Which version is the best?
The Preview, Release or Reconstruction?
We've met before, haven't we?
Just my opinion, what else would I offer?
It has to be the reconstruction. When you compare the studio release to the reconstruction a number of glaring problems stand out.
First, they plastered credits all over that incredible opening sequence that was shot in one long take. This was a very impactful sequence and was intended, I believe, to set the tone of the movie. By replacing the music and obscuring that take with credits, the studio almost completely obscured the significance of that take. Miquel and Susan were in danger the entire time they crossed the border into the U.S. The bomb laden car passed them, or they passed it, numerous times before it blew up. Had the bomb exploded earlier, there would have been no story and no sense of impending doom.
Second, we have no idea why Menzie and Uncle Grandi are arguing outside the store Miquel is calling his wife from. Why? The studio removed the entire sequence where Menzies is taking Susan to the American hotel and Grandi is following them. Later, when Menzies shows up at Sanchez's apartment with Grandi in tow, we have no idea how Menzies happened to have Grandi with him. It just doesn't make sense.
Third, Welles had devoted equal time to Susan (Janet Leigh) and Miquel (Charlton Heston) throughout the first third of the film. The idea was to show that the couple was physically separated and were both dealing with some serious problems as individuals. This made it a film at least about the two of them. The studio, by devoting so much time to Heston's character, made it a film about Heston.
Fourth, other scenes were removed that seriously messed with the timeline and the story. The way Welles presented the story, though complex, gave all of the characters motives for their actions. With Welles' version, we were privy to the inner workings of Susan, Miquel, Uncle Grandi, The Night Manager, and even Quinlan.
Universal's cut confused a lot of what was going on and blurred or completely changed what motivated some of the characters. One particular change that stands out was Sergeant Menzies and why he ultimately helped Vargas expose Quinlan. In the Universal cut, Menzies seems to be cowing to Vargas' version of events and is reluctantly going along with Vargas. In the Welles' cut, Menzies is not bending to Vargas' will. Instead he seems to be helping Vargas to PROVE that his boss and friend is an honest cop. A minor difference perhaps, but it changes the tone of a key part of the movie. This makes Menzies death later in the film all the more tragic.
Much to Universal's credit, by hiring Walter Murch and enlisting the aid of film historians, they restored the closest closest version of the film to Welles' vision as humanly possible fifty years later.
Let's be honest here. The plot of this story has been done to death. It is the WAY Welles tried to tell the story and the freedom he gave his cast that makes this film a standout. For example, Dennis Weaver's night man is amazing. Leigh's character is frightened, but she's going to stand up to evil anyway. Varga's career is on the line, but he's going to get to the truth even if it destroys him. Quinlan's downfall has to do with his methods, not his instincts into who is guilty. And perhaps most importantly, we see a good cop risk his own complete destruction in the quest for "doing the right thing".
Well, all those reasons and the "firsts" we are treated to.
I agree. Another important scene omitted in the studio cut was the confrontation between Vargas and Quinlan outside of Marlene Dietrich's place that really sets the tone for the friction between the two.
The studio cut in my opinion is a convoluted mess. I can't see how anybody could follow it. There is too much missing.
I entirely agree with your analysis, but it leaves one question outstanding:
what is the correct frame ratio in which to see it?
It was shot in Academy ratio but IMDb suggests it was intended to be a widescreen presentation. I cannot decide which ratio I prefer. Did Welles ever give his opinion?
Now there is a good question.
I feel that if a film was shot in Academy Frame ratio - 1:1.375 (3x4 1/8) - it should be projected in that ratio. That is unless a microphone boom or something similar can be seen hanging down at the top of the projected frame (which unfortunately sometimes happened in the past when post-1952 films were transmitted on 3x4 TV screens without horizontal bars). We might as well see (nearly) everything that was captured on the camera negative when the film was shot. In this case, more definitely is more. The AF ratio can be visually very powerful, especially with close-ups and vertical compositions.
However, the AF projector aperture reduced the width of the print frame to a greater extent than its height. It's possible to have a projector aperture that increases the width of the projected frame, giving a wider, more horizontal image, and more of the original print frame. (Some DVD companies appear to be doing this already, breaking the old 3x4 TV barrier, which reduced the width of the AF print frame even further.) The aspect ratio can be increased up to at least 1:1.4166 (3x4 1/4), which has a definite 'widescreen' look and is aesthetically very pleasing. (It's approximately the same aspect ratio as an A4 sheet of paper.) It might, however, require the introduction of curved corners - but what could be more iconically cinematic?
It may happen eventually that all DVD companies will provide their customers with a choice of aspect ratios on the same disc for any AF film produced since 1952 - and even for those produced before that, and for vistaVision productions as well.
In 1958, when Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" was released, neither he nor any other American (or European) director would have had any control over the aspect ratio at which their 35mm AF films were projected, at least not in commercial cinemas. That would be determined by the exhibitors. They wanted 'widescreen' presentation of all current AF films, with an aspect ratio of 1:1.85 (3x5.55) in the US or 1:1.66 (3x5) in Europe. Directors and cinematographers had to ensure that their AF films were suitable for projection in these formats. Some of them might have preferred the original AF format - like Francis Coppola in the 1970s. (In recent years, as you know, a number of directors have been able to make occasional films specifically for classic AF presentation.)
It's ironic that American film studios themselves were responsible for this state of affairs. In the early 1950s - after the advent of Cinerama but before the introduction of CinemaScope - they started to produce or release AF films (such as "Shane", which was the first) specifically for 'widescreen' projection in a variety of formats, including 1:1.5 (3x4 1/2), a moderate 'widescreen' format that wasn't adopted. (See The American Widescreen Museum website.)
I feel that if a film was shot in Academy Frame ratio - 1:1.375 (3x4 1/8) - it should be projected in that ratio.
Academy was dead as a dodo by '58. No major studio in US would make a film intended for Academy projection by that time. Many theaters probably were no longer even able to project that format even if they wanted to.
A film should be presented in the aspect ratio it was composed in the fact whether the OCN is open matte or hard matted is completely irrelevant. share
First, I am glad the opening credits were taken off because it plays better without them. But I do think Welles objected to that out of vanity-- because he did not want his great work competing with the audience reading titles instead of watching.
As for the inner-workings of the characters-- I do not feel we need to know a lot about Weaver's character. He is kind of a tangent, and cutting him does not hurt the story in any way. We really only need him when she checks in, and later when Vargas arrives looking for his wife.
I do think a lot of the leering and spookiness with her in the motel room is overplayed and drawn out. All we need are quick shots showing she is in danger. While I am grateful we have the reconstructed version, not all the studio cuts were bad-- some of them were slight improvements. Of course, Welles and purists wanted all 111 minutes to remain intact. And I do understand that.
As for the sequence where she is taken to the motel-- some of that is unnecessary. Certainly the part where Menzies is driving and she's sleeping in the passenger side is not needed, because we see how tired she is when she reaches the motel and when she wants to get some rest in her room. So some of the repetitious can be eliminated without affecting the narrative. I do agree that we need to see shots of how Grandi is picked up by Menzies. But even in the reconstructed version, it is not properly explained what Grandi has to gain by following Mrs. Vargas to the motel-- unless he wanted to kidnap her, which he doesn't seem to want to do. When Menzies brings Grandi to Hank, Grandi admits he was following Mrs. Vargas and so what. Which seems pretty vague and undeveloped. So not all the characters' motivations are clearly delineated no matter what version we have.
I think Weaver was given "Carte Blanche" with the role. What he did with it is what is notable.
share