John Huston did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jake Hanneford in The Other Side of the Wind.
John Huston as a director in a film by Orson Welles about a director making a film he cannot finish in a film that was never finished is a setup enough to make one's head spin. I'll admit Orson Welles's final film is more fascinating in an outward examination of all that went in around it, than the film itself, though I should say the story is more fascinating than a great deal of films so that is no major criticism. The casting of Huston, rather than Welles playing the part of the director, is one of the more potent aspects of the material. Of course the two's connection actually began when the two became directors. Both premiered their first films in 1941, both making legitimate classics, Welles with his groundbreaking
Citizen Kane, and Huston with the exceptionally entertaining
The Maltese Falcon. The two's connection went beyond that with their matching multifaceted talents as writers and eventually actors as well. A third connection though is also their schism in a sense as the two despite making two of the most influential and acclaimed directorial debuts of all time, had far different careers. Welles having a troubled history in Hollywood for the rest of his career in his difficulty in finding consistent funding for projects, and also his own personal choices that frequently edged towards self-sabotage. Huston on the other hand found consistent success throughout his career seemingly through his ability to play the game, knowing when to sacrifice in order to fulfill his passion projects. Of course this is fascinating in that despite his success Huston was never seen as the studio's pageboy but also as a maverick, just a far more successful one.
This leads to this most bizarre of projects that Welles called upon his fellow actor/director to play the part of the maverick director. Of course both men were that, yet very different. Welles essentially framing his whole life as one big con or magic trick that he performed on the public. The legend of Huston, that by all accounts he was without the frequent alienation of others unlike Welles, was that of essentially the ultimate man's man. The casting then here is perhaps one more trick it seems that Welles wanted to play, though he perhaps struggled to pull it off on the worthiest of opponents that was Huston. This is as many have figured that Hanneford is a stand in for Welles, perhaps that it is true, though maybe Welles wished it to be a stand in for Huston, and accidentally made it about himself. But before I get too much into theories I probably should introduce this performance a bit. Huston as an actor was essentially a guarantee. Huston didn't seek roles, roles looked to find Huston as he was guaranteed to give that impressive if not oppressive presence to any film he would appear. One could not seemingly ask for a better choice then for the godlike, in the eyes of his legions of followers and fans, director that is Jake Hanneford. One would like to assume the voice of God might approach Huston's in its ease of force and gravitas that is evoked from a single word from his mouth.
If one examines this performance simply as the all powerful director, well one could not ask for a greater force of presence than that is Huston. Huston is only really glanced at for the first half hour of the film yet one takes note of every word from the man. There is that conviction of one's own aura essentially that is remarkable, and frankly only possible for someone like Huston in the role. The idea of the man supposedly in his element is upon the film set where he is the word of God. We witness Hanneford's film within a film, called fittingly the other side of the wind, where the film is series of observation and slowly growing interaction of a young man played by a young star, with the enigmatic femme fatale played by the enigmatic actress played by the enigmatic Oja Kodar. One scene of the film still features the voice of Hanneford during a sex scene where he continually implores the actress to emasculate the actor as much as possible. The voice in this scene is striking as performed by Huston's deep baritone. The sense of control though is certainly evident in the moment of course, as almost this ghastly unseen monster though trying to inflict a humiliation upon his victim. Again that is a given but what is so notable is how unpleasant the situation becomes in the way there is this lustful need within even the voice, a sense of a god wishing to destroy his creation, or at least abuse it as he pleases.
Back to my theory though as this film is not about the greatness of a director, but rather the downfall of one. As we follow the director on a very long night of his birthday party where his friends, followers, fanatics and collaborators gather to screen his film, and supposedly for a night of celebration. Although ostensibly Huston is the lead of the film, everything must takes second place to the designs of Welles, as the perspective of Hanneford is often a distant one. Hanneford is not obviously a Welles stand in precisely as we find him to not be a trickster Welles, but rather the macho force, that has drawn comparisons to John Ford and William Wellman, but I'd argue is perhaps closest to Huston. After all Huston, like Hanneford, did attempt to stay relevant within the new wave of his directors in many of his later efforts, much we see Hanneford in his impossible to decipher piece. Of course a film like Huston's
Wise Blood was not impossible to decipher, and the titular film in the end is naturally far more akin to Welles's later work. Of course why not be Hanneford it seems in the early party scenes where Huston makes for quite the man of the hour. When Hanneford speaks within the platitudes of art, and his visions of power, Huston could not speak with a greater charisma or satisfaction. This is a man wholly within his element, even as he screams to high heavens of his own godhood while also explaining the womanhood of god all the same time, to which Huston delivers a devious glee of satisfaction. A pure unadulterated ego so fitting to a legend.
One criticism that has been lobbied against this film is that it is misogynistic, which couldn't be more wrong for multitude of reasons, the least of them being that Kodar co-wrote the film. Of course anyone lobbing the complaint to me shows a surface examination upon the film, as there is clear distinction between the view of women in Hanneford's film, against Welles's film. In Hanneford's film the women are objectified, though actually everyone is, Welles's film on the other hand focuses on the destruction of the male ego. The main target being Hanneford that seems to be peeled away at both the loving theories of his success, and the pointed critiques of the auteur. Huston's performance, though distantly framed, is a compelling one where that fierce presence becomes all the more intense as he seems to soak in every moment of it. Huston plays this in part with a snide passive aggressive venom to his onlookers, but also growing discontent in his eyes as he seems to wish the death of all those around him. This becomes all the more evident as Hanneford partakes in a bit of gun play to shoot off the heads of all his friends, in mannequin, form. This is the one moment where we see Hanneford in his greatest joy, as Huston exudes a delighted sneer upon his face as "kills" every single one of his pawns. His destruction of his creation perhaps being his greatest love. A compulsion that again feels far closer to Welles, than Huston, who by nearly all accounts was simply a legitimate legend, rather than the frustrating one that was Welles. Now this whole film again seemed a bit of a trick, that probably never even gave Huston a second thought as he found a resurgence if anything after the filming, as Welles attempts to destroy the macho director in Hanneford. Huston fails to fit the bill of Welles's criticism as a man and a director, however he is more than game to realize a personification of Welles's own self-destruction.
A self-destruction that is different from the anguish that stems from Hanneford's latent homosexuality that he tries to hide through sheer machismo, but in a similar painful state of mind within Welles who almost seemed as though he could never leave the idea that his initial success in the world of art that involved, according himself, conning himself into a theater group. Huston realizes though this as quite potent through the bruised ego that he depicts in such a violent display of hate as he lashes out at his most ardent critic, a female one, who seems to know exactly how to strike towards the heart of him. Huston's thrashing of the man's masculinity being destroyed is earth shattering as a reveals the desperate man being all the bravado with all his insecurities on full display. The final thread of the man's sanity though comes at a quieter place, just as Welles's downfall was not that of a thunderstorm of excess but rather whimpers of fulfilling roles and duties that seemed far below his talent. Both men though seem to succumb some truth they seem to believe in themselves that they hate, Welles as the fake magician where all his sleight of hand became too well known, that he was left with only the cheapest tricks to get by. Hanneford's on the other hand is left greeting his final guest, his leading man who quit his film, just before he will go to die in a car accident most likely a suicide. In this moment though Hanneford tries to come onto the actor failing miserably, as Huston portrays this as this most unnerving display of a man not embracing his true nature, but rather giving up on the illusion he had crafted for himself. Huston's little slight sleazy smile, hides this horrible glint of dissatisfaction of self. A film gasp of a man who cannot live with not being a god among men. Welles claims he was giving Huston this great part, as a gift that he took away from himself. A trick one gain, perhaps to try to make Huston culpable as a target of the criticism, but in the end Huston gave up nothing, delivery just a compelling turn perfect for what seems to be some confession by Welles. Not a confession of homosexuality, but of this inability to maintain his ego. Mind you Huston without a doubt had a powerful ego, something he could wield, as even shown in this performance and in his state of mind that never seemed burdened by the troubled production. Welles perhaps was trying to destroy such an idea there, but failed with the indestructible Huston. Welles's ego on the other hand ended up being the seeds of his own destruction as a filmmaker, and this film seems to be his final testament of that belief. This is as finally seeing the film after so many years, one can find such vulnerabilities within the mind of the man that made it, meanwhile finally seeing the performance of John Huston is merely a testament of the man's immense talent.
