Take One (Jul-Aug 1971)

Heston Welles an interview by James Delson How did the Touch of Evil project come to be produced? It was submitted to me in December of 1956 by Universal, for whom | had made a successful comedy called The Private War of Major Benson. Since its release | had finished Ten Commandments, done a play in New York, and | was loafing over the holiday when Universal sent the script. “It's a good enough script,” | said, “but police stories, like westerns and war stories, have been so overdone that it really depends on who's going to direct it.” | told them \’d put it down and call them later. They told me that although they didn’t know who was going to direct it, Orson Welles was going to play the heavy. “You know, Orson Welles is a pretty good director,” | said. “Did it ever occur to you to have him direct it?” At that time, Orson had not directed a picture in America since Macbeth. They were a bit nonplussed, but they got back to me in a couple of days and said “Yeah, well that’s a very good idea. A startling idea.” At this time, was Welles considered a cult figure at all? About Citizen Kane he was. There was a rich preoccupation with the idea of Welles as a rebel, | guess, but they brought him in on the picture. He totally re-wrote the script in about seventeen days, which | knew he would, and didn’t object to. He got a solo writing credit for it. Well he deserved it. He gives you your value. He has a reputation as being an extravagant director, but there are directors who have wasted more money on one film than Orson has spent on all the pictures he’s directed in his career. Nonetheless, people say “Oh, you can’t hire Orson because he’s extravagant.’ Mike Nichols went farther over budget on Catch-22 than Orson has spent on all the films he has directed, put together. In my experience, in the one film | made for him, Orson is by no means an extravagant director. As | recall, we had something like a fortyor forty two-day shooting schedule and a budget of slightly under a million dollars, and we went a couple of days and about seventy five thousand dollars over the budget. Now that really is not an outlandish, horrifying situation at all. The difference between that film with Welles and that film without Welles would be remarkable. His contribution as an actor, of course, was incredible. | would say the only major error that Orson made in the film was his conviction that he had to conceal something: the fact that his part was the best part in the film, as he had re-written the script. In fact, it was evident anyway — | knew it. Touch of Evil is about the decline and fall of Captain Quinlan. My part is a kind of witness to this. It would have... | agree that he wrote the best part for himself, but you're one of the three or four actors who have worked with Welles without being dwarfed by him, physically in terms of screen persona, or dramatically in terms of just plain showmanship. In watching the film recently this is one of its aspects that | noted most carefully, knowing that this point would come up. | was looking to see how you would handle yourself when the famous Wellesian scene-stealing took place. In the scene where.Joe Calleia “finds” the sticks of dynamite in the shoebox, Welles is playing it up, but you, through the opposite. means, subduing every gesture and restraining yourself, manage to hold your own, which is a feat. Well, | am happy to subscribe to the thesis that! can stand on equal ground with Orson in a scene, but that doesn't change the fact that Orson is party to that part, and that the film is about Captain Quinlan, really. But that’s the way it should be. That’s the story. | play a man who's looking for his wife, really. Actually, | have Orson to thank for the fact that the part is as interesting as it was, because it was his idea to make it a Mexican detective: | said ‘| can’t play a Mexican detective!” He said ‘‘Sure you can! We'll dye your hair black, and put on some dark makeup and draw a black moustache, sure you can! We'll get a Mexican tailor to cut you a good Mexican suit.” And they did, and it’s plausible enough | suppose. | play a plausible. Mexican. As a matter of fact it doesn't contribute to the stereotype of. the sombrero Mexican lazing around in the shade. f Did Universal agree to let Welles act in the film so long as he directed it? They imposed on him, for budget reasons. They were willing to take a chance on him directing, but only on that budget. Was casting begun immediately upon the signing of Welles? , No. The first. thing was his re-working of the script. He wanted it to be set on the Mexican border, and they wouldn't go for location work at that time. You must remember that this was sixteen years ago. Welles found an entirely acceptable substitute in Venice, California. It was more than acceptable. Remind me not to visit Venice, California. Welles achieved a new low in ramshackle buildings, locations, and degeneracy, as played most ably by US-for-Mexico shooting. In searching for locations, and other pre-production work, did you play an active part? Not nearly the amount | do now. | was consulted about things, but did not really participate on a serious level. | helped in things like casting. | had approval. Was there anybody cast who you were either exceedingly pleased or displeased over? | thought all of the casting was marvelous. There was some uncertainty over the casting of the girl, who was played by Janet Leigh. | guess she was very big at that time. The studio wanted to use her very much. This casting was, in fact, almost imposed, and... as a matter of fact, it turned out better than | thought it would. | thought she was quite good. | don’t think Orson was terribly upset about it. All the other casting | had approval on and, as far as | know, Orson made all the other castings: There were some fine performances, especially Joe Calleia. | think it’s one of the very best pieces of work he did in his whole career. | thought the cameos were a nice touch... Orson got his cronies to do them. Joe Cotton and Marlene Dietrich were fun, yeah. ee Orson Welles as director. That's the dream of many fine actors. What is it that makes him special to work with? He's exciting. He makes it fun. Then why is it that he can’t get the money to make films? He makes films that are literate, and as close as one can get to pure cinema, both in terms of artistic achievement and-entertainment. I'm sorry. That was a rhetorical z