The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

[moviebuff75]

I just watched it again last night. The problem I have is that not enough time is given to set up any nostalgia. Look at Meet Me in St. Louis or Heaven Can Wait...tons of nostalgia for a different time. I felt nothing for this family. And I'm from Indianapolis!

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Logos14

Welles' narration explicitly tells us exactly what the theme of the movie is. Everything between the narrations is superfluous to the essence of the story, and I can't imagine that changing even if the missing reel were discovered. He paints a picture of a romantic world and then tells how modernity destroys it. He talks about the growth of the city and how it "befouls itself", etc. It's the same theme as that in Chimes at Midnight--the tragedy of a warm, romantic world replaced by an cold, impersonal modern world. No one should need any background information to understand this.

Not sure I completely follow what you’re saying. Are you saying that because Welles addresses these themes in the narration that it’s not necessary to show it? I think narration in general can be a useful and efficient storytelling tool in conveying certain information, and I especially love Welles’ artful use of it in this movie. But it’s not a substitute for showing the themes when they make up a key part of what the movie’s about. These themes need to be developed further and play out through actual scenes, which the “original” version had but mostly lost through insensitive editing. I don’t see it as just being background information. And the narration doesn’t explain at all why or how, for example, the Ambersons lose their fortune. In the current version of the film, it seems to happen virtually overnight with little explanation. I totally agree that Ambersons has parallel themes to those in Chimes at Midnight, but they feel a lot more fleshed out in Chimes, whereas in Ambersons, everything feels rushed in the second half, and almost everything not related to the plot mechanics are glossed over.

Originally Posted by Logos14

The biggest problem with this movie is the miscasting of Tim Holt in the lead that Welles should have played. Holt is about as charismatic as a freight train. It isn't simply that the character is unlikable. Holt himself has no screen presence to speak of--in every scene he's the quintessence of wooden blandness, not to mention his accent and diction are not aristocratic enough for the part of a reactionary dandy. As Simon Callow puts it, Holt is "plebeian in manner", and a "pettish lout" whereas the book describes a supercilious young gentleman. He barks out his lines like a boorish midwestern farmhand. The character should have been played as an arrogant, yet elegant, patrician--an overrefined prig. Picture a young Basil Rathbone or James Mason. How Welles ever conceived of such a shallow, loutish actor as Holt playing the part is incomprehensible to me. His own boorishness makes his opposition to modernity seem incongruous since a crude, downright fellow like Holt would obviously be much more at home in the modern world. I think if Welles had played the lead, the movie as a whole would have been far more gripping and perhaps the studio never would have felt the need to make so many alterations.

I simply disagree here. While I do feel that George’s role could in theory be better cast (including with Welles in the role … although I would hate to lose Welles’ narration in the bargain), I hardly think Tim Holt is the biggest problem with the film. Not sure I would even call him a problem per se. I certainly don’t see him as a “crude farmhand” type. It could be better cast with someone with more acting chops, more charisma, and more presence, but I think Tim Holt is fine. I still think that the severe editing and reshooting are far more detrimental to the movie.

Originally Posted by Logos14

To my mind, all the other issues with this film are secondary to the fact that Welles cast a cowboy in the role of a snobby fop. It just doesn't work. But there are other problems with the cast, too. Ray Collins isn't urbane enough for his small role, but conversely Cotten is too urbane playing a character that should have been a bullying representative of capitalism, urban growth, industry, and modernity. Maybe somebody like Edward Arnold. Instead, Cotten comes across as rather gentlemanly and old fashioned with his Virginia tidewater drawl, making the boorish Holt's desire to preserve old aristocratic values seem even more absurd since he has never once displayed such qualities. Cotten is so sympathetic, and Holt so cloddish in his arrogance, that instead of seeing the fall of the Ambersons' world as a tragedy (as Welles intended, and as he conveys in his narration) the audience can hardly feel that anything of value has been lost. This isn't the result of studio interference, but Welles' own miscasting and misdirecting of key parts by which he subverts everything he establishes in the narration. The only perfect version of Magnificent Ambersons would be one in which Holt does not appear and Cotten isn't miscast as an industrialist; but alas we can never hope for the discovery of such a version, no matter what reels turn up. Oh well, at least Anne Baxter was good.

Disagree here again. Although I may have some reservations about Tim Holt, I think the rest of the casting is excellent. To me, Agnes Moorehead was the standout.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by moviebuff75

I just watched it again last night. The problem I have is that not enough time is given to set up any nostalgia. Look at Meet Me in St. Louis or Heaven Can Wait...tons of nostalgia for a different time. I felt nothing for this family. And I'm from Indianapolis!

The whole first third of the movie is pretty much all nostalgia. Then the rest of the movie is supposed to be about tearing their world down. It's a different movie than Meet Me in St. Louis, which is a nostalgia movie through and through. Ambersons is supposed to be a dark movie about what happens when modernity and progress tramples on the old order. Here, nostalgia serves as the set-up.

[RockyIII]

Is this a movie that deserves multiple rewatches?

[Majin Blu]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Is this a movie that deserves multiple rewatches?

I think so, just on analysis. I love seeing Agnes Moorehead's performance as Aunt Fanny.

[Logos14]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Not sure I completely follow what you’re saying. Are you saying that because Welles addresses these themes in the narration that it’s not necessary to show it?

I'm saying that Welles' narration so plainly sets forth the themes of the story that the drama between narrations could be dispensed with and one could still understand what Welles was getting at. I point this out because there seem to be those that think that since the movie was drastically altered, no one can understand Welles' original "message" without a great deal of background information prior to watching the movie.

Obviously the movie would be better if the dramatic episodes themselves reinforced his narration rather than undermined it; but as I said earlier, the drama becomes absurd because Cotten's and Holt's roles are utterly misconceived, so much so that preview audiences seemed to groan every time the latter appeared onscreen--and of course that reaction is what forced the alteration of the movie. Fanny's outbursts, had they been contrasted with a cold, elegant, and unsmiling George Minafer (as he is conceived in the book) would have made much more dramatic sense. When Holt begins to lecture genteel Joseph Cotten on the importance of tradition, the (unintended) irony is simply too much to bear.

Again, it isn't simply that Holt is unlikable. Scarlett O'Hara was an unlikable brat for 4 long hours and audiences couldn't get enough of her because Vivien Leigh was a magnetic performer perfectly suited to her role. Whether one sees Holt as a farmhand or not, it seems we can both agree that his casting is, at best, less than ideal.

[RockyIII]

I watched this movie for the first time, and by the end of it I was left with a huge ?

What was George's big problem with Eugene and why was he so against his mother marrying him even after father died? I don't get it

[Logos14]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

I watched this movie for the first time, and by the end of it I was left with a huge ?

What was George's big problem with Eugene and why was he so against his mother marrying him even after father died? I don't get it

The idea is that by rejecting Eugene she didn't marry for love, so instead she loved her son all the more, causing him to be spoiled and overly attached. George can't tolerate having a rival for his mother's affections. As I understand it, the book emphasized this Freudian aspect less and instead George's antipathy to Eugene was rooted in reactionary hatred for modernity as exemplified by the automobile.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Logos14

The idea is that by rejecting Eugene she didn't marry for love, so instead she loved her son all the more, causing him to be spoiled and overly attached. George can't tolerate having a rival for his mother's affections. As I understand it, the book emphasized this Freudian aspect less and instead George's antipathy to Eugene was rooted in reactionary hatred for modernity as exemplified by the automobile.

But Eugene was nothing but kind toward him and his mother. There was no reason for him to be so nasty. Even Lucy was very kind-hearted. There should be a motive for him to act like that other than jealousy. I did not get it

[UpstateNY]

This film is currently on Netflix if anyone who has it wants to preview before they buy. This is definitely on my wish list for the supplements alone. Very re-watchable film, although I must admit that the first time I watched it I was not impressed. For me, at least, it took another viewing or two to really appreciate what Welles was doing.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by UpstateNY

This film is currently on Netflix if anyone who has it wants to preview before they buy. This is definitely on my wish list for the supplements alone. Very re-watchable film, although I must admit that the first time I watched it I was not impressed. For me, at least, it took another viewing or two to really appreciate what Welles was doing.

Could you further explain what you got out of it the second time around that you missed the first time?

[klauswhereareyou]

I've always liked this movie, but I think I like it even better after watching my Criterion disc of it. Even with the massive cuts I think it's one of the best films from the 40's.

[Logos14]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

But Eugene was nothing but kind toward him and his mother. There was no reason for him to be so nasty. Even Lucy was very kind-hearted. There should be a motive for him to act like that other than jealousy. I did not get it

Well yes, that's one of the flaws in Welles' adaptation. In the novel, George is an aristocratic reactionary who despises industrialization, which is what Eugene represents. In casting Eugene as a gentleman and George as a boor, Welles inverted the thematic relationship of the characters and failed to develop this element. And as I said, he also brings in a good deal of Freud and that changes the emphasis.

[Cremildo]

Pandemic delays Brazilian search for lost cut

[Gacivory]

It would be cool if found. But I’m not expecting it.

[ShellBeacher]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Could you further explain what you got out of it the second time around that you missed the first time?

If it's not for you, it's not for you. Don't force yourself to accept it just because others might be fascinated with it. Or...take a class on Welles from a film school or scholar.

It's a fascinating film, but like nearly everything Welles directed, it's fascinating equally because of its "problems" as well as any cinematic brilliance.

[ShellBeacher]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Pandemic delays Brazilian search for lost cut

Well, this was last June, so let's hope for better possibilities this year for everything...

Other little nuggets have been talked about since...

https://www.wellesnet.com/tag/the-ma...t-ambersons-2/

[Rayjg]

Some outtakes from The Lady from Shanghai were recently discovered on the Internet Archive. Sadly nothing much of interest as it's mostly Elsa running around Chinatown followed by a Welles stand-in, some very brief shots of Welles from the hilltop scene and shots of the ship used in the film. You also see clapper boards showing Welles and cinematographer Lawton. William Castle appears on another one, probably directing second unit.

[yellowcakeuf6]

I remember reading an article years ago about Grossberg looking for the Ambersons print in Brazil and saying he had run out of leads. Then there's the 1945/1946 RKO memo telling the Brazil Studio to junk the print and the confirmation of it back to RKO.
He may have new leads of course, but that previous article detailed how he thoroughly played out the best lead he had, namely the studio Welles was using for It's All True, and they had no record of the print. They had even talked to the daughter of the studio owner that ran it when Welles was there and was the one communicating with RKO about junking the print.
But, having said all that, the guy could have simply lied to RKO and kept the 130+ minute cut of Ambersons of course. It's odd that it's whereabouts, if it still exists, has defied so many searches for all these years.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

It would be cool if found. But I’m not expecting it.

Yeah. I saw recently where there was an alleged sighting of the long-extinct Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) in the wilds down under. I'd say locating the uncut Ambersons is about as likely to be true, unfortunately.