Film and video Theory Essay
Touching on Drugs
in ‘Touch of Evil’
By: Daniel Libby
When Universal Studios saw Orson Welles original cut of Touch of Evil, he was “immediately barred from the lot” (McBride, p.146). They hired a new director to shoot additional footage, in hopes of making it a linear narrative. When the film was released in 1958, it was “unceremoniously dumped on the bottom half of double bills, and scorned by reviewers as a B-picture.” (Garris, p. 110) The film has gone on to considerable critical acclaim in the present, which illustrates the end of Hollywood’s close minded mentality of refuting the unordinary. What Welles made with Touch of Evil, can be viewed as a revolutionary movie in terms of style, structure, and content. The film deals with many relevant social issues that were thought of as controversial for a 1950’s American audience, the main one being illicit drug use. Welles explores the subject of narcotics through many different angles throughout his U.S.A – Mexican border setting. The film Touch of Evil, which may have had little influence over Hollywood studio cinema of the 1950’s, has gone on to greatly influence American cinema of the present.
Orson Welles is synonymous with motion picture entertainment, in fact with his knowledge and credits it’s safe to say Welles himself can be considered a cinema addict. After directing Citizen Kane and Magnificent Ambersons successfully for the Hollywood Studio system of the 1940’s, Welles went on to make a ‘flop’ in Mr. Arakadin (1955). For the next few years, he acted in a few supporting roles in random films. He was offered the part of Hank Quinlan in Touch of Evil, staring the then Hollywood golden boy Charlton Heston. In fact it was on the behest of Heston that Welles was offered the role of director, “he agreed, not because he liked the subject, but because it was the first offer of work he had received since Mr. Arakadin.” (Bazin, 123) The fact that Welles was making a “minor detective story” was suprising to many, maybe none more so then Welles himself. “He claimed he did not read the novel (Badge of Evil) before making the film.” (McBride, p. 146) With that fact in mind, it’s hard to imagine how Welles could create what today is considered a cinema classic.
Touch of Evil can be analyzed in terms of many genres, but has mainly been classified as a film noir. Opening with a fundamental tracking shot, the audience is lead through the shadowy streets of Los Robles. We are introduced to Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston) a Mexican narcotics officer, and his newlywed wife (Janet Leigh) an American. Just as soon as we are introduced to the protagonists, they are torn apart, as an automobile explosion sets the story in motion. We are then introduced to Captain Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles), the antogonist of the film – a corrupt American detective. He is “a grotesque and malignant toad, an impression accentuated by Welles’s distorting use of extreme wide-angle lenses and low camera angles.” (McBride, p. 149) The Hank Quinlan character is perfect for comparing to film noir, because the character exists in the gray region that noir is, Quinlan is both good and bad, a corrupt lawman but a lawman none the less.
In many ways this film can also be analyzed as a ‘melodrama’. Which was a dominant genre of 1950’s Hollywood. The musical score is fundamental, salsa and tango songs boom throughout the film. The central focus is a newly wed couple, played by Heston and Leigh, and the film’s advertising tagline was “This is her wedding night, where was the man she had married?” The patriarchal domination of American society is prevalent here, as Vargas is away working throughout the film, and Vargas’ wife spends the majority of the movie locked in a hotel room. The Janet Leigh character is mainly an object in the film, trapped and inactive. The treatment of women is a reoccurring exploration through out melodramatic analysis. In Touch of Evil, there are a few female roles that were ‘radical’ for the time it was made. The compassion that Welles evokes from the audience for the brothel owner (played by Zsa Zsa Gabor), the sadness for the aging gypsy character (played by Marlene Dietrich), and the hatred of the leather jacket gang leader (played by Mercedes McCambridge), can be analyzed as ground-breaking for women in 1950’s Hollywood cinema. The film is also laden with references to substance addictions, another reoccurring trait throughout melodrama.
The explicit references to drug abuse, among other things, can classify Touch of Evil as a social problem film. Indeed, Welles has placed social issues throughout the film; Something as minor as a sign behind Vargas in a motel lobby reading “If you’re mean enough to steal from the blind. Help yourself.” Show the traits of a director whom means to bring to light relevant social issues. The most dominant being the subject of drugs, from distribution to addiction, this film is wealth of drug related material. However central this ‘drug world’ is to this film, it was far from mainstream to treat these underworld issues in the 1950’s popular media, hence the unpopularness of Touch of Evil upon its release. This can be compared to American cinema of today, where the drug world is rampant throughout motion pictures. Hank Quinlan mentions “I’m glad I found that hypodermic” in a whisper, that contrasts with Hollywood 37 years later, when audiences are thrilled to see Vincent Vega (in the film Pulp Fiction) stabbing a hypodermic needle in the heart of a drug-overdosed woman. Touch of Evil is not a perfect answer for drug use in America, but its fundamental for bringing to light issues that American cinema screens had rarely seen.
It can be argued that with Touch of Evil, Welles has done more then bring to light to a dark issue in America’s closet. Touch of Evil has in fact started a contemporary genre in modern cinema. A genre that I call the ‘heroin’ film, which encompasses films that center around multiple characters (thus multiple plots), and connect by the issue of drug distribution and/or drug addiction. I shall attempt to compare Touch of Evil to some ‘heroin’ films to prove this genre.
Touch of Evil deals with narcotics and American - Mexican border relations, Steven Soderberg updates American moviegoers with Traffic (2000). The atmospheric changes between Los Robles border check point, and the boarder crossing in Traffic is a drastic comparison. We see Mike Vargas and his new wife joking with the guards, as one car waits in along the dirt road, in Traffic our first impression of the boarder is caged police dogs howling, and a crowded 8 lane superhighway of hundreds of cars gridlocked due to the intense checks. In Touch of Evil, the car waiting at the boarder is carrying a ticking bomb which is even heard by the woman in the car then disregarded by the guards. In Traffic, the Juan Orbergon character (played by Benjamin Bratt) goes through a four minute explanation about the extent he goes to molding his narcotics into childrens toys, in order to get past the border inspections.
The other fundamental comparison that should be noted is between the central protagonists Mike Vargas in Touch of Evil and Javier Rodriquez (Benicio Del Toro) in Traffic. Both men represent good and decent Mexican police officers, specializing in Narcotics. They both struggle with bringing to justice the corrupt practices of their respective higher ups. This may be why both characters, Vargas and Rodriquez, are not enthusiastic about their jobs. Welles and Soderberg present the audience with the dilemma, how can a cop want to continue policing when their higher ups are the ones that are causing the crimes? Racism and Nationalism are at issue in both films, as the view of Mexicans is inherently negative, save for the Vargas and Rodriquez characters. The actors of either character were not Mexican, Charlton Heston being from Illinois and Benicio Del Toro being from Puerto Rico. Del Toro at least is Hispanic, and speaks Spanish throughout the film. Although Heston dyed his hair black and delivered two lines in Spanish, his part comes off as a comedic sidenote for modern film fans – because its funny to see Charlton Heston attempt to be a Mexican.
If the ‘heroin’ film can be considered a genre, and a classic narrative trait was to emerge it would be ‘the trip out scene.’ This is the scene in which a central character(s) become intoxicated with a drug and the film, and the filmmaker attempts to replicate ‘the trip’ through visual style, and sound design. The trip is usually confined to a singular room. In Touch of Evil, the character Susan Vargas (Janet Leigh) is drugged by a gang and left locked in a hotel room. In Spun (2002, directed by Jonas Akerlund), Ross (played by Jason Schwartzman) gets ‘spun’ on ‘crank’, ties his girlfriend to a bed, and leaves her alone for days as he ‘trips out.’ The Susan character, is forced to listen to blaring music from the room next door. In Spun, Ross turns on the stereo full blast when he leaves, and the neighbours are for forced to listen to it. This gets the neighbour (Debra Harry) curious as to why this music is on, and what is going on inside the room. Indeed, help from outside is common in both films. In Touch of Evil, Susan hears an eerie voice whispering through the wall, “Do you know what marijuana is? Do you know the maryjane? Do you know what intravenous is? In the vein…” It is obvious in comparison that scenes from Touch of Evil have influenced scenes in other movies.
Also technically, Touch of Evil, has influenced many films since its release. Of course, the opening tracking shot can be compared to numerous films. The way that Welles was able to capture ‘the trip out’ was quite technically impressive. When Susan is first abducted, things start becoming very strange, very quickly. One of the strangest being a scene where she is being lead through the doorway of a motel, a woman stops her and says look at my baby, and then flashes a photo camera. This imagery can be seen influencing the film Trainspotting (1996, directed by Danny Boyle), in which Renton (played by Ewan McGregory) sees flashes of a baby crawling up his wall as he is trying to get ‘clean’. The baby imagery can be interpreted as a metaphor for the effect drug usage has on the consumer, the intense feelings of freedom, happiness, and care freeness, are related to the feelings of security in the womb.
In terms of graphic use of drugs, there is little to no visual examples in Touch of Evil. However, the film has been noted as uncharacteristically Welles in terms of its prevalence of “sexual sadism” (Bazin, 122.) The most graphic scene, being that of ‘the leather jacket gang’, five males and two females, muscling there way into Susan’s room and overpowering her. The leader tells the gang members to spread her legs, Susan screams, they pick her up and the camera cuts away. This scene is controversial because it implies ‘gang rape’, which would have been too controversial for mainstream audiences of the time to watch. In fact the film goes on to explain that the gang had only drugged Susan, and wanted to make her think that she had been raped. In Requiem for a Dream (2000, directed by Darren Aronofsky), the audience is subjected to an uncensored look at drug consumption. During the final montage sequence, the film keeps cutting back to graphic images of ‘sex party’, the audience is made to watch Marion Silver (played by Jennifer Connelly) engage in hardcore sadistic sex. This speaks a lot as to what modern audiences of these drug issue films will accept, and even demand, from movies today.
The effect that Touch of Evil had on the career of Orson Welles was monumental, in that it was the last Hollywood film he would ever direct. The confines of the studio system, and bad press / box office was too much for Welles. He moved to Europe, coincidentally the very place that had championed Touch of Evil upon its release, awarding it best picture at the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair. The film has later gone on to be heralded as an American classic, Andrew Sarris has wrote “Touch of Evil is a film that make you re-think what a movie should be.” (McBride p. 147)
Touch of Evil has affected filmmakers like Quienten Tarantino, Steven Soderberg, Jonas Akerlund, Danny Boyle, and Darren Aronofsky, as evident throughout their respective works. All five filmmakers have made a name for themselves via their ‘heroin’ genre film (whereas Welles invariably lost his). They have also gone on from smaller independent projects, into mainstream big money Hollywood, as a result of their ‘heroin’ film. Welles went from mainstream Hollywood to independent Europe, as a result of Touch of Evil. In terms of film success with audience the most shocking fact of the ‘heroin’ film is that the audience and studios shyed away from in the 1950’s, has become a viable genre of entertainment in the twenty first century. Because essentially the treatment of drug usage in Touch of Evil is incredibly tame, when compared to Pulp Fiction, Traffic, Spun, Trainspotting, and Requiem for a Dream, where the subject of drugs have become popular entertainment.
In conclusion, it is obvious to see the influence of Touch of Evil is immense, in terms of present cinema. Modern auteur directors everywhere consider Orson Welles’ work an inspiration for their own cinema. However, it should be noted that his work Touch of Evil is an influence, not a direct reference, as all of the examples above have modified the vision that Welles started with Touch of Evil. These modern auteurs have given us new and vibrant looks on the seedy underworld of illict drugs in America in each of the films listed above. However Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil, should be remembered as the originator of a contemporary film genre, the ‘HEROIN’ film.
Works Cited
Bazin, Andre. Orson Welles A Critical View. Los Angeles: First Acrobrat Press, 1991.
Garris, Robert. The Films of Orson Welles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
McBride, Joseph. Orson Welles. New York: First Da Copa Press, 1972.
Works Consulted
Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing About Film. New York: Longman, 2001.
Landy, Marcia (ed.) Imitations of Life. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991.
Parkinson, David. History of Film. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1995.
Stam, Robert. Film Theory An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2000.