The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

The negative, for the butchered theatrical cut, does survive. I don't think it was utilized for the Blu-ray for some reason though.

Are you sure it survives? I thought I had heard that once too a few years back, but I've also heard elsewhere that it no longer exists. Hence, that's why a fine-grain interpositive was used instead (which in theory would be the next best thing). If the OCN does still exist, it could be that it was in worse shape than the IP, so the IP was the better way to go.

[yellowcakeuf6]

It looks like Grossberg isn't picking up the trail again until the fall.

https://www.wellesnet.com/alec-baldw...kin-ambersons/

[beamish13]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Are you sure it survives? I thought I had heard that once too a few years back, but I've also heard elsewhere that it no longer exists. Hence, that's why a fine-grain interpositive was used instead (which in theory would be the next best thing). If the OCN does still exist, it could be that it was in worse shape than the IP, so the IP was the better way to go.

The negative was used for Criterion’s laserdisc, I thought

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by beamish13

The negative was used for Criterion’s laserdisc, I thought

Just found this: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/the...iew-criterion/

Under the video section, it states "The Magnificent Ambersons is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.37:1. According to the liner notes, the original camera negative no longer survives; this transfer was sourced from a nitrate fine grain held by the Museum of Modern Art."

However, I checked the liner notes of my Blu-ray copy and in the "About the Transfer" section didn't find any mention of the OCN no longer surviving. So not sure what to make of it.

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Just found this: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/the...iew-criterion/

Under the video section, it states "The Magnificent Ambersons is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.37:1. According to the liner notes, the original camera negative no longer survives; this transfer was sourced from a nitrate fine grain held by the Museum of Modern Art."

However, I checked the liner notes of my Blu-ray copy and in the "About the Transfer" section didn't find any mention of the OCN no longer surviving. So not sure what to make of it.

I could of sworn I read somewhere that it survives. Maybe it’s condition is too fragile.

[cinescot]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Just found this: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/the...iew-criterion/

Under the video section, it states "The Magnificent Ambersons is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.37:1. According to the liner notes, the original camera negative no longer survives; this transfer was sourced from a nitrate fine grain held by the Museum of Modern Art."

However, I checked the liner notes of my Blu-ray copy and in the "About the Transfer" section didn't find any mention of the OCN no longer surviving. So not sure what to make of it.

Originally Posted by Rayjg

I could of sworn I read somewhere that it survives. Maybe it’s condition is too fragile.

Sadly, RKO destroyed the negative for Ambersons (along with several others) in 1942 in an attempt to free up storage space.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by cinescot

Sadly, RKO destroyed the negative for Ambersons (along with several others) in 1942 in an attempt to free up storage space.

I thought what RKO destroyed in 1942 were the negatives of the cut footage. The negative for the release cut may no longer exist today, but I don't believe it was due to RKO's destroying it back then.

[Rayjg]

Supposedly William Wyler screened an early cut and recommended they at least send a print of that version to the Museum of Modern Art. Not surprisingly RKO ignored him.

[beamish13]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

Supposedly William Wyler screened an early cut and recommended they at least send a print of that version to the Museum of Modern Art. Not surprisingly RKO ignored him.

I’m not sure if Wyler did, but an executive at RKO who championed Welles certainly pushed for them to deposit a print there. It’s discussed in Simon Callow’s incredible second volume of his Welles biographies. Kane and Ambersons we’re extremely expensive films for their time that didn’t make profits for over a decade after they were originally released, so the studio’s reluctance to keep the excised material for posterity makes more sense.

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by beamish13

I’m not sure if Wyler did, but an executive at RKO who championed Welles certainly pushed for them to deposit a print there. It’s discussed in Simon Callow’s incredible second volume of his Welles biographies. Kane and Ambersons we’re extremely expensive films for their time that didn’t make profits for over a decade after they were originally released, so the studio’s reluctance to keep the excised material for posterity makes more sense.

I remember reading Wyler had seen and praised an early cut. It may have been David Selznick who recommended MOMA.

[cinescot]

Originally Posted by edmoney

I thought what RKO destroyed in 1942 were the negatives of the cut footage. The negative for the release cut may no longer exist today, but I don't believe it was due to RKO's destroying it back then.

There seems to be some disagreement on it edmoney. I should probably have said as well nothing is definite as sources online and in books are going mainly on testimony from people who worked at the studio during this time.

Apparently, RKO requested a lot of the negatives that were deemed "no longer of use" be destroyed in December 1942. I guess this could have included only the negative trims from Ambersons as you have said. There's a few reasons that make me think it may have been all the negatives.

1. There has been no evidence to suggest that it was in existence after this point.
2. The way RKO treated the film makes me think they would simply not have cared enough to keep any of the OCN had RKO been looking to make more space.
3. Some former RKO employees confirmed that it was destroyed around that period. There's quite a bit of related info in the following article: Magnificent Obsession (Vanity Fair)

[Rayjg]

Whelp, the Brazilian Cinematheque just went up in flames a few nights ago. If the footage was buried in there somewhere, in unmarked cans, I’d say it’s truly gone now. Along with many other films too. Amazing this stuff still happens.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

Whelp, the Brazilian Cinematheque just went up in flames a few nights ago. If the footage was buried in there somewhere, in unmarked cans, I’d say it’s truly gone now. Along with many other films too. Amazing this stuff still happens.

Ugh, you've got to be kidding me. Why does this sort of thing still happen in this day and age? Just tragic.

Aside from whatever other film losses were incurred in the blaze, I really do hope that the Ambersons footage wasn't in there...not that I had high hopes of it realistically being recovered in Brazil in the first place.

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

Whelp, the Brazilian Cinematheque just went up in flames a few nights ago. If the footage was buried in there somewhere, in unmarked cans, I’d say it’s truly gone now. Along with many other films too. Amazing this stuff still happens.

IndieWire article: https://www.indiewire.com/2021/07/br...re-1234654692/

Everything in this paragraph is just brutal.

Early reports suggest that the fire, the second to strike the complex in six years, was caused by a short-circuit in the air conditioning system. However, many in the Brazilian community have been quick to denounce the blaze as the fault of the government, which eliminated funding for the Cinematheque in early 2020 and caused it to remain abandoned since then.

[ShellBeacher]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Ugh, you've got to be kidding me. Why does this sort of thing still happen in this day and age? Just tragic.

Aside from whatever other film losses were incurred in the blaze, I really do hope that the Ambersons footage wasn't in there...not that I had high hopes of it realistically being recovered in Brazil in the first place.

At this point, I'm convinced that a descendant of an RKO exec was tasked with making sure future generations eliminate any and all evidence of prints of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS because Welles slept with his daughter, or something...

[klauswhereareyou]

It's too bad that the "Welles" cut will never be found. That being said I appreciate the film that we do have.

[Rayjg]

When the It's All True footage was discovered in the Paramount vaults in the 1980s Welles was hopeful the Ambersons footage would be there too. Unfortunately it wasn't. He had no interest in touching the It's All True. He truly thought it was cursed.

[WaverBoy]

I believe the theory is that the MA print was removed from the archive by a collector, and is supposedly/hopefully in the hands of a relative of the collector, yes? So this fire, while tragic like all film archive fires, probably won’t affect the search for Ambersons.

[Carcosa]

I don't hold out much hope...BUT the crazy conspiracist buried deep within me thinks that TCM, Baldwin, Friedkin, etc wouldn't be spending this much time, effort and money unless they had a pretty solid lead on this, or something more. The hope is to find it, restore it and present it WITH the premiere of the documentary, or at least that's what I read. Hmmm...

[Suchwas McTeague]

Originally Posted by Carcosa

I don't hold out much hope...BUT the crazy conspiracist buried deep within me thinks that TCM, Baldwin, Friedkin, etc wouldn't be spending this much time, effort and money unless they had a pretty solid lead on this, or something more. The hope is to find it, restore it and present it WITH the premiere of the documentary, or at least that's what I read. Hmmm...

I'd like that to be true as much as anyone, but going about it this way is classic Hollywood hucksterism. This will turn out just like the "five new novels" that were promised in that wretched JD Salinger documentary a decade ago.