MovieChat Forums > Touch of Evil (1958) Discussion > This is camp comedy right?

This is camp comedy right?

posted 9 years ago by JPLogan54
5 replies | jump to latest

Is it supposed to be camp? Absurdest?

The acting at times is totally laughable. I think some of the actors might hurt themselves acting so hard. Heston in particular but Welles too. Almost every supporting character delivers their lines of overwrought dialogue in this way that appears to be trying to create a camp style, but the film itself appears to be trying for straight Noir. The most natural looking acting, of all people, is done by Marlene Dietrich.

Many parts of the film look as though they might lead to some West Side Story song and dance numbers. Everyone making even a simple move like walking is way out of normal. Super theatrical.

There are a number of little things about the way the scenes are constructed that add bizarre touches to the film. When Vargas and an associate are driving down some alleys in a simple car scene they appear to be doing about fifty miles and hour through tiny alleys. It's obviously filmed on a stage against a matte, but its looks totally insane if I am supposed to think they are really driving through the little town and narrow alleys.

The camera is incredibly over active. Its all over the place but throughout the film, the most common shot is looking up at characters. It feels like your watching from the perspective of a person who is about three feet tall. Like its all supposed to be watched from the perspective of a little kid following the characters around. Some of the editing, close ups, and zooms are just beating you over the head with style. Such as when the gang members enter Suzie's hotel room.

When Vargas is following Quinlan and Pete and Pete is wearing the wire, and Quinlan says he hears and echo; I crack up laughing at that scene no matter how many times I watch it.

Now I will say there are some beautiful shots and some natural feeling set ups. But that is the exception rather than the rule. The film itself is really beautiful. The lighting is fantastic. The contrasts are great.

I think Welles was trying to hard to make a Noir here but nearly unintentionally pulled off a comedy. The result is the films tone feels really confused. I love Noir films but this one falls pretty far short of say The Killers or Out Of The Past.

Overall what I get from this film is that Welles was just trying too hard to make a great film. He has all the tools but the film is like a carpenter who upon banging the nail into the board keeps beating on it until he breaks the board.

[–] chefjoseph 9 years ago

"...It's obviously filmed on a soundstage against a Matte..." Firstly it would have been rear projection NOT a Matte, secondly you are wrong it was not either, nor does it look like it was. More opining from IMDB know-nothings.

[–] Robbmonster 9 years ago

"Trying too hard to make a great film"???

You're suggesting director's should concentrate on putting minimal effort into making mediocre films?

Anyway, I checked your ratings, and your opinion is hard to take seriously. You remind me of the old Halliwell's film guide that just thought everything made after 1980 was automatically rubbish.

Aside from that, a genuine thanks for sharing your opinion. I happen to disagree with most of it, and it seems simply that the tone of Touch of Evil was not to your liking. Doesn't make it in any way bad.

Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] drbgoodblues-11682 8 years ago

Charlton Heston as a Mexican is laughable, but once you get beyond that, it is a great film. It is widely considered a masterpiece of the film noir genre. I did feel that Dennis Weaver's character was way over the top, but overall I'd say the acting was pretty good. Orson Welles character is absolutely unforgettable, and I agree with you that Marlene Dietrich did some great acting as well.

[–] tugrul-anildi 8 years ago

I completely share your opinion. You can not forget the camera movements and position to focus on what it shows instead, especially during the extremely long opening shot.
He may have made technical innovations but lacked the emotion. Same weakness prevails in all his work in my opinion including Kane (except a single snowy house-entry scene in Ambersons with a swinging porch lamp)

[–] theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff 8 years ago

Actually, there's some people out there who do think this was intended as a Noir parody. I'm not one of them (Welles was always humorous, and was definitely having some fun here, but not enough to qualify as a parody), but I understand such a reading.

I like the acting. This are all people who are used to being the sole voice of authority, so when contrasted with each other it's only natural that they'd try to assert that "superiority". I think it works excellently in the case of Akim Tamiroff's Uncle Joe, who acts so ridiculously you (and everyone else) forget he is actually a fairly dangerous mob boss, until he succeeds. He's the character who harms everyone else in the film, because no one takes him seriously.

The camera work is mostly magnificent. The low angles are usually used to emphasize a character's power. Here it is so constant and so close to everyone's faces that it acquires a certain grotesque air that I find enjoyable. That's also the reason why the close-ups on the gang members on Suzie's room work. They emphasize how weak Suzie feels at that moment and how afraid she is. The long takes where the main character constantly changes, the composition emphasizing how well connected or alone certain characters, the lighting that renders everyone in shadows, it's all (mostly) great. Thoguh I must admit that I find that driving scene ridiculous, too.

On the whole, I think this film has too many flaws to be called one of Welles' best (I'd rather The Trial, Othello or F For Fake get this kind of acclaim), but it's still a very good film.