Newman the chameleon


Paul Newman plays a Mexican bandit so convincingly in The Outrage (Martin Ritt, 1964) that it's extremely difficult to recognize Newman at all. Far from being a star vehicle, the Paul Newman "persona" isn't recognizable here in the least. I must admit that for quite awhile, I kept wondering when Newman was going to finally arrive on the screen, before it dawned upon me that Newman was playing the bandit. I wouldn't deem his amoral, animalistic, lusty performance brilliant because it constitutes a rather stereotypical caricature of a Mexican bandit. Nevertheless, Newman disguises himself so dramatically, to the point where "Paul Newman" is almost invisible, that his performance becomes noteworthy just the same.

Overall, Martin Ritt's Western remake of Akira Kurosawa's landmark and legendary Rashomon (Kurosawa, 1950) is worth viewing despite some obvious flaws. Ritt doesn't add anything new to Kurosawa's famous study in subjective truth and point-of-view prejudice, and at times, The Outrage, which was also taken from a then-recent Broadway play, appears a bit flat and copied. Indeed, it occasionally seems as if Ritt grows bored with the story that he's copying from Kurosawa and Broadway and that he's yearning for comedy and satire in his otherwise straight remake. However, those alternative tones are never fully developed and as a result the film fails to make a dynamic impact. That same year, over in Spain, Italian director Sergio Leone remade Kurosawa's Samurai classic Yojimbo (1961) as a Western, but he did so with epochal results, largely because he brought a whole new visual style (a patient, rhythmic balance of stunning panorama and extreme close-ups) and directorial slant (a fluid study in operatic nihilism and surrealism) to Kurosawa's story. In other words, Leone remade a Kurosawa film and in doing so, he transformed it into something vastly different. In The Outrage, Ritt fails to pull off the same trick.

That said, there are some aspects that recommend The Outrage to the viewer, and Newman's chameleon performance is just one of them. All of Ritt's remarkable directorial trademarks are on display here: his ambiguity; his objectivity; his refusal to condescend to the audience; the moral shadiness that he evokes; his rejection of black-or-white moral simplicity; his implicit and unstrained social commentary (in this case revolving around the holy trinity of race, class, and gender, not to mention regionalism); his spare, ominously striking visuality; his meditative pacing. Perhaps most noteworthy is James Wong Howe's haunting black-and-white cinematography, which reflects an ominous glow and projects an apocalyptic sensibility rather than Western grandeur. Instead of macrocosmic vistas, Howe's compositions capture a sense of claustrophobia, moral confusion, and subjective truth thanks to their low-angle and eye-level confinement. Through his camerawork, the Western landscape becomes not a romantic frontier or an open-air arena, but instead an entangling thicket where honor and honesty descend in a squalid ravine. Most remarkable are the crepuscular, stormy, forbidding shots of a forsaken railway station during a desert thunderstorm. It is here that three observers (one of which is deliciously played by the always memorable Edward G. Robinson) discuss the different versions of truth while refraining from spelling out the implications for the audience. Ritt, as usual, forces the viewer to think for him or herself. And what Ritt reveals are the human motivations——pride, vanity, contempt, guilt, shame, distrust, lust, cowardice, avarice, survival——that color the notion of truth and ultimately render it subjective. Unfortunately, as a straight remake, The Outrage's presentation of these themes is a little too flat and perfunctory to leave a fresh impact. Still, the film is compelling and curious, standing as an artistic, sobering Western and the most obscure oater that Paul Newman ever starred in. And of course, Newman virtually obscures himself by becoming another.

reply

[deleted]

I haven't seen Sorcerer but may have to check it out. Heston is totally unconvincing as a Mexican in Touch of Evil, and yet it seems to work for a noir where everything is appropriately skewed and the universe is tilted on its axis, revealing its squalid, seedy underbelly. (I'm not sure of the history there: did Universal force Welles to use Heston, did Welles really want Heston, or did Welles use Heston knowing that he needed a box-office attraction of the moment?)

Newman, on the other hand, is so convincing as a (caricatured) Mexican bandit in The Outrage that "Paul Newman" almost cannot be recognized. In fact, if I hadn't been aware of the film's history and hadn't seen the credits, I probably would have never identified the bandit as Newman. As it was, I kept waiting for Newman to finally arrive before it dawned on me that Newman was actually the bandit (the eyes ultimately helped give him away).

Actually, The Outrage marks the only time where I've ever seen a major star completely disguise his "persona." People sometimes talk about the versatility of actors such as Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman (as opposed to "personality" stars such as Wayne, Bogart, Grant, McQueen, Eastwood, et. al.), but I can always recognize "Dustin Hoffman" and "Gene Hackman" in their roles, no matter how eccentric they may be. But in The Outrage, aside from the eyes, there is Paul Newman but no "Paul Newman," and I don't think that I've seen that before in film. It's more akin to a theatrical actor who doesn't bring a "persona" to the character. There are times when a major movie star will play against expectation in a highly eccentric film (Eastwood in The Beguiled, for instance), but even there, one is still very much aware of the star's identity. In The Outrage, there is no more star identity when it comes to Paul Newman.

reply

Heston received the script for "Touch of Evil" in 1956, even before Welles did. He thought it was good, but wanted to find out who the director was going to be before accepting the part of the detective, because he thought that police stories had been "over done". He was told that Welles was going to play Quillan, became excited and suggested that Welles should direct as well. Universal thought it was a good idea. Eventually, Welles was allowed to direct and re-wrote the script.

As for the Mexican:

Actually, i have Orson to thank for the fact that the part is as interesting as it was, because it was his idea to make it a Mexican detective. I said, "I can't play a Mexican detective!" He said, "Sure you can! We'll dye your hair black, and put on some dark makeup and draw a black moustache, sure you can. We'll get a Mexican tailor to cut you a good Mexican suit." (p.214)

Touch of Evil (Rutgers Films in Print S.)- Terry Comito

reply

Thanks for the information, Rupert. It strikes me that Welles often tied irony to exaggeration, and having Heston play a Mexican might have been part of that.

reply

[deleted]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Brando's performance in Viva Zapata? It was made before both Touch of Evil and The Outrage. Brando played the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata and also sported black hair, a moustache and dark make-up. He was more recognizable than Newman, but in my opinion he gave a better performance than both him and Heston. Although it isn't objective to compare those performances since the latter two were almost entirely campy caricatures (I'd dare say both probably unintentionally), while Brando's only at times.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

reply

I disagree with you only to bring you the joy of watching Paul Muni consistently and beautifully transform himself into a palette of fascinating characters. In his Oscar winning turn in The Life of Louis Pasteur he portrayed the titular character through decades of his life; growing & shaving a full beard, etc...so involved was Muni that he helped design the complex and grueling make-up that visually transformed him.
Many remember him as a typecast gangster for his work on Scarface, but so potent was his talent that he both created, then broke, the mold for each new challenge. The studio heads had a devil of a time with publicity, because in each new film Paul was wholly unrecognizable.
Truly, Paul Muni was the living Man of a Thousand Faces.

reply

Then again, I recognized Newman the moment I saw him on screen.

reply

Although Paul Newman gave a very good, committed performance, he is still a white [OK, Jewish] actor in shoe polish with an accent that veers into Sergeant Garcia/Frito Bandido territory. It's Mexican "black face", or "brown face", or whatever, which gives this movie an unintended humorous and/or offensive aspect today. Of course actors don't HAVE to be the same ethnicity or even gender as their roles, but ethnic fakery looks weird now. See, e.g. Katharine Ross in Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here; Mickey Rooney in Breakfast At Tiffany's; Chuck Connors and Jeff Chandler as Indian chiefs, etc. PS The bigger question is why remake Rashomon in the first place? Guess it was too soon after WW2, and only artsy urbanites went to movies with subtitles...

reply

Much is being made of Newman's chameleon portrayal in this film. However, Paul Muni consistently and beautifully transformed himself into a palette of fascinating characters decades before. In his Oscar winning turn in The Life of Louis Pasteur he portrayed the titular character through decades of his life; growing & shaving a full beard, etc...in the film Juarez he completely immersed himself in the role, such that a careful viewer has difficulty finding Muni in the great revolutionary statesman. A higher compliment I cannot find at this early hour. So involved was Muni that he helped design the complex and grueling make-up that visually transformed him time and again. But it was his craft that compels our admiration, his perseverance at seeking roles that allowed him to reach new heights of theatre.
Many remember him as a typecast gangster for his work on Scarface, but so potent was his talent that he broke the yoke of typecast and went on to both create, then shatter, the mold for each new challenge. The studio heads had a devil of a time with publicity, because in each new film Paul was wholly unrecognizable.
Truly, Paul Muni was a Prince of American Theatrical Arts, and the living Man of a Thousand Faces. 

reply