The Magnificent Ambersons

Rating:
Summary: Lives up to its rating.
Review: I don't disagree with the high praise lavished on this movie. It's just that social commentary isn't my favourite viewing field. If it were, maybe I'd rate it 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Lives up to its rating.
Review: I don't disagree with the high praise lavished on this movie. It's just that social commentary isn't my favourite viewing field. If it were, maybe I'd rate it 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Finger-pointing
Review: It's difficult to see what Orson Welles was upset about when his 1942 film version of Booth Tarkington's novel was released to poor biz as they say. Welles had departed after the shooting, to work on a South American documentary, and left the cutting to the RKO craftsmen, mainly Robert Wise, later an eminent director. Welles later claimed thirty minutes had been cut out and that a different ending had been substituted. In reality virtually the entire novel is included in the movie and the ending is barely changed at all. It's a visually dazzling period piece which unfortunately overlooks the main theme: Tarkington's loathing of the automobile. Tim Holt gives a good performance but is miscast, as is Anne Baxter. The rest of the Mercury Players do their usual outstanding jobs, especially Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead.

Rating:
Summary: The Magnificent Magnificent Ambersons
Review: Orson Welles's adaptation of Booth Tarkington's award-willing novel and follow-up to Citizen Kane is a true screen classic. As with Kane, this film contains many wonderful performances by all the leads including Joseph Cotton, Agnes Moorehead, Dolores Costello, and Tim Holt as George Amberson Minafer. Welles continued his experimentation with film technique and you will notice similar camera angles and lighting, to those in Kane. The lighting is something exploited to good affect here, especially in the scenes inside the Amberson mansion. The story is a simple one: Eugene Morgan (Cotton) and Isabel Amberson (Costello) young lovers, who through a somewhat frivolous circumstance end up marrying other people. After they've both raised children, they again find themselves free to begin where they left off in their youth. But Isabel's son (Holt) does not approve of their relationship, in spite of the fact that he is in love with Morgan's daughter, Lucy (Anne Baxter). Set at the turn of the 20th century, the movie has a wonderful feel and texture, which effectively evokes the period. An interesting backdrop is the development of the automobile, with Cotton an early proponent and tycoon, and its effects on not only the American economy, but on the changes it brings to society as well. Morgan, once spurned as a little too common for Isabel returns again to his hometown a successful industrialist. As his fortunes climb, those of the Ambersons fall. As already mentioned, the film is packed with wonderful performances. Agnes Moorehead was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and won the Best Actress award from the New York Film Critics Circle. As the lonely, sorrowful Aunt Fanny, hers is a delicately crafted characterization. Cotton as the auto tycoon Morgan, gives another understated and subtle performance; a young Anne Baxter is lovely as Cotton's daughter Lucy; and Tim Holt, a name all but forgotten today, is magnificent in the pivotal role of George Amberson Minafer. One of the most interesting scenes in the film is the ball at the Amberson mansion. The camera seems to float along with the players seemingly without a break, putting the viewer right in the midst of the cast. A great film, worthy of multiple viewings, The Magnificent Ambersons has earned its place among Hollywood's greatest films.

Rating:
Summary: George Lucas could justify his life if he saved Ambersons
Review: Really. That's how good this film is. It could make an inept loser like George Lucas into a good person.

History:

On "...Kane" Welles got everything he wanted. On Ambersons they took it all away. In a way it's a shame this situation wasn't reversed.

For me Kane has always been pyrotechnics -- Welles parades his ideas like a drunk ... in a whore house. Ambersons is darker, more introspective, and more interesting territory -- what Ovid might have thought about in his last years alone. Of course this is like comparing a Who concert to a Shostokovich symphony (4 or 6).

Anyway:

In Ambersons Welles began his love afair with the long take and mise-en-scene. The lighting from journey-man DOP Stanley Cortez is magnificent -- certainly equalling that of Toland's in Kane. And there are shots, blockings, and compositions that are simply astounding, even today. There are scenes and moments, so completely unlike Hollywood, that they stay with you forever: Cotton's speech at the dinner-table, the Major waking at the moment of his daughters death; Agnes Moorehead leaning against the cold boiler; Anne Baxter fainting in the drug-store; the Amberson's ball; that newfangled auto-mobile in the snow...

And then there's the gliding camera, the astounding compositions, and the simultaneous dialog...

I think Kane was Welles' step up to "...Ambersons", because, while I remember the ideas of "...Kane" (and what astounding ideas they are), I remember *The Ambersons* of "...Ambersons".

Of course how good it was will probably never be known. Reports of how badly mangled the final product are contract each other. Time makes them even less reliable.

Hence the title of this review:

When I look at what's going to be out this year, and next year (like Star Wars II and III), it seems ironic that a guy like George Lucas, with money to burn, can re-cut a piece of nonsense like Star Wars, and the world can't find the time or money to restore "...Ambersons" before it's too late. James Cameron is trying to go into space (best place for him), you think he'd give up a few bucks? And what's Speilberg done for us lately?

Robert Wise directed some of the "studio's suggestions" (including the last shot), and edited the film. If anyone could solve/save this masterpiece it's him. And I belive he's still alive? Gee, if RKO's vaults are still around, if the footage is still there...

Because until this film is restored, it'll be just Orson Welles greatest *mangled* masterpiece. And it would be a tradgedy, knowing what we know about the man and his work, to miss out on the real thing.

Rating:
Summary: Near Great & Required Viewing
Review: The Official Story has it that Orson Welles saw, in Tarkington's novel, his own story. The 'completed' film, such as it was, and the mess that led up to it, really IS Welles' own story - though not in any way he could've foreseen, or relished the irony of afterwards. The simplified version of events has philistine Hollywood & RKO cutting the genius Welles' legs out from under him on the AMBERSONS film, while he was off in Brazil shooting IT'S ALL TRUE. The actual chain of events is a lot more complicated than that, and has as much to do with the star-crossed history of RKO as with the movie colony's dislike of Orson Welles, enfant terrible. Put bluntly, the saga of Welles-in-Hollywood could not have ended any other way, given that his deal was with RKO - the most ineptly run studio in Hollywood, beset with warring factions and Borgia-like intrigues among its braintrust. For Pete's sake, at one point the head of production was JOE BREEN! The miracle is that Orson Welles managed to finish one picture on his own terms, and parts of two others. All that said, I hope anyone who hasn't yet seen AMBERSONS will make plans to do so. The first 70 minutes or so IS Welles' picture, and as beautifully thought-out and detailed a film as he ever made. There's a burnished glow to the production that heightens the viewer's emotional connection to the events onscreen - the script, performances, photography and art direction are flawless. Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead and Tim Holt were never better than they are here. Those last 20 minutes, unfortunately, are hackwork - a porridge of flat and flavorless new scenes spliced into mutilated existing Welles-shot footage, julienne-sliced at the studio's behest by then-film editor Robert Wise (who remained on Welles' s**t-list for the rest of his life because of it). Enough greatness remains - even in this compromised botch - to captivate and carry an audience back to turn-of-the-century Indianapolis. But you should feel a slight sting at every mention in the narration of George Minafer's long-awaited 'comeuppance', since it was Welles himself who took the full brunt of that comeuppance.

Rating:
Summary: "There aren't any times but new times."
Review: The sad production story of "The Magnificent Ambersons" (1942), Orson Welles' follow up to "Citizen Kane", is well known to film buffs. The original rough edit of the movie was two and a half-hours and had a depressing, downbeat mood. When shown to preview audiences, it was poorly received. So, though Welles planned to tidy up the movie, RKO took the film from Welles when he went to South America and they reedited it (Apparently under the supervision of film editor Robert Wise). The movie was reduced to a little under ninety minutes, with original Welles footage and new studio footage, along with scenes that were edited with both. And there was about an hour's worth of scenes that was cut out all together, including the original ending, and scrapped by the studio. "Ambersons" was released to the general public, where it stank up the box office.

This is unfortunate. While "Citizen Kane" is an excellent movie, being stylish, well acted, directed and written as well as tremendously entertaining, "The Magnificent Ambersons" had the potential to be even better. As it stands, in my view, it is only a very good movie on the edge of being a great movie. Still, it got four Oscar nominations (Including Best Picture) and is often considered by critics as one of the greatest of all movies.

The movie certainly has some great acting, provided by Joseph Cotten (Eugene), Tim Holt (George), Dolores Costello (Isabel), Anne Baxter (Lucy), Ray Collins (Jack), Erskine Sanford (Roger Benson), Richard Bennett (Major Amberson) and Agnes Moorehead (Aunt Fanny). Four of these actors (Cotten, Collins, Sanford and Moorehead) were veterans of "Citizen Kane". The cinematography and film editing are also similar to "Kane" and, once again, they work very well. Same with the music score by an uncredited Bernard Herrmann (The original, unedited score is sometimes considered the best in cinema). The set design is spectacular, with many of the interior sets having a large, vast scope about them (Though a lot of what we see may be matte drawings like in "Citizen Kane"). Orson Welles' narration is booming but not shouting and sets the perfect mood for the story. He had a terrific, moody voice that was certainly due to his years on the radio.

Based upon Booth Tarkington's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, the story follows the rise and fall of one family (The Ambersons) during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The Ambersons stubbornly stick to their old ways, although things are changing. They find automobiles, an idea believed by Eugene Morgan (Cotten), to be an impractical and absurd idea. Eugene once romanced Isabel Amberson (Costello), but thye had some troubles and parted ways. Later, Isabel gave birth to a son, George (Holt), who is now the spoiled heir of the Amberson family. George romances Eugene's daughter Lucy (Baxter), while Eugene starts to mend things with the now widowed Isabel. But, George will not allow Eugene to marry his mother (The reasons for what he dislikes about Eugene are never really explained). But it's possible that George's dislike of Eugene caused his mother to become ill. Also, cutting Eugene out also ends things between him and Lucy, who remains loyal to her father. But, the Morgans become wealthy as a result of the automobile, while a series of tragedies in the Amberson clan cause them to loose their power and social status. And, for the first time in his life, George has to find work. But one day, he is nearly killed by an automobile (Symbolic of the destruction of the Ambersons by the Morgans?) and is hospitalized.

"Ambersons" just lacks something that would make me put it over "Kane". It may be the editing by the studio that leaves gaps in the story at times. For example, what became of Major Amberson? (According to Tim Dirk's of "The Greatest Films", he died. But his last scene in the movie seemed to me to suggest senility.) What caused Isabel to become ill? (Some of the deleted footage, again according to Tim Dirks, elaborated on this. And the answer, as I said above, may be depression.) And, most importantly, what caused the Ambersons to loose their fortune? One minute they were the wealthiest people in town. The next, they're dirt poor and struggling to earn a living. There were deleted scenes that gave answers to these questions. But they were probably seen by RKO as useless fat. I have a copy of Tarkington's novel. And I hope that, when I read it, I'll get the answers.

But the biggest disrespect to Welles, in the opinion of many, was the tacking on of a different ending. The one that exists now has a shot of Eugene and Fanny walking down the hall of the hospital as Eugene explains about the reconciliation between him and George. The original film ended in this way (Told again by Tim Dirks):

In the original film's ending (footage that was destroyed), Eugene visited an aging, bitter Fanny in her sparse boarding room house/old folks' home and told her about his hospital visit to George and their reconciliation, as she rocked back and forth in a creaking chair and listened to a phonograph record playing in the background.

I'm sorry if I have given the impression that I don't like this movie. It is well made and well acted. It might even be able to give "Kane" or "Touch of Evil" (Restored version) a run for their money. But, if RKO had allowed Welles to do the editing himself, it could have been even more realized and completed. Not only that, but Welles' career afterwards could have been more prestigious and productive. It was four years before he directed another movie. And, though he made a couple of great or very good films afterwards, he was never able to make another movie without being molested by the studio.

And when will this be on DVD?

Rating:
Summary: Welles's greatest work
Review: The story of the original preview of Welles's film is illuminating. As was then the custom, audience comments were recorded on response cards after screenings. Studio executives for some reason decided to preview the film on a double-bill with "The Fleet's In," a light-hearted musical starring Dorothy Lamour, before an audience of teenagers. Remember that this was March of 1942, when the outcome of the Second World War was in question. Welle's serious and innovative picture met with mostly negative comments from the kids. And although the movie was later previewed to an older, more thoughtful audience, the damage had been done.

Rating:
Summary: How to film a great novel
Review: There are at least two books by academics dealing with films based on novels -- comparing the relative artistic status of the novel & film adaptation. These books rate Orson Welles's film higher than Booth Tarkington's novel. I wonder if these academics actually took time to read the novel, or whether they just accepted the artistic status of the novel as "received opinion" from "on high," accepting the pigeonhole assigned to the novel by the literary critical establishment (which amounts to accepting fashionability and departmental gossip as objective fact, or at least as a convenient "letter grade" for the novel). I was dazzled by the film, so I read the novel -- twice. I thought it would be written in an old-fashioned wordy style. I had the impression that it was no longer fashionable to read Booth Tarkington. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the novel is a great read by today's or any day's standards. The novel is, in its own terms, the artistic equal of Welles's film of it. I highly recommend reading the novel as a way to increase your enjoyment of the film. It affords a lesson in how to film a complex novel -- how to eliminate characters & subplots, how to emphasize the main strengths of the novel. Most of the dialogue is word-for-word from the novel.
And here's a bit of trivia. Snobbery is a theme of both the novel & film. So it is appropriate that the name of Georgie's horse is "Pendennis" -- this is the name of the title character in William Makepeace Thackeray's novel satirizing snobbery -- usually the novel is simply known as "Pendennis," but the full title is "The History of Pendennis : His Fortunes and Misfortunes, His Friends and His Greatest Enemy." This is the horse involved in the great scene where all the main characters are out for a ride in the snow. The horse is mentioned by name several times in both the novel & film.
Another major theme of the novel is air pollution (and the general decline in quality & pace of life). Welles wanted to include this in his film, but most of this material was cut from the final released print. Tarkington wrote 3 novels about the way factory smoke & automobile exhaust started to pollute the air in the early 1900s -- the 3 novels (including "The Magnificent Ambersons") were published in one volume under the collective title "Growth." Tarkington was ahead of his time in being concerned about sooty air.

Rating:
Summary: In The Interests Of Brevity---
Review: This is a GREAT film. When do we get it on DVD?