems they no longer fear her wrath (at least I hope).

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 pm**

I wasn't trying to steal souvenir's thunder; when I was looking over this thread on Sunday, there seemed to be some question as to whether or not he saw this in the Times. Just wanted to make sure that it was linked to, as well as ask for additional info (if said info was available).

-BJ

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 1:05 am**

Beatrice sued Universal in 1999, trying to get a million bucks from them; here's a Hollywood Reporter brief about it:

HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, Jan 22, 1999
______________________________________
Orson Welles' daughter, Beatrice Welles, is suing Universal Pictures for $1 million, charging that a new version of "Touch of Evil" does not reflect "his original vision and editing," as the studio suggests. After Welles was terminated on the film in 1957, Beatrice Welles' suit claims, he wrote letters "taking exception to changes Universal made to the picture." Universal made use of the letters, Beatrice Welles claims, in re-editing the film, and now states that it is "fully restored to Orson Welles' original vision." This is misleading because "the letters were not intended to constitute his artistic concept."
"In fact," says the suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, "Universal retained people to work on the film who are untrustworthy and otherwise unqualified to edit a motion picture under any Welles memoranda."

Heston was badmouthing her quite a bit at the time as well, including, so I heard, on the commentary track, and assuming that was the reason it got pulled, it seems a bit silly; why not simply edit his comments about her out if that was indeed the case? There's no question though that she has no legal claim to anything related to TOUCH OF EVIL, but it isn't as if that's stopped her before. Presumably she got fuck-off money the last time it came out, given the suit. She's the likely reason we haven't seen AMBERSONS yet as well, and KANE is currently in legal wrangling over video rights she claims to have.

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 1:14 pm**

But surely Universal could still put out a three-disc set, with the original theatrical, the 1970s one, and the Murch edit? Granted, it would not be as impressive/worthwhile as one with a full Arkadin-style 'comprehensive' version, but it would be better than what is currently available.

And speaking of Arkadin, how did that slip through Beatrice's hands?

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 1:33 pm**

My god, the thought of a 3 disc CC Arkadin type release makes the brain reel. Could easily be release of the year without doubt, if handled properly and with common sense viz the AOR.

If Arkadin deserved this kind of study, then without question this title screams to high hell for it. And get Rosenbaum in as production supervisor. I'd give blood til I fainted for such a package. And yes Universal bug the hell out of me due to their irresponsibility vz the trove they're sitting on. They put more effort into getting out cut-rate Halloween vault-scrapers like Captive Wild Woman & Horror Island vs their early melodramas and Paramount archive (dont mention silents of course).

With the superlative skills of their telecine operators over the past two years, the possibilities versus the realities are about the most massive hope/crushed in the home video world. Why they just don't license this shot out in one massive ad hoc deal is utterly beyond me.

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 4:40 pm**

MadJack wrote:And speaking of Arkadin, how did that slip through Beatrice's hands?

well, it is public domain

criterionforum.org

Touch of Evil: 50th Anniversary Edition