User reviews

Years ago I saw a documentary that included a scene from a never-released Orson Welles film, The Other Side of the Wind. It was remarkably modern, a kaleidoscopic, eccentric work that was surprising for someone Welles age.

It wasn't until 2020 that I learned the film had actually been pulled together and released.

The cinema-verite style is explained as the result of pulling together footage from various documentarians and journalists video. The film begins with various hangers on of a famous director traveling to his party while elsewhere an investor is watching footage from his current, unfinished film.

This is actually the weakest part of the movie. The individual scenes are confusing and the way they are intercut with the film-within-a-film just add to the confusion. Apparently Welles had rough-cut about half the movie by the time he died, and my suspicion is this first part was not part of that rough cut, since it's weaker. Just a guess.

The film-within-a-film seems to be a parody of trippy, avant-garde, 60s filmmaking. I take it as Welles' portrayal of an old director past his glory days trying to create something hip.

The movie gets its footing when the director's party starts. There is a lot of striking B&W footage cut in and John Huston as the director is a powerful force. The party is to screen his movie, such as it is, and while it is essentially a plotless bit of nonsense with tons of gratuitous nudity, it does have some striking imagery, such as a scene set in slatted shadows and another involving a beaded necklace.

The surrounding film doesn't have much story. It's mainly about the director charming or dueling with various characters who want something from him. Things are hinted but rarely spelled out.

Welles was a genius, so even his worst movies, like Mr. Arkadin, are splashed with brilliance. Other Side of the Wind has a remarkable style and is generally fascinating, but it's not always satisfying and the film-within-a-film takes up more time than it probably should have.

If you're a fan of Orson Welles, or just a fan of cinema, this is a must-see. Yes, the movie would have been more impressive if it had been released in the early 70s, when it was filmed, but even today in a world full of found-footage movies this is still remarkable.

I had the privilege of seeing this at the New York Film Festival. A sense of awe descended upon the audience as soon as the opening credits began. The fact that this film was finally completed and released is a triumph in and of itself.

Orson Welles' final film is chaotic and unwieldy, but also very haunting and melancholy. The soundtrack is amazing. There is frankly a sliver of a plot. An aging director attempts to make a comeback as Hollywood has drifted away from his era as he throws a big birthday party in which journalists, critics, admirers and some industry professionals join to celebrate. It soon becomes apparent that reporters are there to ascertain information about more than his work. His new film that is in the works is shown. We get to see an unfinished film within a film that is titled "The Other Side of the Wind", one that is sexually explicit.

The late John Huston portrays Jake Hannaford, the director whose approach to filmmaking has earned him a great following and his relationships with the actors he works with makes him a lightning rod of controversy. Huston's sepulchral voice and domineering presence make him flawless in the role as Hannaford. Peter Bogdanovich is well utilized as a younger, successful director whom Hannaford has taken under his wing but whom now Hannaford consults on how to better reach audiences of the new era.

This film is not flawless. The experience of seeing this at long last outweighs its drawbacks. There are some parts of this film that drag a bit. But there are also many, many scenes that are just astounding and I'm so happy they were finally brought to the big screen. Although this film is inconsistent in its narrative thrust, it returns very quickly to its busy, slightly manic state. I don't know if Welles deliberately left this unfinished. What I can say is that the editing is superb and provides us with a film that is a lasting testament to Welles and his legacy as a filmmaker. Highly recommended.

Here it is, if anybody wants to see it.

Were you compelled by the character study of Citizen Kane? Were you thrilled by Touch of Evil? Then get ready for something unlike any of those or unlike anything. This is the mockumentary before Reiner or Guest, the improvisational dramedy before Apatow.

The entire point of this movie is that there's no point to this movie. Here is Orson Welles's most talked about movie about talking about a movie. His film about a film within a film. Orson Welles deliberately subverts Orson Welles to make an art film contained within an art film making fun of art films. John Huston plays John Huston playing Orson Welles as Orson Welles. Peter Bogdanovich plays himself as his own ripoff. There's a party celebrating a celebrated filmmaker making a film making fun of filmmakers. Nothing happens. So much happens. We learn everything about a legendary director about whom we learn nothing.

This film is a glimpse into the psyche of a filmmaker who wants to make films but has no idea how to keep making films. He wants to be commercially successful without compromising his integrity. He wants to make personal films for an impersonal audience. He wants to make something sexy despite being prudish. This movie isn't really for anyone; this movie is really for everyone.

It wasn't until the end of his life that Orson Welles realized the most important story he needed to tell was his own. It's a story whose only concern is that it was told, whether or not you like it. So watch it. Or don't. This movie doesn't care either way.

And if this review left you feeling confused, then I gave you an accurate impression of the film.

It took 40 years to make. Orson Welles never lived to see it completed. It's sad, but in retrospect, I see why. The Other Side of the Wind is brilliant in it's own little way, but it's far too esoteric. This film was for an audience, but we certainly aren't it. This is Orson Welles, and his film cohorts, fed up with the Hollywood system, and throwing up their middle fingers at them. At the same time, Welles was searching to make a masterpiece far ahead of it's time. What we get is the story of the premiere of a legendary filmmaker's last film. The film-within-the-film, also titled The Other Side of the Wind, is a colorful and erotic psychedelic fever dream about a Native American woman. I enjoyed this portion much more. You can see the imagination and enthusiasm for making something new and far-out from these scenes. The scenes that wrap around the film-within-a-film are in the style of a documentary, as we see industry folks and journalists quipping and arguing with each other. John Huston stars as Jake Hannaford, the jaded has been hot shot director who is obviously supposed to represent Welles himself. Huston is the brightest part of these scenes. On the whole, they are less imaginative, and feel so insular. It's unbalanced, and that's what really took me out of it. Historically, this is really fascinating stuff. To better understand it, I must consult the making-of companion doc on Netflix.

Some films are hard to judge, especially something like this, that may be very close to what Welles intended, but never finished and never really seemed to be really satisfied with (see also the documentary about Welles from 2018, which is really good). Now there are things in here that may seem redundant to some or annoying. Or even pretentious to some extend. If that rings true to you or not, it doesn't mean you are right or wrong, one way or the other. It just means you have feeling and maybe knowledge and that's why you lean to a particular way or side.

Having written all that, I am surprised by the amount of nudity that made it into the film. I'm also surprised about the film depicting scenes being shot "in real time" with off commentaries by the director, with different cameras, cuts and all that. Now obviously we are taking creative liberties here and it's supposed to be heightened. It's to prove a point or even points. So in a way there is more to the film than meets the eye. You have to approach this movie with a certain mindset.

If you do that, you may be able to see more than some others. But if you don't you'll probably be bored. Whatever your stance on this is and it will be dividing, you cannot call this an easy movie to watch. Some probably will watch it multiple times and cherish it's commentary and behind the scenes insights as much as its psychology. Others will just sneer at the mention of the title. In a way I'd say that would make Welles happy after all ...

The Other Side of the Wind is not a perfect film, but perhaps the perfect film to punctuate Orson Welles' incredible and monolithic career, and certainly the most appropriate film to leave unfinished due to difficulty in production. Or perhaps it is the genius of Welles to have left the film unfinished on purpose?

The film focuses on "the man, the myth, the legend" type J.J. Hannaford, who is making his comeback film after a long hiatus of being out of touch with the modern movie realm. He celebrates his birthday by having a documentary team, friends, associates, and others join him for a showing of his new film "The Other Side of the Wind" starring his striking new lead actor Johnny Dale and lead actress (who is nameless according to the bill). What ensues is a chaotic, fast-paced bombardment of quick edits, snappy dialog, a movin' sound track, and fantastic camera-work sandwiched between the hypnotic, near-legato, orchestral moments of Hannaford's film "The Other Side of the Wind".

It took me about 25 min to get used to the faced-paced, almost bravado tone of the editing because I wanted more time to saturate the emotions and facial expressions of the characters. This is why I think the sections that show Hannaford's film stick out even more though; finally having time to "breath" (if you will) versus the zaniness of being in the business (reality). It even feels at times that Hannaford himself is drowning and just wants to breath. Even still, does Welles conduct an amazing performance from the grizzled-veteran John Huston, who nails the semi-pretentious over-indulgent Hannaford to a tee.

The highlights of Welles' last picture surely come from the technical aspects of the production, the anticipation born from it's long-troubled existence of coming to fruition, and the lead performance from Huston. I must say there are a handful of poignant, enigmatic scenes that truly hypnotize such as "The Other Side of the Wind"s rather incredible car scene, which for me was the true top moment of this feature. The camerawork changing from black and white to deep color is used to great effect as well.

I suppose we will never know if what we have today is truly Welles' vision fully intact, or just a shadow of what is was supposed to be. The Other Side of the Wind is definitely for any fans of Orson Welles and for those who enjoy seeing filmmaking done years ahead of its time. I feel like I must say that this film isn't getting praise from me simply because Welles' name is slapped on it, but good because there are a bunch of things to appreciate.

So I reckon this film is sorta Orson Welles' version of Fellini's '8 1/2', a self-portrait, aiming at tearing down the facade in front of the man in favor of a multi-faceted, multi-personal panopticum, which might just be another facade.

In comparison to Fellinis movie, 'The Other Side of the Wind' is equally carnvalesque, more deconstructivist - individual roles seem to disolve or fade into each other in the more - more prone to abandon narrative structure, less cheerful, but ultimately more bitter. Whereas Fellini -- through Mastroianni -- seems to comment his own shortfalls as an artist and his faustian, sexual desire with a mischievous, but upbeat wink in the end, the narrator's final epigramm as well as the title of Welles' last movie seems to suggest a more macbethian philosophy: it was all a story full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and the acclaimed director is nothing but the other side of the wind, blowing in a conversation.

The anticipated Orson Welles film THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND is two pictures in one...

The first is a pseudo documentary using multiple cameras centered on veteran director Jack Hannaford, played by John Huston, at an all-night anti-wrap party where people are coming and going around a jump-cut patchwork of color and mostly black-and-white footage...

Much like Orson's buddy, Henry Jaglom's decades-later SOMEONE TO LOVE, which was the last movie Welles appeared in (playing himself but without his name being mentioned) and George Lucas's low-budget masterpiece, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, it's a dusk-to-dawn experience, and in this case, the two-hour run time can often feel like eternity...

With guests that include an uptight critic played by Susan Strasberg; Mercury Theater's JOURNEY INTO FEAR director Norman Foster with actor Paul Stewart providing color commentary; Gregory Sierra as a high-strung mainstream filmmaker; a strung-out Dennis Hopper as himself...

And as Welles's real life friend and collaborator Peter Bogdanovich converses with Huston, it's unfortunate that they share the most important scenes being ultimately the most uninteresting characters: an old mentor and his young protege...

From TARGETS to SAINT JACK, Bogdanovich always loved to act. And while he was relaxed in front of the camera, he wasn't entirely convincing or all that... interesting...

On the other hand, Orson's real life girlfriend, Oja Kodar, is extremely interesting - by her exotic and intoxicating looks alone. As is Hannaford's young leading man, John Dale played by long-haired "he looks like a girl" pretty boy Robert Random...

For a hardcore Welles buff, the shoddy F FOR FAKE style fake-documentary feels more collected and edited than directed...

Making the unfinished, avant-gard film-within-the-film, being viewed either in a projection room, projected at the party or later at a drive-in theater, the best example of how the CITIZEN KANE auteur would have played-out in the early post-1960's/1970's, and it's actually titled THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, in which the male and female beauties wander around, mostly naked, through ZABRISKIE POINT inspired desert terrain; what looks like the ruins of broken down homes, apartment buildings, bombed-out movie sets casting splintered shadows; ride in a car having wild sex; or hanging-out at a noisy psychedelic night club...

Lit by exploitation cinematographer Gary Graver, shots of the counter-culture Adam and Eve crisscrossing each other while doors open and close around them - while no THE TRIAL or TOUCH OF EVIL - displays Welles's style in flowing motion. And is far more mesmerizing to simply sit and space-out on than the documented, jazz-soaked party is to intentionally and pretentiously suffer through.

"Who knows," Huston's Jake Hannaford states at the end of the picture. "Maybe you can stare too much at something," Which won't be a problem with THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. Unlike most of Welles's work, it's not the kind of experience to have to (or be able to) experience again.

Greetings again from the darkness. Film nerds unite! Most of us who (proudly) wear that label have known that filmmaker Orson Welles left a few unfinished projects when he died in 1985. The most famous - or infamous - of these was THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. It was to be the comeback film for Mr. Welles, who had slipped from the artistic throne with his run of TV projects, shorts, and unsuccessful features during the 1960's. Known as a perfectionist, and as someone more dedicated to the filmmaking part more than the "finishing" part, Welles filmed scenes for the movie from 1970-1976, and then picked it back up in the early 1980's to begin the editing process ... a process he never finished.

Best known for his all-time classics CITIZEN KANE (1941) and TOUCH OF EVIL (1958), Welles left mountains of copious production notes, and almost 100 hours of footage in multiple formats, and in both color and black and white stock, on this project that, even today, might best be described as experimental. Over the past 30 years there have been numerous attempts to raise the money required to finish the film, but all fell short until this one spearheaded by Peter Bogdanovich and Beatrice Welles (Orson's daughter).

In what we can only interpret as semi-autobiographical, what we see on screen is the making of a documentary on a legendary director's comeback film (his poke at artsy filmmakers). Clips of the unfinished film are shown throughout, while an industry party plays out, and numerous documentary filmmakers capture the scene from various angles with their always-present cameras. Got that? Don't worry, it takes at least a few minutes as a viewer to get the rhythm and layers of what's unfolding before our eyes.

John Huston (himself an industry legend with 2 Oscars and 15 nominations) plays director Jake Hannaford, who is walking the fine line between Hollywood power and has-been. It's his 70th birthday party, and Hannaford is compared to Hemingway (a description that better fit Huston than Welles), silently endures insinuations of his closeted homosexuality, desperately seeks funding to finish his film, and skulks around his own party winding through the hangers-on and those waiting for the final curtain.

Hannaford's artsy film within a film, at least the clips we see, feature an inordinate amount of nudity from the leading lady (played by Welles 4th wife and the film's co-writer Oja Kodar), and some ultra-coolness from the lead actor John Dale (played by Robert Random). Part of Hannaford's desperation (both professional and persona) stems from a James Dean-type Dale walking off the set mid-picture.

Guests at the party include Peter Bogdanovich as director Brooks Otterlake, a young director once mentored by Hannaford. It's an example of the student becoming the teacher. Susan Strasberg (daughter of famed acting coach Lee Strasberg) plays film critic Juliet Riche, a thinly-veiled portrait of Welles nemesis Pauline Kael. Other familiar faces in the cast include: Lilli Palmer, Mercedes McCambridge (Oscar winner), Edmond O'Brien (Oscar winner), Cameron Mitchell, Paul Stewart (from CITIZEN KANE), Tonio Selwart, Geoffrey Land, Norman Foster, Dennis Hopper (2 Oscar noms), Claude Chabrol, Stafford Repp (Sgt O'Hara from "Batman" series), plus Cameron Crowe (Oscar winner), William Katt, Frank Marshall (5 Oscar noms), Rich Little, Leslie Moonves (recently fired in disgrace CBS President), and Paul Mazursky (5 Oscar noms). It's fascinating to see so many we recognize from more than 40 years ago. Of course, it's Huston, with his face that's made for black and white film, who is the dominating figure (his scenes were filmed prior to his work on CHINATOWN).

It's easily viewed as a satire on the film industry, and it's quite a fun, messy-by-design, now retro look at a fragile industry - and the even more fragile people who make movies. Welles' love/hate relationship with the industry takes on an art form. He shows what's good and what's deplorable. Is it an experimental movie commenting on the post-studio world of independent filmmaking, or is it an iconic filmmaker, glory days behind him, in the midst of self-reflection. Perhaps it's both. In addition to Welles' early editing efforts, Oscar winning editor Bob Murawski (THE HURT LOCKER) was brought in to finish up what can now be described as a master class in film editing. It's a wild ride for us film nerds. Are you ready to join us?

Does life imitates film or film, life?

It's a film that is about the same way the actually film was made in real life. THAT'S META.

It's made to be hated much like the art film within the film. THAT'S META.

---

Anyways, I APREACTIATE THE FILM EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T ENTIRELY ENJOYED IT.

you will like it more if you have read the book or watch the documentry about the film.

I think it lacks in direct conflict even though you can feel the tension.

It hurts my head the amounts of quick cutting.

It's witty and funny but overall left feeling like it could of had slightly more concise point to it.

It's like 81/2. So if you hate that film then you will not enjoy it.

I think Birdman is a much better similar film with more conflict and emotion.

People are tripping over each other to write positive reviews of this movie, but one wonders how they would react if they didn't know the backstory. It's like someone going on about how good a bottle of wine is once they find out how much it cost.

I'm a film buff, and I was really excited to see this legendary movie, but I'm honest enough to admit that I had to struggle to get through and in the end, I was mostly glad it was over.

The movie is structured as a film within a film. It's ostensibly a documentary about a party for a washed up film director, screening an incomplete rough cut of his latest movie, "The Other Side of the Wind". We're told at the beginning that he dies right after the party, so we know throughout the film that we're watching the last night of his life. The director is clearly based on Wells himself, with a healthy dose of Ernest Hemingway added. He's played by John Huston, who is literally incapable of being bad, even in this.

The intentional "joke" of the movie is that film they screen is terrible: a pretentious art film that consists mostly of a woman (Wells' lover at the time) walking around naked. This was Wells' commentary on movies of the time, and it's not entirely unlike the comedy Hail Caesar! in that respect.

There's not really a plot per se, but there are interactions and revelations about the troubles that the director is having with film. Wells' bitterness with the way he felt Hollywood had betrayed him is on full display here.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is also a pretentious art film, that might have looked bold if it had come out when Wells had intended, but now just comes across as incredibly dated. Is this what Wells had in mind? Who knows. It's a little like listening to Frank Zappa music; you're never entirely sure when he's laughing *with* his audience and when he's laughing *at* his audience.

The party scenes get repetitive very quickly, and I found it pretty hard to pay attention. On the other hand, since you know how it's going to end, paying attention wasn't all that important.

To me, the movie within the movie looked a lot like an Alejandro Jodorowsky film, which is interesting, because shortly after the principle filming of this, Wells went off to Paris to take part in Jodorowsky's failed attempt to make Dune, in which he was to play Baron Harkonnen (if you've never seen the documentary "Jodorowsky's Dune", stop what you're doing and watch it now). If this movie had actually gotten made, I wonder how Jodorowsky would have felt about Wells making fun of his style of film making.

In the end, the only real reasons to watch this film are John Huston and so that you're prepped to watch "They'll Love me when I'm Dead", the documentary *about* this movie, which is excellent.

This is not a movie for everyone. Orson Welles knows exactly who will enjoy this movie. Those who will enjoy this movie are exactly who Orson Welles wants to connect with, people like him, those who truly love Cinema. The art of this movie is evident. It is wholly original in its progression and cinematography. It captures the essience and mind of surrealist directors especially in the 1970s beautifully. It's a virtual time capsule of a movie. It is unintentionally a period piece, love letter to an era now long dead. Yet, this movie is very intentionally trying to put off a chaotic, disorderly, and untidy attitude. It does so very pleasingly. I love this movie. It is pure cinema.

I was unbelievably excited when I heard that Orson Welles's final film opus, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, was going to be completed, thanks to Netflix and the work of devoted friends like Frank Marshall and Peter Bogdanovich.

Well that film has now arrived... And what is the verdict? From the perspective of Welles fans and completists, there is gratitude: that the director's multi-faceted, layered, and hyperkinetic longterm project has been realized in a way that feels complete and consistent with him, and possibly not far-removed from what Welles intended. I say this because some of the stylistic feats of his previous F FOR FAKE - mixed media, energized editing, several ideas spinning all at once - can be found here, which suggests at least some of the DNA of later Welles.

From a moviegoer's perspective, this is a film that reaches and doesn't quite grasp. It is successful in eliciting what Welles was seeking through the project: an expose of toxic masculinity, the betrayal of friendship, and the playfulness of sending up Euro art cinema and the New Hollywood. (Many of these themes are outlined in Morgan Neville's companion documentary, THEY'LL LOVE ME WHEN I'M DEAD.) But the long duration of the project, its catch-and-grab compilation, and Welles' own sensibilities from his years in Europe, combine to present a somewhat diluted satire. Perhaps this is the difference between ANY conceived film idea and its execution...especially when financing issues intervene.

John Huston, a filmmaking marvel in his own right, is never less than compelling as Jake Hannaford (as he is in every reel he appears in in CHINATOWN). He conveys layers of success mixed with self-deception, of secrets and grandiosity. He is as hated as he is loved. In fact, he is not a perfect analogue with Welles...because it is hard to believe Welles ever evoked the same kind of contempt which this character does! As a version of himself, Peter Bogdanovich is not quite as convincing as Brooks Otterlake. Bogdanovich would become quite a good actor (looking at his later work in THE SOPRANOS, for example), but, here, it seems like he is uneasy portraying a mirror of himself. Indeed, the whole thing was a little incestuous: Peter's perpetual houseguest was gently mocking him and his career success here.

The film is well-edited and executes perfectly what Welles intended (by design), but its mock-documentary style is no longer revelatory...as it surely would have been if completed at least three decades earlier. It also reminds a little of Robert Altman, especially with its large cast and freeform, intermingling dialogue.

I think it is too basic to refer to the film-within-a-film as softcore pornography. It is beautifully-shot and choreographed, if unlike anything else in Welles's filmography, but it is also less nuanced than the "art" films it appears to be skewering. Despite this, Robert Random is quite good as the smitten young man. Though Oja Kodar, despite her exotic beauty, brings little else of substance to her performance. (I liked her better as "herself," firing off the rifle at the party!) It's understandable why Welles wanted her in every frame of his film - but she was arguably a better muse than a big-screen femme fatale.

So, we have a film which is neither a study in formalism, nor in the traditional elements of the director's best work. It is a disguise, adopting the documentary and arthouse genres to generate moments of pure cinema. And it does succeed at this. Though the overall results are, at best, mixed for a first-time viewer. (This is not to say re-watching won't reward a diligent movie fan; I suspect it will.)

However, this feels more like a curio for Welles fans than a standing testament to his greatness as a filmmaker. By all means, watch it. But be prepared for something more like an experimental genre exercise than a definitive Welles film.

A famed, and infamous, movie director, JJ Hannaford, dies in a car accident. He was about to release his latest movie and a documentary camera crew had been following him around in the days preceding his death. We see the events leading up to his death, the careers Hannaford destroyed, the enemies he made and his last film, The Other Side of the Wind.

Written and directed by the great Orson Welles, this movie has taken nearly 50 years to be released. Welles started shooting it in 1970 and by his death in 1985 it had not been released. Production issues and politics prevented this. Now, in 2018, Netflix has released it. Being a huge fan of Orson Welles, the thought of seeing his long-dormant final film released was an exciting one.

However, the final product is quite disappointing. It looks and feels unfinished, a mashup of random scenes. While watching I thought that this was due to the film being in an unedited state when Welles died and it was edited to the final version after his death. Turns out the final version had already been edited by Welles, so we can't blame Netflix's production team.

The film-within-a-film element was initially intriguing but is ultimately confusing. What is part of Hannaford's film and what is Welles's film? Are the pretentious, trippy, hippy sequences and the gratuitous nudity and sex scenes Welles trying to appeal to early-70s arty audiences or his take on the pretentiousness of modern movies?

I would like to think that one of the themes of the movie is the pretentiousness of Hollywood, so will give Welles the benefit of the doubt on the content. However, it does become a jarring, disconcerting experience when you have seemingly-gratuitous scenes like those thrown randomly into the movie.

This said, it is not all bad. Welles's take on Hollywood, its movies and the pretentiousness of the times is well directed (if, indeed, that was his aim. It's so difficult to tell). The mystery surrounding John Dale adds intrigue. The story of JJ Hannaford is interesting and John Huston is perfect in the role. He pretty much just had to play himself!

Even here, however, Welles overeggs the pudding. I would have been more engaged in the Hannaford story if there weren't so many scenes that added nothing to plot or character development. So many scenes that just take up space and so much long, pointless dialogue. There's no momentum to the movie at all and the ending is a damp squib.

Other reviews have shed light on the challenges and controversy surrounding the creation of this film, so I will not cover that. The initial scenes are haphazard, but after a short while, the plot adopts a firmer grasp. Some scenes were shot in b/w, and other in color, and the mix of the various film stocks does work, for the most part. Shrewd, biting humor infuse the entire film, which skewers the Hollywood studio system and offers glimpses of hangers-on, while highlighting the sordid nature of fame.

Wonderful cast, with standout performances from Huston and Foster. Some of the the dialogue appeared improvised, and the energy was highly-charged. The upbeat jazz score by Michel Legrand was terrific. Overall, I enjoyed this wild ride. Even so, I wonder what would have happened if Welles would have had the funds to personally helm this film into full fruition? Did he genuinely intend for this film to be finished by someone else? What would have happened if it had been retained as a lengthy, experimental journey?

I wouldn't call this a great movie on it's own, but if you watch the documentary first you really see that it's an autobiography of Orson's life. Very interesting.

Given that Orson Welles left behind ¨hundreds¨ of hours of film for his unfinished creation, it is difficult to know what to think of this two hour selection. What is immediately clear is that every single shot references the history of film in one way or another: Fellini, Godard, Polanski, and many other directors´ works are repeatedly alluded to in this kaleidoscopic collage of a film. Most obviously, the John Huston character is essentially identical in demeanor and comportment to Noah Cross from Chinatown. This makes it impossible not to see echoes of Chinatown throughout (the blond girl, etc.)

I am always skeptical of the posthumous launching of artists´ unfinished projects, but because the cinematography of the individual shots is so excellent, I think that The Other Side of the Wind is worth watching for anyone familiar with the history of film. I imagine that Welles was hoping to create something which held together as a whole much better than this does, but at least we see smatterings of his brilliance here and there. My best guess is that this would have been a scathing indictment of the film industry, but the selection here makes it seem more like a relic of the psychedelic 1960s and 1970s.

A final question: If all of the footage is as beautiful as these two hours of shots, then why not make fifty more films? The answer is probably that not all of it is this good.

"Is the camera eye a reflection of reality or is reality a reflection of the camera eye... or is the camera merely a phallus?" -Pister (Joseph McBride)

Forty-eight years in the making and an unfinished product unseen by the public until 33 years after the death of Orson Welles, "The Other Side of the Wind" is an astonishing piece of filmmaking. It's both a product of the era in which it was originally conceived and filmed and more innovative than most movies of today. The dual narrative is highly self-reflexive. There's the unfinished film-within-the-film, which shares its title. The outer film is about filmmaking, with all of the shots being from the cameras of the documentary filmmakers following the birthday party of director Jake Hannaford, and about spectatorship, with the party's screening of his film-within-the-film. The entirety that we see is explained in the introductory narration by Peter Bogdanovich to have been later assembled from this found footage--a fictionalization of the very thing Bogdanovich and company did with the footage shot by Welles--piecing together the story of a dead man. This camera eye is a phallus, too, which is part of the pivotal role played by the actress and real-life lover and collaborator of Welles, Oja Kodar.

The outer film's central character, director Hannaford, is part Ernest Hemingway faux machismo and suicidal tendencies, part autobiographical surrogate for Welles and part the actor who portrays him, John Huston. He's the auteur, independent filmmaker from classical Hollywood, receiving adulation from the New Hollywood set and failing to complete one last film due to much the same reasons that Welles did: lack of financing, an actor left (Rich Little was originally cast in Bogdanovich's part), the director was unorganized and died. Meanwhile, the success of New Hollywood filmmakers is represented by Brooks Otterlake, a version of the actor he's portrayed by, Peter Bogdanovich, who during filming was at the peak of his career commercially. Reportedly, even the young blonde amateur fetching drinks for Hannaford is a reference to Bogdanovich's real-life actress and mistress Cybill Shepherd. There's also the unflattering portrayal of the film critic, a stand-in for Pauline Kael, who among other things penned the defamatory "Raising Kane," which denigrated the role of Welles in co-writing "Citizen Kane" (1941).

Hannaford only appears in the film within as the directorial voice of God during one scene, and while all of the critics, students and young directors chatter ad nauseum about the meaning of his work in the outer narrative, the film he made seems almost transparent in its meaning despite the muteness of its actors. Putting aside the parodying, similarities and homages to the European art cinema of the likes of Antonioni, Fellini and Godard, which others have already detailed, the meaning of the film within recalls the contemporaneous essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey. Both are about the predominantly-male gaze of cinema and the Freudian interpretation of that pleasure owing to castration anxiety--hence the phallic camera. As plotless as the film within appears, it begins traditionally enough with the pursuing gaze of John Dale. This culminates in a nightclub scene where Nudie films play as films-within-the-film-within-the-film, and Kodar is gazed upon entering the bathroom orgy. As if empowered by the gaze, she proceeds to act out fantasies of emasculation. First, there's the doll, with her finger providing a phallus, which she threatens to cut off with scissors before removing its eyes (and, thus, perhaps its controlling gaze). She, then, cuckolds her lover by having sex in a car with Dale, chases after him and threatens him with scissors, before finally stabbing an inflated phallic tower. Naturally, she's nude through most of this, which reveals the central conceit of so-called castration anxiety being woman's lack of a penis. There are also the dummies of Dale, which are literally emasculating the absent actor. His homosexuality further diminishes the heterosexual patriarchy of the male gaze that Mulvey protested.

In the outer film, the actress appears powerless, if indifferent, to this gaze, as cameramen continue to film her continued mute role in life. The shooting sequence, perhaps, is an exception, but, again, this comes by direction of Hannaford. She's further othered by the white men for her supposed Native-American ethnicity and is referred to as "Pocahontas." By the end, however, the Hemingway-type masculinity gives way--even that this was ever a film myopically obsessed with an aging director of past glory. His voice remains, but see who controls the gaze and, thus, shares the gaze of the spectator, as well as the gazed upon. The transition from the opening studio lot, to studio set in disrepair in the film within, to drive-in theatre also belies the demise of old Hollywood values. This seems to me a more subtle twist than the kind Welles employed in his prior "F for Fake" (1973), also with Kodar.

Stylistically, this is brilliant. There's a definitive role for the camera, with shifts between film formats, aspect ratios and between black-and-white and vibrant color. There are numerous shots of reflections through glass, as if reflecting the dual and self-reflexive narrative. It reminds one of the multi-layered mirror shots in "Citizen Kane" and "The Lady from Shanghai" (1947), the latter mirror maze of which is also recalled in the maze of the studio set in the film within. The editing is extraordinary. I wonder how much Welles intended and how much might be a modern spin by Bob Murawski. Either way, by my count this has an average shot length of barely 2.5 seconds, which even for today's action flicks is rapid fire. Nor are the shots easy to count: besides some only lasting a split second (the opening shots of cameras, e.g., features 25 shots in under 20 seconds), the cuts are frequently disguised by the rotating camerawork, flashing lights of cameras or changing color schemes, such as in the car sex scene. As much as its jazz score, the editing here has tempo.

Partially, "The Other Side of the Wind" will forever be unfinished, and its film within decisively so. And like our surrogate spectators within the film, viewing that tortuous production, there's been many stoppages, fraught with behind-the-scenes turmoil, preventing us from seeing it, but this has only added to its meaning.

The top half of my Netflix/Orson Welles double header begins w/last year's release of Welles last completed project (as per instructions he left to create this final vision). Shot over a few years during the early 70's, this Felliniesque journey of a troubled filmmaker's screening of his latest project has as much to do w/the eccentricities of a vaulted artist as a critique on the system which placed him in such high standing. John Huston plays the director who has made a sexually twinged magna opus (whose footage is the film within the film) where a scantily clad woman (or nude which she is for the majority of the run time) being pursued by some vain, dim pretty boy as they meet, copulate & find themselves in the ruins of some back-lot village where sensuality trumps dialogue or any sense of pragmatically driven narrative. That the yes men & sycophants who populate the screening put the director in the mind of someone who's time has passed (a prevailing theme which would haunt Welles' professional & personal career for the majority of his life) who's latest film feels of the moment (the copious nudity & non linear structure) & also a plateau to his well regarded past. Not a film for all tastes, this film almost dares cineastes to watch it to see a once touted genius who's fallen on creative dry times make a final stab towards relevance. Also starring Peter Bogdanovich & Edmond O'Brien as members of the director's staff w/many luminaries of the time (Dennis Hopper, Henry Jaglom, Paul Mazursky) making cameos.

If you became a major fan of Welles' work, you know all about the aborted projects. Don Quixote, The Deep (later made by a different director as Dead Calm), and The Other Side of the Wind. Well, Don Quixote started and stopped so many times until Francisco Reiguera and Akim Tamiroff passed away, The Deep allegedly was completely done except for the filming of an explosion, and The Other Side of The Wind allegedly had footage financed by the Shah of Iran and that footage was caught up in the political turmoil in '79. I've read all about these sorts of things over 20 years ago. Now we have Welles' Eyes Wide Shut. A movie like Kubrick's last movie, released after the director's death with some aspects of it incomplete. Maybe the film would have ended up differently than what the compilers of this footage came up with or what a studio may've settled on without the director's input, maybe not. I know neither movie is considered Welles' or Kubrick's best work.

The movie centers around a director who is a Nicholas Ray type. More of a product of the 1950s. Someone who partied as hard as the stars half his age while he was middle aged. I'm sure his alpha male abusive antics are a major turn off to anyone watching this who didn't make that connection.

I already knew how the film was supposed to look so it didn't bother me how cut up it looks. It is supposed to look like that because the story is supposed to unfold through the cameras of filmmakers filming the director for their own documentaries. Seems like alot of filmmakers. This was always Welles' vision for the film. Initially, I thought this movie was going to be all documentary style footage of the director on set shooting a film starring a leading man he was deeply jealous of and eventually would murder but it isn't like that. That would be suspenseful but frankly this is better.

The film centers around the director's 70th birthday party. It is explained in a new audio introduction to be Hannaford's last day of his life before driving off to his death in an auto accident. The jumping from conversation snippets, different characters speaking, black and white to color film, is all part of the vision. All the jumping around can be dizzying like the first time I saw Mr Arkardin. It moves quickly in that sense.

The movie bounces from the documentary footage of the party to screening footage of the film Hannaford is working on at the time. That too must be planned but it is also difficult to keep up with. The film Hannaford is working on comes across as an unfinished stag film. The footage he shot and the director's actions throughout and the obsessive sexual imagery in his film footage makes me wonder if he was impotent and that was an underlying factor behind everything he does at his party. There is no dialogue in the film footage. Alot of sex scenes are implied and an often nude and nameless actress played by Oja Kudor and equally nude as often John Dale played by Robert Random. The film footage made me think of Highway: An American Pastoral starring Jim Morrison sans the sex scenes.

I am glad I watched this. It is about what I expected. It is better than half the Welles' films I've seen. At least it is different in that it is the only one with an R rating, It took over 30 years after Welles' death for it to see the light of day and unlike in his life, the people releasing this film wanted to follow his vision.

The Other Side of the Wind is a chaotic film. It would have been quite something had it been finished and released in the 70s, when it would have been an interesting meta-commentary on the Hollywood, masculinity and art. The almost 50-year delay between it's conception and release only adds another layer to this film. After all, the movie *is* about an aging film-maker scrambling to finish his latest piece.

The movie is absolutely not plot driven although I presume there are many parallels between the movie and Welles' situation at the time he started making this. Some scenes do drag a bit and the movie fumbles during those periods, but these are few and far between. The movie-within-a-movie scenes are some of the most beautiful shots in the movie, and the whole thing works surprisingly well given the manic nature of the rest of the movie. Mad props to John Huston for his effortless performance as the aging director Hannaford and Michael Legrand for his jazzy score that keeps pace with the movie.

Also, there is an incredibly funny exchange in the movie where a member of the audience watching the movie points out to the projectionist that he is playing the wrong reel. The projectionist replies, "Does it matter?" (Insert shrug emoji here)

Look, I was salivating at the thought of seeing this as much as anyone. The idea that there was a final fully shot movie by Orson Welles, that no-one had ever seen, hanging around in film cans for over 30 years is just wonderful. And the title is wonderful too.

As long as this wonderful dream *remained* a dream, it could be anything you wanted: you could imagine the most beautiful, mysterious, moving work of art ever. It could be - and could always remain - perfect.

But judgment day has marched along and The Other Side Of The Wind has finally been exposed to the inevitable harsh light of day, to scrutiny and evisceration. And the objective results are really not all that pretty. The final product is a shoddy, sloppy, self-indulgent and unattractive 70s student film, with badly staged, badly dubbed and badly acted performances all round, everyone looking rushed and amateurish, like they grabbed 5 minutes of people's time in between shooting a proper film. Only John Huston looks like he's actually IN his role, and even then the way he is filmed diminishes any potentially powerful and memorable moments amidst all the chaos, working continually against the work as a whole.

In my dream ALL the film would have looked like the film *within* the film, which are the only moments of beauty, the only moments that actually feel like a real movie anyone would want to go see. Robert Random and Oja Kodar both look very beautiful and otherworldly. As someone in the film says, the magic picture box loves them.

I'm very thankful for all the work that went into completing this thing, it has been an amazing and unprecedented and inspirational phenomenon, seeing so many people from all walks of life doing what they could to to make it a reality.

But the sad fact is that Orson Welles only directed one truly great film. And this is most decidedly not it.

Not only is THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND a striking achievement in film history - a nearly faithful assembly of the infamously scrapped project by THE Orson Welles - but it's also an impressive statement on movie-making itself. How film isn't always defined by one lens. How approaching movies as autobiographies makes a directors life less valuable. How a desperate production hell takes its toll on a legends vision. And how sexual or psychological baggage bite you in the ass as the years pass by. You'd also see how he's deconstructing himself as he makes his movie, which probably started as this avante-garde film starring two people, then a story about how a legendary director makes this avante-garde film, then the issues he deals with in showing this movie to a fanbase that may or may not hold him too high of a standard.

It's also an uneasy film to watch. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND isn't afraid to alienate you with it's off-the-wall filmmaking techniques. A movie that juggles with plenty of ideas about moviemaking it's probably too hard to grasp at once. In fact, I'm very simple minded so my interpretation barely scratched the surface of this behemoth. But I'd say if you're a huge fan of Welles as well as filmmaking in general, this movie is nothing you've ever seen before.