Review of Touch of Evil (1958) by Rob D — 15 Feb 2008

[font=Arial][color=#000000]I think the first theatrical release I saw in 2008 was Gus Van Sant?s [i]Paranoid Park[/i]. Whilst I?m not familiar with much of Van Sant?s most recent movies, I did enjoy this film which has been described as ?a cross between [i]Memento[/i], [i]Brick[/i] and [i]The Outsiders[/i]?.[/color][/font].

[font=Arial][color=#000000]Inspired by the life of Bod Dylan (although not actually featuring any character of that name) I was both bemused and entertained by Todd Haynes highly regarded [i]I?m Not There[/i].[/color][/font].

[color=#000000][font=Arial]I particularly enjoyed Ang Lee?s lush depiction of 1940s Japanese-occupied [/font][font=Arial]China[/font][font=Arial] in [i]Lust, Caution[/i]. Even though it has a running time of nearly three hours, the storytelling drew me in and it didn?t seem half as long.[/font][/color].

[color=#000000][font=Arial]Whilst [i]Citizen Kane[/i] is routinely near the top of the lists of the best films ever made, my favourite Orson Welles? film is [i]A Touch of Evil[/i] (1958). Intended to be Welles? [/font][font=Arial]Hollywood[/font][font=Arial] comeback movie, it was savagely re-cut by the studio and released as a B-movie. Retrospectively, it is considered to be one of the last great [i]film noirs[/i]. A showing at my local art-house cinema allowed me a big screen viewing of some the film?s great signature sequences: the opening tracking shot; the scene in which Quinlan (Welles) murders ?Uncle Joe? Grandi (Akim Tamiroff) and the final scenes in which Vargas (Charlton Heston) follows a bugged Menzies (Joseph Calleia) in an attempt to get Quinlan to confess on tape. A great film from Welles: both as director and for his potent portrayal of the despicable, corrupt, morally bankrupt character of Hank Quinlan.[/font][/color].

[font=Arial][color=#000000]Staying on the Tex-Mex borderlands but in a less certain moral universe, [i]No[/i] [i]Country for Old Men[/i] has been universally lauded by critics and understandably so. The story plays with audience expectation in such a way that I was surprised and rather disturbed by the ending. After mulling the film over I interpret the story thusly:[/color][/font].

[color=#000000][font=Arial]Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), as an agent of the law, represents order and predictability ? crimes are committed, the transgressors undergo due process, justice is administered. Anton Chigurh (in a creepily outstanding performance by Javier Bardem) is an agent of destruction; he presents the forces of disorder and unpredictability (as evidenced in his coin tossing). [/font][font=Arial]Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is the ?everyman? caught between the two. I won?t say anymore lest I spoil the ending for those that haven?t seen the movie (or read McCarthy?s novel)?not that anybody appears to read this rubbish I write.[/font][/color].

[font=Arial][color=#000000]Suffice to say, Hank Quinlan can be said to be touched by an Augustian ?evil? (although I find it simplistic to speak in terms of good and evil), which in the words of Norbert Wiener is ?a measure of own weakness?. Chigurh, on the other hand is very much a Manichean force, an active agent of darkness is an entropic world moving toward increasing (and for Shefriff Bell incomprehensible) disorder. If you?ve seen the movie you?ll know what I mean. Or maybe not.[/color][/font][font=Arial][/font].