Orson Welles - Touch of Evil (1958) - opening (NO-restored version)

[@ocsugar]

Magical, what a genius!

[@hebneh]

I far prefer this original studio version to the restored one. First, because this is how I saw it repeatedly on TV in the 1970s and '80s (starting in 1972.) Second, the Henry Mancini theme song is masterful, and it's repeated in the lengthy murder scene later, which makes it more relevant. And finally, I like the credits being superimposed because to me they add a sense of how this is apparently a prosaic street scene, although we know there's a time bomb that could explode any second.

[@RonaldCharlesEpstein]

Great film with a wonderful cast.

[@Rubrasileiro]

I have 23, We are in 2019 but I've seen this version first 😅

[@megaswenson]

Absolute magic! I just saw this shot mentioned in a documentary about making 'Halloween', & put that on pause, to look this up. I wasn't disappointed.

[@lovecraft7676]

Is it cinematic heresy to admit I prefer the non-restored opening?

[@MartinKoolhoven]

+James Hancock I always thought this was a perfect opening. Never understood the need for change.

[@300MediaProductions]

The score, while very good, overpowers the feeling Welles wanted the opening to convey. The loss of the ambient music and sound misses a lot of the tension in the scene.

[@mauricioduron3193]

Only if you don't mind that the titles distract us from the suspense of the complex one-take sequence as Mr. Welles conceived it.

[@mauricioduron3193]

+Martin Hancock Not to polemicise, but calling it a restoration implies that the producers changed Mr. Welles' original when they introduced the movie titles.

[@sagrophobia]

Yes..It is. Mancini's score and the opening credits take out the tension and distract the audience from the point of the scene, whereas in Welles's version, the sound ambiences along with the camerawork and blocking are not only more cinematic technically, but also keep the audience's attention exactly where the director wants.

[@lazararagina7703]

Traduzir para o português obrigada 😃👍💗 Goiânia Go

[@UNOwen1]

@444nave; Thanks for posting this. I guess I'm spoilt, as I'd never seen this - the un-retrored version. It makes me appreciate the restored version that much more. By the way; I saw a copy of this here, posted by Universal (I won't call them by that 'Nother Name' - which they want viewers to P-A-Y for the 'privilege' of seeing, no thanks), and, from the really, really shoddy condition of the trailer, it's no wonder Mr. Welles was aggrieved by their treatment of him.

[@edwardwilson7858]

Look, this type of thing tended to happen with Welles' movies. There are supposedly 6 or 7 different edits of Mr Arkadan, and everybody knows how Ambersons was mutilated. And he didn't finish Macbeth. Remember that Welles didn't have the final control over his films that Hitchcock did.

[@SocialWednesday]

how do you watch the original version? Im doing a paper on it

[@mikeesernia4281]

Maybe it’s a matter of taste, but IMO this is the better fo the intro’s. Maybe because this is how I saw it in a college course as an undergrad, but even at a young age, I found this catchy as hell.

[@jackcassidy6654]

This version really ruins the pacing and tension of the scene for me, credits are distracting and not necessary, I don't know how the studio thought this would be an improvement over Welles' original idea for the shot.

[@OuterGalaxyLounge]

This is one instance where corporate tampering was better. Viva Mancini!

[@edwardjames50]

Sadly, because of the Welles restoration, this version (with the superior Mancini theme) is now lost to us. However, this pan-and-scan aspect ratio (from the VHS ape release) destroys the widescreen vista. (sigh) I guess we can't have it all!

[@OneBigSoul]

Rafael Storm It's wrong ;-) The 1958 version is still available too.

[@alexa7553]

Rafael Storm In this particular case, this is NOT a pan and scan version. They used the original full frame that was reframed (i.e., by cutting off top and bottom of the screen) for both the theatrical release and (of course) the DVD. There's an endless debate on whether or not Welles shot the film with the full aperture in mind or with the widescreen format in mind. Check welles.net for more info.

[@edwardjames50]

***** I stand corrected. I just watched both versions side-by-side, and the widescreen version is clearly simply a matte job.

[@alexa7553]

Which one do you like the most?

[@edwardjames50]

***** I like the widescreen matted version, with the credits, Mancini's theme, and the ambient source music. I want it ALL!

[@JamesBjorkman]

The passerby at 1:56 in the trenchcoat who almost looks at the camera looks awfully like Orson Welles.

[@MartinHeavisides]

Heresy, no, but not stupendously bright

[@phongphamthanh2081]

This movie is now avaaailаaaable tо watсh herе => twitter.com/b95e932d3e827f3a8/status/822786017665032192 Orsооon Wellеes Touch of Еvil 1958 оppрpening NО rеstorеd versiоn

[@TheHCPMusic]

Gotta say, I always thought this was a big nothingburger of a film. Lots of great camera shots, blah blah blah, but a pretty dumb plot, with some plot elements that make no sense at all. If Welles hadn't directed it, and without Heston, this would have been a double feature with something like "Narrow Margin" or "I, Mobster"