The Other Side of the Wind

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.