Skip to main content

He's a rough magician, isn't he?

The Other Side of the Wind
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Sometimes it may be better notto get what you want and to carry on dreaming about how splendid it would be if you had it. The Other Side of the Wind has been one of those elusive grail items; "Wouldn't it be amazing if we finally got to see Orson Welles' great uncompleted masterpiece?" The critical response to getting it at last has been generally kind, but generally kind in the sense of considering it would be churlish to rip it to shreds after all the effort that has gone in to getting it out there, and out of respect to the fat man. Really, though, it's a bit of a mess.


"This is an attempt to honour and complete his vision" announces an introductory title card, but one can't help feeling that an attempt to grasp something so mercurial is doomed to failure. Wind really needs to be watched as a double bill with They'll Love Me When I'm Dead, in which Morgan Neville details the protracted trials and tribulations of making of the picture, to get a perspective on the wayward child it is. Which is to say, it barely stands on its own; it's a curiosity, interesting for that, but lacking inherent vitality and coherence. 


An anecdote regarding Welles long-suffering cinematographer Gary Graver may provide a clue as to why the picture is less than satisfying; he assembled a workprint and tried to cut it, "but without Orson, it didn't track". It was perfect in Graver's head, but he "just couldn't get it on film". Maybe Welles’ alchemist’s touch would have made all the difference (one can delight in the witty brilliance of F For Fake's editing, but try asking someone else to reproduce it). Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe the half decade production schedule did for it making sense, as the subject matter unspooled from its director's grasp. At one point in the fly-on-the-wall proceedings (a camera crew is filming the 70th birthday party of John Huston's Wellesian-to-an-extent Hollywood director Jake Hannaford), a character is told "You'd better read the script" to which the reply comes "There isn't one. Jake is just making it up as he goes along". It's something echoed in They'll Love Me by those involved, but being self-conscious about the flaws in your approach doesn't guarantee you post-modern sparkle, it just shows you’re aware of the flaws.


I note the Variety review favoured Wind's framing device over the film within a film, but I found the latter more clearly intentioned and stylistically devised, perhaps because Welles had most of it in the can first. Sure, it's a cheap joke; Hannaford's past-it great is attempting to get down with the kids and make something that plays to the modern, hip crowd (but needs funding). This consists mostly of the very lovely Oja Kodar – Welles' girlfriend, and some allege instrumental in obstructing the film from being assembled for such a long time – promenading around nude as she seduces young buck John Dale (Bob Random). The footage is as predictably plotless as that sounds, but it's in the soundtrack to these passages – the goading, controlling director, and the reactions of viewers to the content – that Wind hits a groove largely absent elsewhere. In tandem, one also can't help but ponder the trophy obsession of directors flaunting their young muses en flagrante, as if to announce to the world "Look at what I have".


Much of the rest finds us flitting from guest to guest amid bitty, witty interjections, random observations or improvised conversations and anecdotes that can't escape the artificial veneer of their genesis. Welles idea sounds worthy enough as a premise ("But I would like to take a whole story and make the picture as though it were a documentary. The actors are gonna be improvising. Nobody's ever done it before, you know"), but exactly the issue his audience asks ("Aren't you afraid the end result won’t have any control?") presents itself. 


Brooks OtterlakeWhat would we really be hiding, lady?
Juliette Riche: How much you hate each other.

Loosely, there are narrative pegs. We know this the final day of Hannaford's life (as recounted in a framing voiceover). There's Hannaford's protégé Brooks Otterlake (Peter Bogdanovich, basically playing Peter Bogdanovich, and doing it passably) and the underlying unease of the lauded titan now eclipsed by the young scamp who held him in awe. There's the Pauline Kael-esque film critic Juliette Riche (Susan Strasberg), out to take pot-shots at Hannaford whenever she can (igniting his final physical outburst when she accuses Hannaford of latent homosexual tendencies towards his young discovery). There are also various young director luminaries (Henry Jaglom, Dennis Hopper, Paul Mazursky) in attendance.


Welles first came up with the idea in the early '60s, at which point he was already a Hollywood exile. On might argue that, like the recent example of Gilliam and his reconfigured The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, the less funding you get, the less you're on the radar of the big studios you resent, the more your vision stretches only to an interior perspective, of your own limited, scratchy place within the filmmaking firmament. Interesting for you, less so for your audience. What do you have to say beyond your own artistic (lack of) compromise? The Wiki page for Wind details the various real persons the characters are purportedly designed to represent (including Hannaford as Hemingway – Hannaford's death being the same date as Hemingway's – and the denial that he represents Welles, but that's like believing Woody Allen when he says his characters aren't based on him), yet this only really has relevance if the picture is digging in on the satire front. There are plenty of pithy epithets and blithe asides, but nothing to pull out of the party sequences in a concerted way. This isn't another The Player.


The result is that Wind is too fractured to really work in a compelling fashion. It's unable to develop a distinctive rhythm or cast a hypnotic spell. Welles' film is caught between stylistic intent and the reek of artifice, the camera light on its feet, but the content laboured and staged. There's a persistent feeling of unmotivated scene changes and segues – what shall we do next? I don't know, let's try this; it's like eavesdropping on a conversation you have no stake in, and so quickly becomes a chore.


One wonders whether Welles would have admitted defeat with the footage, had he got it back and been able to make of it what he would. I suspect his approved The Other Side of the Wind wouldn’t have seen the light of day in the form we see it now, however devotedly its architects may have poured over his notes, given that he was reported to have been obsessing over the editing during the time he did have access (he had forty minutes edited at the point it was locked away) and that he was most interested in delivering whatever turned out to be most interesting for the picture, rather than the picture as devised. Because while The Other Side of the Wind holds interest as a document of what might have been, it isn't an especially interesting film. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

This dog is my Patty Hearst.

Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges is one of my favourite films of the past decade, hilarious and profound in equal measure. His follow-up may lack Bruges’ emotional through line, and thus its resonance, but in its own way Seven Psychopaths is just as perfectly formed.

We’re Americans. We read your emails.

Domino (2019)
(SPOILERS) Brian De Palma essentially appears to have disowned his unhappy latest motion picture experience (“I never experienced such a horrible movie set”). He opined that he came in on a script that wasn’t of his own devising (by Petter Skavlan of Kon-Tiki) and did his failing best to apply his unique vision to it. And you can see that vision, occasionally, but more than that you can see unaccustomed cheapness and lacklustre material that likely wouldn’t play no matter how much cash was thrown at it.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.