I recently rented movie “Touch of Evil”, directed by and co-starring Orson Welles (the original, not the newly re-edited version, although it doesn’t matter). Anyway, Orson plays an obese, corrupt sheriff who must use a cane to carry his girth. The back of the rental box claimed Orson was so damn big HAD to use the cane, and that it was not an intentional part of the character. I think this is wrong. I mean, he was big, big guy, but if he was so out of shape he had to use a cane to walk, I think there would be no way he would have the additional energy to co-star in and direct an entire motion picture. What’s up with that?
You are assuming he used the cane because he was out of shape (i.e., had little energy/endurance). Maybe he had great energy/endurance but (1) had a problem with a leg, knee, foot, ankle that he could deal with better using a cane, or (2) had a problem with balance that the cane could help him with. I think either of these is a more like explanation for his use of a cane than that he used it to increase his energy/endurance. As far as I know, walking with a cane does not save energy or increase endurance.
No, no… I’m saying he was fine and probably didn’t need the cane and that it was all just part of the character he was playing. It is the back of the box that makes the crack that he needed a cane to support his enormous girth, and I think that is incorrect.
I shot some commercials with a fellow who tips the scales at over 600 pounds.
Ed has the energy to direct stuff at the local theater, but needs a cane to help him get around. The story on Welles is plausible. If the cane gave the Welles character more believability, all the better.
No big deal.
FWIW, in Roger Ebert’s review of “Touch of Evil” when it was released, he states that Welles was not as fat as the Quinlan character was and that he wore padding in the film.
I consider Ebert an expert on matters like this. He correctly surmised in his review of the “Tao of Steve” that the actor playing the lead wasn’t as fat as he looked on screen and had to be wearing padding. Donal Logue has since said that.
Welles certainly wasn’t as hefty as he was in “Touch of Evil” immediately afterwards (then again, since he was so reclusive, the only footage I’ve seen of him immediately afterwards was from one of his failed Shakespeare projects). Padding seems the likely answer to me.
<< FWIW, in Roger Ebert’s review of “Touch of Evil” when it was released, he states that Welles was not as fat as the Quinlan character was and that he wore padding in the film. >>
IMHO, Roger Ebert gets facts wrong more often than not.
However, please note that TOUCH OF EVIL was released in about 1958, and that Roger Ebert did not start writing movie reviews until late 60s. I think you mean the recent re-release that included re-editing.
The movie as originally released included some changes that Welles opposed, but that we imposed on him by the producers/studio. For instance, the wonderful opening tracking shot was broken up for the credit sequence. The newly edited version has created the movie the way Welles envisioned it. The differences are not huge, you won’t miss any plot for example, but the differences in artistic vision are important. My suggestion is to be sure to rent the newly-edited version if you can only see it once.
Also, it’s important not to laugh at Charelton Heston playing a Mexican.
This is not true. The famous, fluid 3+ minute tracking shot was always intact. After all, how could you break it up when there was nothing else to cut to? (No alternate footage or coverage existed that the studios could use to break up this shot). What has changed in this shot in the new version is that the opening titles have disappeared, and the sound has been re-mixed so there is no title music, but instead a wider array of ambient noises originating from the town.
Hate to be a stickler, but this is not an opinion, this is an assertion. What evidence do you have of this? I don’t think much of the guy as a critic, but the man does do his homework (particularly for his Movie Answer Man column)
Oh, and Welles did use padding for TOE
I would still defer to Roger Ebert in matters of poundage, even though he has lost several pounds in recent years.
Yeah, ArchiveGuy, thanks for the correction, I was sloppy in terminology.
I haven’t read Ebert for ages, because he kept irritating me by making factual errors (this goes back to the 70s and 80s), like comparing something to “Ricky Martin’s role in EL DORADO” and the like. He’d try to quote from classic films that he hadn’t seen, and goof it up.
Consequently, I stopped reading his reviews. It was a shame, too, because I could count on him – if he liked a movie, I was almost sure to dislike it. It was nice to have a reliable guide.
In all fairness, this was not uncommon in the pre-video era of the 70s and early 80s (not to mention earlier). The difficulty of rewatching movies at the time–unless you happened to run into it on TV or at a revival house–meant that quite a lot of film literature and scholarship in books, periodicals, and reviews from that time have misquotes, inaccurate shot descriptions, and faulty plot information. I think it has less to do with someone not having seen the film (and is that an assertion or just conjecture on your part?) than someone simply trying to recall a detail from a film made 15+ years previously–a particularly difficult task since a lot of these writers watched hundreds of films annually and the reference books and resources we take for granted now weren’t as accessible (or reliable) back then.
Though I’m not a big fan of his, it wasn’t just he who did it at the time–it was not unheard of from even the best of writers, and should not be judged by the same standard as today (since nobody really has an excuse now)
Peter Bogdanovich and Jonathan Rosenbaum did a Welles biography (can’t remember the title right now) that might help answer that question. In any event, you could try and find source material authored by either of them. I don’t think anyone else knows more about Welles than these two. They’re certainly more authoritative than Ebert on the subject!
Archive Guy:
You mean that the edition of ToE I have on videotape is the old one? It has titles over the tracking shot; but the box claims it’s the re-edited one.
I saw the re-edited one in the theatre when it came out, but for the life of me I can’t remember whether it had titles over the track…
I believe that there are two editions of TofE with the titles over the opening sequence. The most recent edition doesn’t.
ArchiveGuy: << [Factual errors were] not uncommon in the pre-video era of the 70s and early 80s (not to mention earlier). The difficulty of rewatching movies at the time–unless you happened to run into it on TV or at a revival house–meant that quite a lot of film literature and scholarship in books, periodicals, and reviews from that time have misquotes, inaccurate shot descriptions, and faulty plot information. >>
Sure. But a critic like Robin Wood would cheerfully acknowledge (for example, in his marvellous book HITCHCOCK’S FILMS) that he had not seen such-and-such a film in several years and was relying on memory. And I grant you, Ebert was writing a short review rather than a lengthy analysis, and couldn’t waste space on disclaimers.
However, I’m not talking about memory errors in terms of “misquotes, inaccurate shot descriptions, and faulty plot information.” I’m talking about information that WAS readily available – in books and periodicals – like cast and crew, or decade of release, or director. I certainly acknowledge the memory problems in those days, but my disgust with Mr Ebert was on easily-checked information.
He may have improved now that he’s become famous, and possibly can have staff check details for him. I dunno. As I say, I gave up on him ages ago.
I’ll have to take your word for it.
I’ve always wondered, though, what his writing was like back in the 70s (though I haven’t wondered enough to bother looking), since that was the era for which he won a Pulitzer (the only film critic to ever do so, IIRC).
I am not familiar with the various video editions of TOE so I can’t say for sure what you were watching.
Does the video box say it is the re-edited version, or simply a restoration? If the latter, this very often means nothing, and unfortunately has become a glib marketing term that has little bearing on the actual restoration of an original film element.
I actually studied this film in school (gotta love modern education). My professor stated Welles’ stature thusly: at the time of filming, Welles weighed in at almost four hundred pounds. However, he was dissatisfied with the profile he cut on screen and wore padding to make himself even more imposing.
But Welles was notable for many things, one of which was incredible fortitude. One story has it that when shooting his scene for Moby Dick, Welles had to be lifted by crane onto the prow-like pulpit, and then had to stand for hours through innumerable delays. Finally, Welles asked that some brandy be sent up to him–a pint, in a glass. Shooting time finally came, and Welles delivered his sermon perfectly in the first take, then did it a second time for a “safety shot.” After they craned him back down, someone went back for the glass of brandy. It was empty.
You will notice, however, that in that scene Welles is holding himself up by bracing the railings. I think it is entirely possible that when at fighting weight, Welles required the use of a cane.