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.

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 ...

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.