Bucknell Film/Media Screenings at The Campus Theatre

Touch of Evil

Just A “Touch of Evil” – Universal’s Disservice & Mr. Welles’ Last Laugh

Sara Wilkerson

Abstract

Orson Welles. There is a no more synonymous and (in)famous name than that within the history of American cinema. Known for films such as that of Citizen Kane (1941), The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), The Lady from Shanghai (1946), and his various Shakespeare films such as Macbeth (1948), Othello (1952) and Chimes at Midnight (1966), Orson Welles’ career[1] is nothing short of awe-inspiring epics that rightfully deem him as what Andrew Sarris would call a “Pantheon Director” [2] among other auteurs such as Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin and Howard Hawks.  Out of all of Welles’ films, his 1958 film Touch of Evil that he directed under Universal Pictures is undoubtedly a masterpiece, yet is one with a troubled history worth examining, especially considering the strained relationship between Welles and Universal over the film’s final cut when the film debuted. The relationship between the Pantheon Director and studio will be discussed at length, along with Welles’ 58 page memo to Universal, and the efforts behind the updated 1998 version of Touch of Evil that was adapted from Welles’ 58-page memo that the director sent to Universal. To begin, a synopsis of the film will be needed to understand the riff between Welles and Universal.

Synopsis

Touch of Evil opens with an elaborate three minute and twenty second, long take sequence of a suspenseful lead up to a car bombing outside of the border of Los Robles, where the film’s narrative takes place. At the bombing site, pedestrians, ambulances, and authorities converge onto the scene. Among those gathered are newlyweds Ramon Miguel “Mike” Vargas (Charlton Heston), who is a drug enforcement officer working for the Mexican government, and Susan Vargas (Janet Leigh), an American citizen. As Mike Vargas assesses the scene and Susan Vargas takes shelter at their hotel, Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles) arrives in a dramatic yet ironic nonchalant fashion, asking his partner Pete Menzies (Joseph Calleia), “Did they, uh, toss it in, or was it planted ahead of time?”, and when Menzies responds with “Who?”, Quinlan notoriously says, “Whoever did it, you jackass!” (Comito 56).

As Vargas and Quinlan dysfunctionally work together to investigate the car bombing, Susan Vargas is accosted repeatedly by members of the Grandi family. Soon after Manolo Sanchez (Victor Milan), a brother-in-law of one of the bombing victims, is arrested in connection to the bombing, Mike Vargas begins to suspect that Quinlan planted evidence in order to frame Sanchez. Mike Vargas tries to convince Menzies to believe his suspicions and fails to initially, that is until Quinlan’s walking cane is discovered at a crime scene of the Ritz Hotel, where Quinlan appears to have framed Susan Vargas for strangling Uncle Joe Grandi, the head of the Grandi family. At the film’s climax, Mike Vargas and Menzies work together to get a drunken Quinlan to confess to his crimes, with a shootout bringing an end to Quinlan and Menzies’ lives after Quinlan confesses. Touch of Evil ends with Quinlan’s presumed old flame Tanya (Marlene Dietrichson) walking away from view after remarking that, “He [Quinlan] was some kind of man. What does it matter what you say about people?” (Comito 169).

Drama Off-Screen – Welles Versus Universal

The complicated nature of the film noir narrative structure that Welles adapted[3] from a previous version of the film’s script written by Paul Monash and the source novel Badge of Evil written by Robert Wade and William Miller under the pseudonym “Whit Masterson” is among the heart of the reasons why Welles quarreled with Universal.

The riff between Welles and Universal started when Welles was editing Touch of Evil after production wrapped in Venice, California.[4] In the editing room, Welles claims that he likes to take his time when editing films, explaining in an interview with Cahiers du Cinema, “I don’t know why it takes me so much time: I could work on forever on the editing of a film.” Furthermore, in the Cahiers interview, Welles likens the act of editing to his philosophy of filmmaking, “But for my style, for my vision of the cinema, editing is not simply one aspect: it’s the aspect. The notion of ‘directing’ a film is the invention of critics…” (Comito 200). Since Welles’ progress on the editing of Touch of Evil was “too slow” for the studio, Universal removed Welles from finishing the final product and instead resolved to finish Touch of Evil through reshoots and additions of scenes from director Harry Keller and ended up editing the film into a 93 minute version that was released in 1958 – all without much input of Welles.

The Welles Memo

Upon seeing a rough cut of Universal’s end product, Welles wrote an impassioned 58 page memo to Edward I. Muhl, the then Vice President in charge of production at Universal, detailing edits to scenes and sound mixing that he felt were needed for the film. Welles did not write the memo out of rage, however he wrote the memo to protect the integrity of the narration of the film: “… the purpose of this memo is not to discuss every change I think should be made in the final version – but solely to bring up those very few matters which I take to come within the framework of the picture as it now exists, and to which I hope you’re ready to give a few moments of your open-minded attention” (French). Despite Welles’ detailed oriented memo, Universal hardly made any of the advised changes that Welles wanted, and much to Welles’ chagrin, released the film anyways.

The Stakes of the Memo & 1958 Release

In the grand scheme of the memo that Welles wrote, Welles’ stated motivation of writing it for Universal is likely linked to his desire to edit his films himself, as previously discussed, thus allowing him to have agency over his projects. However, it should also be noted that of all of Welles’ films leading up to Touch of Evil, he was only able to edit three of his films – Citizen Kane, Othello and Don Quixote (Comito 199). The implication of Welles wanting his memo followed by Universal suggests that he was merely trying to assert control in an industry that bears too much control in the studio hands and not much so on artists’ ends.

The structure and power of the classical Hollywood system[5] at the time Touch of Evil came out was dwindling as television was rising in popularity, meaning that studios needed “winners” to effectively generate revenue and compete with television. Unfortunately, Universal did not deem Touch of Evil as a winner, so much so that they marketed it as “a cheap bottom-of-the-bill thriller” and did not enter the film into world renown film festivals (Comito 41).

Despite the drama surrounding Welles and Universal at the time when the film was being made, the film received praise and mixed reviews from critics. The likes of the New York Times and Cahiers du Cinema appreciated the film and praised Welles on his triumphant return to American cinema after a ten-year hiatus in Europe (Comito). Variety did not approve of the film, claiming, “Touch of Evil smacks of brilliance but ultimately flounders in it” (Variety Staff). In a note of irony, however, Variety had a slight change of heart on the film when the 1998 (112 minute) version of Touch of Evilcame out, claiming that that the film:

The upshot of all this [the 1998 version] is that Touch of Evil now emerges simultaneously as more impressionistic and more coherent than it did before… due to the pristine new print, Welles’ technical virtuosity and ingenious use of locations have never been more evident, and the entire picture plays more smoothly. (McCarthy)

Touch of Evil – Beyond the 50s

The life of Touch of Evil did not stop after 1958. In 1976, a 108-minute version of the film was uncovered and put into circulation as a “director’s cut”, even though sources speculate that this was not the case[6] since the 108-minute version showed more footage from Harry Keller, the director of reshoots for the 93-minute version, than of Welles’ original footage (French). The 1976 version stood as the preferred version of the film, that is until a 1998 version of the film came about after Welles scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum published part of the Welles memo in the Film Quarterly in 1992, thus generating interest to carry out Welles’s mostly ignored requests for the film that the very industry ironically dismissed in its time (Camper). The 1998 version was spearheaded by producer Rick Schmidlin, who after securing an agreement with Universal to carry out the ambitious project, recruited the likes of Rosenbaum for consultation and Walter Murch, renown film editor known for editing films such as The Godfather (1972) and Apocalypse Now (1979). Together the team sought to not necessarily “restore” the film, but as Rosenbaum claims, “We simply wanted to see what happened when Welles’ wishes were carried out – nothing more, but also nothing less. Not his ‘ultimate or ‘final’ wishes, which no one could ever know or presume to hypothesize, but his wishes as expressed on paper on December 5, 1957, shortly before he left the project” (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched”). 

In detailing the prospects of revising the film, Rosenbaum states that the editing process with Murch proved challenging since their project has no precedent. Unlike restorations and director’s cuts, the 1998 version does not add any new footage to the film itself, rather changes were made to the narrative structure of the film and the film’s soundscape were altered. In regards to the film’s narrative structure (which one can recall is what was among Welles’ chief concerns in his infamous memo), the editing on the 1976 version essentially “undid” Welles’ editing style of crosscutting, where scenes are intercut to appear as if they are happening simultaneously. Universal deemed the style “too confusing” and reedited Welles’ footage to appear to be told more so in a traditional Hollywood style of linear editing. Rosenbaum and Murch rearranged the film using the crosscutting method to restore Welles’ original intention of the narration (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 252).  In addition to the rearrangement of the film, the sound scape of the film is enhanced and altered in areas such as the opening shot, where Welles complained to Universal, “I assume that the [jazz][7] music now backing the opening sequence of the picture is temporary…” (French). Taking out the jazz music from Henry Mancini’s score allowed for Welles’ original intention of having an ambient soundscape of music being filtered through car radios and the speakers outside various shops in Los Robles (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 251-252). While the soundscape changes are more subtle in nature, the undertaking of the 1998 version was insurmountably challenging[8] for the production team, yet at the same time was rewarding. Not only is Welles’ film noir epic reconfigured in such a way that honors most of the changes he wanted made, but also the ultimate effect of the 1998 version brings to light an understanding of his intentions of the changes he wanted to make in the first place. As Rosenbaum says in his reflection on the project: “Eventually a clearer understanding of his design for the film began to emerge – a design that included, among other things, a more fluid narrative, more opportunities for certain atmospheric elements to register…” (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 253). 

Welles Gets the Last Laugh

When all is said and done, the history behind Touch of Evil and its evolution in the second half of the 20th century is nothing short of ironic. Even though Rosenbaum and his team successfully managed to produce a version of what Welles wanted, they themselves faced legal issues as Beatrice Welles, a heir to Welles, threatened legal action against them and Universal over the release of the film, ironically creating a block of them being able to screen the film at the Cannes festival – just like how the 1958 version was barred from the festival circuit (“Excerpt from ‘Problems of Access: On the Trail of Some Festival Films and Filmmakers’: On TOUCH OF EVIL” 258). Luckily, Beatrice Welles settled out of court with Universal, but unfortunately created a yet another ironic twist in the 1998 saga: the court case left a sour and petty taste in Universal’s mouth, leading them to not even bother to send Rosenbaum and company copies of the DVD release (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 257). From these twisted bits of irony, one cannot help but wonder what Orson Welles would have said to Rosenbaum and company in their endeavors in dealing with Universal… Then again, Welles was some kind of man[9]…  what does it matter what you say about people?

Notes

[1] Comito, Terry, editor. “Welles Filmography, 1941-1973.” Touch of Evil: Orson Welles, Director. Rutgers University Press, 1985, 277-278.

2 Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

3 Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

4 Gear, Asprey Matthew. “THE BORDER: Touch of Evil (1958).” At the End of the Street in the Shadow: Orson Welles and the City. Columbia University Press, New York, 2016, pp. 163–180. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/gear17340.13.

5 For more on subject, see: Bordwell, David, et al. Film Art: An Introduction. Twelfth edition, International student ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

6 Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, pp. 248–257. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

7 See page 34: Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

8 Rosenbaum said once that Walter Murch compared the rearranging of the film to be the equivalent of “…performing a skin graft using only skin from the same body.” See pg. 250 on Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

9 Andrew Sarris, mentioned previously with having described Welles as a Pantheon Director, says that Pantheon Directors are directors who, “have transcended their technical problems with a personal vision of the world. To speak their names is to evoke a self-contained world with its own laws and landscapes. They were also fortunate enough to find the proper conditions and collaborators for the full expression of their talent.” While Welles may not have found the best relationship with Universal, his vision of “Touch of Evil” did indeed find its rightful collaborators with Rosenbaum and company decades after the film’s release. See pg. 39: Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

Works Cited

Camper, Fred. Chicago Reader. 17 September, 1998. https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/out-of-the-shadows/Content?oid=897261

Comito, Terry, editor. Touch of Evil: Orson Welles, Director. Rutgers University Press, 1985.

French, Lawrence. “Orson Welles’ Memo on ‘Touch of Evil’ – The Welles/Universal Memo Part 1.” WellesNet, http://wellesnet.com/touch_memo1.htm

McCarthy, Todd. Variety. Variety Media LLC. 22 December, 1998. https://variety.com/1998/film/reviews/touch-of-evil-re-issue-1200456175/

Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, pp. 248–257. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “Excerpt from ‘Problems of Access: On the Trail of Some Festival Films and Filmmakers’: (On TOUCH OF EVIL).” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, pp. 258–260. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.26.

Variety Staff. Variety. Variety Media LLC. 31 December, 1957. https://variety.com/1957/film/reviews/touch-of-evil-1200418960/

[1] See Welles’ full filmography via: Comito, Terry, editor. “Welles Filmography, 1941-1973.” Touch of Evil: Orson Welles, Director. Rutgers University Press, 1985, 277-278.

[2] Sarris is credited with forming the beginnings of the auteur theory with his seminal works: “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962” and Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

[3] Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

[4] Gear, Asprey Matthew. “THE BORDER: Touch of Evil (1958).” At the End of the Street in the Shadow: Orson Welles and the City. Columbia University Press, New York, 2016, pp. 163–180. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/gear17340.13.

[5] For more on subject, see: Bordwell, David, et al. Film Art: An Introduction. Twelfth edition, International student ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

[6] See pg. 250. Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

[7] See page 34: Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

[8] Rosenbaum said once that Walter Murch compared the rearranging of the film to be the equivalent of “…performing a skin graft using only skin from the same body.” See pg. 250 on Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

[9] Andrew Sarris, mentioned previously with having described Welles as a Pantheon Director, says that Pantheon Directors are directors who, “have transcended their technical problems with a personal vision of the world. To speak their names is to evoke a self-contained world with its own laws and landscapes. They were also fortunate enough to find the proper conditions and collaborators for the full expression of their talent.” While Welles may not have found the best relationship with Universal, his vision of “Touch of Evil” did indeed find its rightful collaborators with Rosenbaum and company decades after the film’s release. See pg. 39: Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

Touch of Evil

Just A “Touch of Evil” – Universal’s Disservice & Mr. Welles’ Last Laugh

Sara Wilkerson

Abstract

Orson Welles. There is a no more synonymous and (in)famous name than that within the history of American cinema. Known for films such as that of Citizen Kane (1941), The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), The Lady from Shanghai (1946), and his various Shakespeare films such as Macbeth (1948), Othello (1952) and Chimes at Midnight (1966), Orson Welles’ career[1] is nothing short of awe-inspiring epics that rightfully deem him as what Andrew Sarris would call a “Pantheon Director” [2] among other auteurs such as Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin and Howard Hawks.  Out of all of Welles’ films, his 1958 film Touch of Evil that he directed under Universal Pictures is undoubtedly a masterpiece, yet is one with a troubled history worth examining, especially considering the strained relationship between Welles and Universal over the film’s final cut when the film debuted. The relationship between the Pantheon Director and studio will be discussed at length, along with Welles’ 58 page memo to Universal, and the efforts behind the updated 1998 version of Touch of Evil that was adapted from Welles’ 58-page memo that the director sent to Universal. To begin, a synopsis of the film will be needed to understand the riff between Welles and Universal.

Synopsis

Touch of Evil opens with an elaborate three minute and twenty second, long take sequence of a suspenseful lead up to a car bombing outside of the border of Los Robles, where the film’s narrative takes place. At the bombing site, pedestrians, ambulances, and authorities converge onto the scene. Among those gathered are newlyweds Ramon Miguel “Mike” Vargas (Charlton Heston), who is a drug enforcement officer working for the Mexican government, and Susan Vargas (Janet Leigh), an American citizen. As Mike Vargas assesses the scene and Susan Vargas takes shelter at their hotel, Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles) arrives in a dramatic yet ironic nonchalant fashion, asking his partner Pete Menzies (Joseph Calleia), “Did they, uh, toss it in, or was it planted ahead of time?”, and when Menzies responds with “Who?”, Quinlan notoriously says, “Whoever did it, you jackass!” (Comito 56).

As Vargas and Quinlan dysfunctionally work together to investigate the car bombing, Susan Vargas is accosted repeatedly by members of the Grandi family. Soon after Manolo Sanchez (Victor Milan), a brother-in-law of one of the bombing victims, is arrested in connection to the bombing, Mike Vargas begins to suspect that Quinlan planted evidence in order to frame Sanchez. Mike Vargas tries to convince Menzies to believe his suspicions and fails to initially, that is until Quinlan’s walking cane is discovered at a crime scene of the Ritz Hotel, where Quinlan appears to have framed Susan Vargas for strangling Uncle Joe Grandi, the head of the Grandi family. At the film’s climax, Mike Vargas and Menzies work together to get a drunken Quinlan to confess to his crimes, with a shootout bringing an end to Quinlan and Menzies’ lives after Quinlan confesses. Touch of Evil ends with Quinlan’s presumed old flame Tanya (Marlene Dietrichson) walking away from view after remarking that, “He [Quinlan] was some kind of man. What does it matter what you say about people?” (Comito 169).

Drama Off-Screen – Welles Versus Universal

The complicated nature of the film noir narrative structure that Welles adapted[3] from a previous version of the film’s script written by Paul Monash and the source novel Badge of Evil written by Robert Wade and William Miller under the pseudonym “Whit Masterson” is among the heart of the reasons why Welles quarreled with Universal.

The riff between Welles and Universal started when Welles was editing Touch of Evil after production wrapped in Venice, California.[4] In the editing room, Welles claims that he likes to take his time when editing films, explaining in an interview with Cahiers du Cinema, “I don’t know why it takes me so much time: I could work on forever on the editing of a film.” Furthermore, in the Cahiers interview, Welles likens the act of editing to his philosophy of filmmaking, “But for my style, for my vision of the cinema, editing is not simply one aspect: it’s the aspect. The notion of ‘directing’ a film is the invention of critics…” (Comito 200). Since Welles’ progress on the editing of Touch of Evil was “too slow” for the studio, Universal removed Welles from finishing the final product and instead resolved to finish Touch of Evil through reshoots and additions of scenes from director Harry Keller and ended up editing the film into a 93 minute version that was released in 1958 – all without much input of Welles.

The Welles Memo

Upon seeing a rough cut of Universal’s end product, Welles wrote an impassioned 58 page memo to Edward I. Muhl, the then Vice President in charge of production at Universal, detailing edits to scenes and sound mixing that he felt were needed for the film. Welles did not write the memo out of rage, however he wrote the memo to protect the integrity of the narration of the film: “… the purpose of this memo is not to discuss every change I think should be made in the final version – but solely to bring up those very few matters which I take to come within the framework of the picture as it now exists, and to which I hope you’re ready to give a few moments of your open-minded attention” (French). Despite Welles’ detailed oriented memo, Universal hardly made any of the advised changes that Welles wanted, and much to Welles’ chagrin, released the film anyways.

The Stakes of the Memo & 1958 Release

In the grand scheme of the memo that Welles wrote, Welles’ stated motivation of writing it for Universal is likely linked to his desire to edit his films himself, as previously discussed, thus allowing him to have agency over his projects. However, it should also be noted that of all of Welles’ films leading up to Touch of Evil, he was only able to edit three of his films – Citizen Kane, Othello and Don Quixote (Comito 199). The implication of Welles wanting his memo followed by Universal suggests that he was merely trying to assert control in an industry that bears too much control in the studio hands and not much so on artists’ ends.

The structure and power of the classical Hollywood system[5] at the time Touch of Evil came out was dwindling as television was rising in popularity, meaning that studios needed “winners” to effectively generate revenue and compete with television. Unfortunately, Universal did not deem Touch of Evil as a winner, so much so that they marketed it as “a cheap bottom-of-the-bill thriller” and did not enter the film into world renown film festivals (Comito 41).

Despite the drama surrounding Welles and Universal at the time when the film was being made, the film received praise and mixed reviews from critics. The likes of the New York Times and Cahiers du Cinema appreciated the film and praised Welles on his triumphant return to American cinema after a ten-year hiatus in Europe (Comito). Variety did not approve of the film, claiming, “Touch of Evil smacks of brilliance but ultimately flounders in it” (Variety Staff). In a note of irony, however, Variety had a slight change of heart on the film when the 1998 (112 minute) version of Touch of Evilcame out, claiming that that the film:

The upshot of all this [the 1998 version] is that Touch of Evil now emerges simultaneously as more impressionistic and more coherent than it did before… due to the pristine new print, Welles’ technical virtuosity and ingenious use of locations have never been more evident, and the entire picture plays more smoothly. (McCarthy)

Touch of Evil – Beyond the 50s

The life of Touch of Evil did not stop after 1958. In 1976, a 108-minute version of the film was uncovered and put into circulation as a “director’s cut”, even though sources speculate that this was not the case[6] since the 108-minute version showed more footage from Harry Keller, the director of reshoots for the 93-minute version, than of Welles’ original footage (French). The 1976 version stood as the preferred version of the film, that is until a 1998 version of the film came about after Welles scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum published part of the Welles memo in the Film Quarterly in 1992, thus generating interest to carry out Welles’s mostly ignored requests for the film that the very industry ironically dismissed in its time (Camper). The 1998 version was spearheaded by producer Rick Schmidlin, who after securing an agreement with Universal to carry out the ambitious project, recruited the likes of Rosenbaum for consultation and Walter Murch, renown film editor known for editing films such as The Godfather (1972) and Apocalypse Now (1979). Together the team sought to not necessarily “restore” the film, but as Rosenbaum claims, “We simply wanted to see what happened when Welles’ wishes were carried out – nothing more, but also nothing less. Not his ‘ultimate or ‘final’ wishes, which no one could ever know or presume to hypothesize, but his wishes as expressed on paper on December 5, 1957, shortly before he left the project” (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched”). 

In detailing the prospects of revising the film, Rosenbaum states that the editing process with Murch proved challenging since their project has no precedent. Unlike restorations and director’s cuts, the 1998 version does not add any new footage to the film itself, rather changes were made to the narrative structure of the film and the film’s soundscape were altered. In regards to the film’s narrative structure (which one can recall is what was among Welles’ chief concerns in his infamous memo), the editing on the 1976 version essentially “undid” Welles’ editing style of crosscutting, where scenes are intercut to appear as if they are happening simultaneously. Universal deemed the style “too confusing” and reedited Welles’ footage to appear to be told more so in a traditional Hollywood style of linear editing. Rosenbaum and Murch rearranged the film using the crosscutting method to restore Welles’ original intention of the narration (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 252).  In addition to the rearrangement of the film, the sound scape of the film is enhanced and altered in areas such as the opening shot, where Welles complained to Universal, “I assume that the [jazz][7] music now backing the opening sequence of the picture is temporary…” (French). Taking out the jazz music from Henry Mancini’s score allowed for Welles’ original intention of having an ambient soundscape of music being filtered through car radios and the speakers outside various shops in Los Robles (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 251-252). While the soundscape changes are more subtle in nature, the undertaking of the 1998 version was insurmountably challenging[8] for the production team, yet at the same time was rewarding. Not only is Welles’ film noir epic reconfigured in such a way that honors most of the changes he wanted made, but also the ultimate effect of the 1998 version brings to light an understanding of his intentions of the changes he wanted to make in the first place. As Rosenbaum says in his reflection on the project: “Eventually a clearer understanding of his design for the film began to emerge – a design that included, among other things, a more fluid narrative, more opportunities for certain atmospheric elements to register…” (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 253). 

Welles Gets the Last Laugh

When all is said and done, the history behind Touch of Evil and its evolution in the second half of the 20th century is nothing short of ironic. Even though Rosenbaum and his team successfully managed to produce a version of what Welles wanted, they themselves faced legal issues as Beatrice Welles, a heir to Welles, threatened legal action against them and Universal over the release of the film, ironically creating a block of them being able to screen the film at the Cannes festival – just like how the 1958 version was barred from the festival circuit (“Excerpt from ‘Problems of Access: On the Trail of Some Festival Films and Filmmakers’: On TOUCH OF EVIL” 258). Luckily, Beatrice Welles settled out of court with Universal, but unfortunately created a yet another ironic twist in the 1998 saga: the court case left a sour and petty taste in Universal’s mouth, leading them to not even bother to send Rosenbaum and company copies of the DVD release (“TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched” 257). From these twisted bits of irony, one cannot help but wonder what Orson Welles would have said to Rosenbaum and company in their endeavors in dealing with Universal… Then again, Welles was some kind of man[9]…  what does it matter what you say about people?

Notes

[1] Comito, Terry, editor. “Welles Filmography, 1941-1973.” Touch of Evil: Orson Welles, Director. Rutgers University Press, 1985, 277-278.

2 Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

3 Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

4 Gear, Asprey Matthew. “THE BORDER: Touch of Evil (1958).” At the End of the Street in the Shadow: Orson Welles and the City. Columbia University Press, New York, 2016, pp. 163–180. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/gear17340.13.

5 For more on subject, see: Bordwell, David, et al. Film Art: An Introduction. Twelfth edition, International student ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

6 Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, pp. 248–257. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

7 See page 34: Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

8 Rosenbaum said once that Walter Murch compared the rearranging of the film to be the equivalent of “…performing a skin graft using only skin from the same body.” See pg. 250 on Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

9 Andrew Sarris, mentioned previously with having described Welles as a Pantheon Director, says that Pantheon Directors are directors who, “have transcended their technical problems with a personal vision of the world. To speak their names is to evoke a self-contained world with its own laws and landscapes. They were also fortunate enough to find the proper conditions and collaborators for the full expression of their talent.” While Welles may not have found the best relationship with Universal, his vision of “Touch of Evil” did indeed find its rightful collaborators with Rosenbaum and company decades after the film’s release. See pg. 39: Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

Works Cited

Camper, Fred. Chicago Reader. 17 September, 1998. https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/out-of-the-shadows/Content?oid=897261

Comito, Terry, editor. Touch of Evil: Orson Welles, Director. Rutgers University Press, 1985.

French, Lawrence. “Orson Welles’ Memo on ‘Touch of Evil’ – The Welles/Universal Memo Part 1.” WellesNet, http://wellesnet.com/touch_memo1.htm

McCarthy, Todd. Variety. Variety Media LLC. 22 December, 1998. https://variety.com/1998/film/reviews/touch-of-evil-re-issue-1200456175/

Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, pp. 248–257. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “Excerpt from ‘Problems of Access: On the Trail of Some Festival Films and Filmmakers’: (On TOUCH OF EVIL).” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, pp. 258–260. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.26.

Variety Staff. Variety. Variety Media LLC. 31 December, 1957. https://variety.com/1957/film/reviews/touch-of-evil-1200418960/

[1] See Welles’ full filmography via: Comito, Terry, editor. “Welles Filmography, 1941-1973.” Touch of Evil: Orson Welles, Director. Rutgers University Press, 1985, 277-278.

[2] Sarris is credited with forming the beginnings of the auteur theory with his seminal works: “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962” and Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.

[3] Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

[4] Gear, Asprey Matthew. “THE BORDER: Touch of Evil (1958).” At the End of the Street in the Shadow: Orson Welles and the City. Columbia University Press, New York, 2016, pp. 163–180. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/gear17340.13.

[5] For more on subject, see: Bordwell, David, et al. Film Art: An Introduction. Twelfth edition, International student ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

[6] See pg. 250. Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

[7] See page 34: Stubbs, John C. “The Evolution of Orson Welles’s ‘Touch of Evil’ from Novel to Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 1985, pp. 19–39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1225360.

[8] Rosenbaum said once that Walter Murch compared the rearranging of the film to be the equivalent of “…performing a skin graft using only skin from the same body.” See pg. 250 on Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “TOUCH OF EVIL Retouched.” Discovering Orson Welles, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2007, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnkqg.25.

[9] Andrew Sarris, mentioned previously with having described Welles as a Pantheon Director, says that Pantheon Directors are directors who, “have transcended their technical problems with a personal vision of the world. To speak their names is to evoke a self-contained world with its own laws and landscapes. They were also fortunate enough to find the proper conditions and collaborators for the full expression of their talent.” While Welles may not have found the best relationship with Universal, his vision of “Touch of Evil” did indeed find its rightful collaborators with Rosenbaum and company decades after the film’s release. See pg. 39: Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press ed., Da Capo Press, 1996.