The Other Side of the Wind (Orson Welles)

[Philip J. Fry]

Trailer:
[

Show Spoiler

]

IMDb / wiki / RT / Metacritic

Netflix

[Milky Joe]

I want to eat this film, it's so jaw-droppingly gorgeous.

[Skitch]

I'm torn between watching the film first or the doc.

[Philip J. Fry]

I'm torn between watching the film first or the doc.

I've yet to see the doc. The film is good, though.

[Peng]

Advised by quite a few critics, most noably Bilge Ebiri, to watch the doc They'll Love Me When I'm Dead first, and I am glad I did, because the hall of cinematic mirrors that is this film only gains one more full mirror to refract itself deeper and richer when put alongsides its vast history. Even if I didn't though, I feel like even an inkling of the film's troubled production, of why it takes so long until this 2018 release, would provide more than enough jumping point to observe so many fascinating parallels.

Even on its own, the film is thrilling in how Welles turns many of his F For Fake techniques and themes towards fictional narrative, and about a subject as close to his heart as film industry to boost. F for Fake may be a more disciplined, rigorous feature (perhaps inevitably, as TOSOTW isn't finished by Welles himself), but even in its messiest, perplexing stretches, TOSOTW thrums with feverish, infectious energy, with a deep melancholic streak underneath, as only a subject of great passion and frustration to him can inspire. From the rapid barrage of information during opening minutes -- irksome to some, but I find it kind of thrilling -- to many alternating forms (mockumentary, found footage, New Wave filmmaking), the film is heady, engrossing stuff when one dives into the many layers in which Welles views cinema and its industry, and in which he sees parts of his life/experience parallel and diverge from the central figure, complicated by the presence and changed role of Peter Bogdanovich.

Welles denies autobigraphical readings of Jake Hannaford, and it's true that the two are far apart in character (though I find the mischievous twinkle in Huston's eyes pretty uncanny in similarity to Welles' in They'll Love Me When I'm Dead). But even if the core is different, Hannaford's life circumstance at that point must be intended to evoke the director's. Maybe it's the result of Welles having himself and other collaborators improvise, seemingly putting in and parting from their own lives at will*, especially in regards to his relationship with Bogdanovich/Otterlake. That makes me think of how we are still firmly in F for Fake territory, with Welles urging viewers both times to engage and blur the line between life and art, and also of his parting quote about it in that film: A lie that makes us realize the truth... 8.5/10



*(Welles' only one complete divergence is the European arthouse-style film within the film, which clearly drips with contemptuous satire at times, although it's not devoid of meaning, and made with such exacting craft that suggests he'd had made a great film of that type if he ever wanted a serious go at it)

[Peng]

I'm torn between watching the film first or the doc.

Definitely the doc first.

[Skitch]

Definitely the doc first.

Thank you!

[Grouchy]

Kind of a hard film to grade with the restrictive parameters of Yay/Nay. On the one hand, I enjoyed it, and I wonder what would have happened with Welles's style if he had managed to complete a few more projects after F for Fake. On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone who isn't a hardcore cinephile getting anything coherent out of this. I watched it without seeing the docu first (same way I usually read prologues after finishing the books) and even though I guessed some things like that Hannaford was more a version of Hemingway than of Welles himself, that the film within a film was a parody of Antonioni (which suits me fine since I dislike Antonioni) or that the predominant theme was New Hollywood, a lot, and I mean A LOT of other concepts discussed in the dialogue or illustrated by the visual language must have flown entirely over my head.