This is what makes a great director: Orson Welles, Sanchez's Apartment Scene, Touch of Evil
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 12. 2016
- Download your free blueprint to making a movie or film: wolfcrow.com/how-to-make-a-mo...
Camera guides, filmmaking and cinematography courses:
wolfcrow.ontraport.com/tl/8
What's in my camera bag:
wolfcrow.ontraport.com/tl/9
Find gear on Amazon:
www.amazon.com/shop/wolfcrow/
Find gear on B&H:
bhpho.to/2N3Na21
This is a comprehensive analysis of the "Sanchez's apartment scene' from Orson Welles's Touch of Evil, his second great masterpiece after Citizen Kane.
This scene is a 12-minute one take shot that was designed to be invisible. How did Welles pull that off?
Links can be to our affiliates and we might get paid a commission for any purchases you make. Please support wolfcrow and purchase using these links. It won't cost you extra.
Don't forget to subscribe!
For the love of God keep posting for as long as you possibly can afford it. I think your teaching will help save the Cinema Scorsese claims is dead. Keep the torch of film going as you can, you make me want to teach more than ever.
Thank you!
Chris Here. Dude. Love it. Always considered myself an amateur film analyst, but your videos are so engrossing (even the long ones). And for the record, I consider Touch of Evil to be Welles' greatest work both behind and in front of the camera. I am slowly working through a bunch of your videos, thank you so much.
Two Bit da Vinci You're welcome!
One of my favorite films of all time.
This video essay helped me a lot to begin breaking down this scene for a Film Noir class. Thanks so much!
You're welcome!
Incredible video sir! Thank you more Welles please 🔥❤️
Your videos are giving me a profoundly deeper appreciation for the craft of film making. If you are still adding content to this series, may I suggest the bank heist in Michael Mann's Heat. There is something about it that feels more authentic and visceral than anything I've seen in the genre.
Interesting analysis, can't wait for more videos.
Such a great analysis!
wow! man what insight you've. amazing cinematic grammar. keep them coming. thx very much.
Thank you very much for pointing all those details! When I watched this movie for the first time, I didn't see any meaning in that scene. The camera movement felt so natural to me that I quickly lost attention. I hope that someday I'll notice all the hidden clues behind camera work and angles just like you! I learned a lot from this video, it's really helpful.
You're welcome!
Amazing job of analyzing
Bravo, very accurate analysis
Brilliant as always:)
Can you make a Video about Lenses?! It would be great if you explain which lenses should we use for which situation. Thanks a lot for your work.
Great essay! If you watch, you can tell there is a short divider wall on the right that slides in and out to make room for the camera but comes back in when the camera looks back at the front room from the bathroom end of the room. I live several blocks from the location where the exterior apartment was but the building is gone. You can see the hillside in the background where now there is the Westminster dog park. The base of that hill is Main St. at Westminster where Charlie Chaplin made his first appearance as the Tramp in "Kid Auto Races".
Thanks! I had initially marked that wall as well, believe it or not, but then never saw the other half, so I thought maybe it didn't exist at all. I believe Welles is in the same lineage as Chaplin. We need more larger-than-life personalities today.
Loved the analysis.. Thanks a lot
You're welcome!
Excellent case studies of film making. Thank you for all of your analysis, this is film class on the 200 level course.
You're welcome!
Excellent. Thanks for showing that marvelous tracking shot at the bar at the end. Something about that bar sequence always fascinates me. Heston is attacked from Behind and above when a guy leap at him from well, behind and above. Heston reaches up, and we cut to the guy getting tossed into the juke box. But until that cut, Heston deals with a man flying at him from above and behind. How that was figured out will always fascinate me. And I only know one other actor who could carry a man down a bar like that..Wayne. I knew about Wells staying up nights doing the art and posters on the outside wall in the alley..one of which gets hit by the "acid". Who does that? I think one of the reasons we love this film so much is because of the strange comic quality it has. Just ask Dennis Weaver...or Akim.
Brilliant, both the scene and the analysis.
Thank you!
Would love to hear your thoughts on the restaurant scene from Jacques Tati's Playtime.
highly detailed analysis..thank you Sareesh
You're welcome!
Brilliant analysis of the work of a genius.
Great stuff
The audience must learn in cinema, the cognitive psychology of the real world as related in perspectives or frames. Putting the audience in each moment while remembering the place of each character and who they are as the chronology of the plot unfolds. Orson Wells, does this in a dramatic fashion not only as the teacher of the audience but as a dramatic stimulator to entice excitement, and suspense which presents the crime thriller attitude. The particular scene is an education experience of law enforcement as a duality of surveillance, and interrogation. A veil for the audience to feel as though they are part of the small scene from within their seats. Orson Wells has always given me a great view point as a director in early film with so little in technology and from the essence of psychology, as from Harvard mentors such as C.I. Lewis, to teach the audience. The result in film produces the story as plot, a history of character elements as its attitude, and an audience to have an experience with their memory of the visual elements. Orson, Wells a great cinematographer.
this is very perceptive and enlightening. thank you very much.
You're welcome!
Thanks for this. Have watched this film in the past and will be part of a film noir class and will view it again with educated eyes.
You're welcome!
Awesome video! I tell all my film students to subscribe to your channel. This is brilliant stuff.
Thank you!
Excellent.....brilliant.....inspiring analyses! Bravo!
You're welcome!
Orson wells the genius
These are such brilliant analyses. Would love to see you do a video on Adam Arkapaw (True Detective, Macbeth, Assassin's Creed)!
Thanks, sure!
Fantastic and very detailed analysis as always! The cinematography in this movie is outstanding on all levels! Well I think I'll agree with you: this looks like a 21 or 24mm wide angle prime. The depth is still not that exaggerated. Would love to know which one it was, since I can't see any barrel distortion.
I noticed a little "stobe" effect on some of the outside shots (almost no motion blur). Very likely the shutter angle was tighter to get the exposure right without closing the aperture down too much or use ND filters. As far as I know, the Mitchells allowed for fast and easy control of shutter angle.
Same as Hitchcock's "Psycho", this is protected for 3:4 TV airing (no pan and scan needed). I don't know how projectionists dealt with open matte back in the day since there are no markings. I have seem some open matte 35mm prints where the projectionist clearly had to fiddle around a little to get it right. Examples: "Tommy" (1975) (shot in academy, intended for 1.85:1 and "Koyaanisqatsi" (1983) (same). These are the ones I'm 100% sure are 35mm spherical open matte. By eyeballing I figured out that the cropping top and bottom in "Touch Of Evil" are about the exact same. I fully agree with you: some scenes look better in academy full frame and others clearly look better (tighter, no unnecessary information top and bottom) in 1.85:1. Thanks for reading my ramblings. This is gold! Please keep them coming!
You're welcome! If I had to guess I'd say 21mm - it looks very Spielberg-ian.
Well you are obviously referring to Spielberg's non-anamorphic films such as E.T. , Empire Of The Sun, Saving Private Ryan... When I think classic Spielberg, I somehow always think "Panavision 35 anamorphic" (Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941, Raiders...., etc.) Good call! :-)
Hey I love this new addition of camera angles! Anyway you could consider the cinematography/camera movements of Michael Goi from American Horror Story? I say this because the camera movement and styles of that show (especially Asylum) are so stylish and utilize Dutch Tilts more than any other picture I've seen, but pull it off successfully.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Thank you.
You're welcome!
your analysis is perfect. i liked the video a lot. you opened my eyes on somethings in this movie that I didn't notice. plzz make more similar videos. thnx
You're welcome!
super cool
,,,as a lifelong Orson Welles afficianado/fan-a-tic... I must say, my good man... B r i l l i a n t !!!
thanks
Thank you for this! I'd love to see you cover Peter Bogdanovich's "Paper Moon", a deceptively simple story shot, directed and acted perfectly.
I'd like to watch one of these camera angles/movements essays on Alan Clarke's 1989 short film Elephant. It all follows kind of a pattern, but the scene by the 22 min mark(the murder in a mansion) and the last scene would be the most interesting. Thanks.
shot in Venice CA :D
Awesome !
Never seen the movie but fascinating analysis.
Now I cant wait to see it.
Could recommend any web to watch online with subtitles ?
Thanks!
Buy it.
god I love this movie.
It would be nice if you could make a video on Guru Datt.
fantastic. please if u get the time throw us a scene involving Fincher or Nolan! keep bringing quality content
Thanks, sure!
I'm not sure there was a 21mm cinema lens at the time -- there was an 18mm Cooke Panchro and a 20mm B&L Super Baltar. This scene might have used the 24mm Cooke Panchro, a lens that Gregg Toland used for a lot of "Citizen Kane". But that's just a guess, maybe it's the 20mm Baltar...
Thanks! I was positive it had to be between the 21mm or 24mm. Could it have been a newer lens? The way it renders looks different from Citizen Kane. Or maybe that's just a difference in the transfer to DVD, and I'm seeing things. I haven't had the pleasure of watching either on a large screen.
hey, can you do the club scene from "The Social network", where Sean Parker tells how big the facebook can become. I think its THE scene from the movie. Would love to hear your analysis on it. Cheers!!
See if you can analyze the boat scene gun battle in the movie Guns of Navarone thank you
Prof.Dr.Fazal
Cambridge
You forget Magnificent Ambersons being the 2nd.
Hey Sareesh,
PLEASE make a "Understanding the Cinematography of Roger Deakins"
already done.
super :) thank you... i love your work
Can you do Woody Allen Manhattan it a great movie with high contrast lighting and it a very complex film can you do it.
I try and keep real film alive. I have just bought this film on 16mm
Hey, if you guys like films and filmmaking, sub to my channel, my new film is out on Thursday!
Hi wolfcrow, I have a panasonic gh2 and I saw this film called Upstream Color which used this camera czcams.com/video/5U9KmAlrEXU/video.html I was wondering if you could give me some insight on how they got this film to look so cinematic looking and not the typical DSLR look that you see with these cameras.
Great video btw.
Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh both gave fine performances; their characters, however, are deeply flawed.
Heston plays a fool and a loser, and, as he demonstrates in the last minutes of the movie, an incompetent booby. His actions are precipitous and impulsive. His character is all bureaucrat, but personally he is a total loser. For example, what kind of guy on his honeymoon leaves his new wife for a half a day as the sole occupant of a cheap motel miles from town?
His incompetence comes shining through in the last minutes of the movie as he stumbles and bumbles halfway through the city trying to get his cheap transmitter to pick up a tape recorder, which, by the way, is recording everything. He has to to get so close to the tape recorder that the best way of hearing what’s going on is through the use of his ears.
Janet Leigh on the other hand, Heston‘s wife in the flick, is a wide-eyed, impulsive big mouth who virtually dares her Mexican pursuers to do their worst. After finally gaining sight of her husband after she’s been through the mill with her newfound friends, and still in plenty of danger, she says “Hello” to hubby from a fourth story balcony.
The Bizzarre things these two characters did in the film virtually ruined for me my viewing experience.
garbage ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
omg this movie is so bad