Wellesnet: The Orson Welles Web Resource

By ROGER L. RYAN

On September 13th The Magnificent Ambersons made its very belated DVD debut in North America as an Amazon.com exclusive “add-on” for customers who buy the Ultimate Collector’s Edition Blu-ray of Citizen Kane. Even though fans had been very vocal about wanting Ambersons released on DVD for a decade or more, the disc has arrived with virtually no fanfare from the Warner Home Video publicity department. There is a good reason for this: the new Ambersons DVD is disappointing.

The release feels like it just barely escaped being issued on the “Warner Archive Collection”, a recent division of Warner Home Video that provides “burn-on-demand” product to a niche audience. With an emphasis on “B-movies”, these releases are primarily un-restored existing prints transferred quickly to DVD-R and sold via a dedicated website. The discs contain little-to-no extras and cannot be purchased in stores or rented. Thankfully, Ambersons arrives on a properly  “pressed” DVD, but like many of the “Archive Collection” discs, the film looks and sounds like it received very little restoration effort and the release contains no special features whatsoever. During on-line chats and in interviews, Warner Home Video has insisted for years that the delay in releasing Ambersons on DVD was due to an on-going search to find “better elements”.  Evidently, no “better elements” have been found.
(more...)

Warner Bros. has released the official press release for their 70th Anniversary edition of  Citizen Kane, due out on September 13, 2011. It will come in three editions:   a  DVD 3-disc set, priced at $49.99;  a Blu ray 3-disc set priced at $64.99, and the Amazon exclusive edition which will include a fourth disc featuring Orson Welles's stunning second film The Magnificent Ambersons,  priced at $79.99.  None of the extra discs on any set will be in the  Blu ray format.  Amazon is currently listing their exclusive 4-disc set for $49.99 and both the 3-disc DVD and Blu ray sets are only $5.00 cheaper at $44.99, making the Amazon exclusive a must for Welles fans who have long wondered why Warner Bros. has failed to release The Magnificent Ambersons on DVD or Blu ray.

Here is the Warner Bros. press release:

*********************************

Orson Welles’ Tour de Force Citizen Kane Celebrates 70th Anniversary with Blu-ray Debut of Remastered Ultimate Collector’s Edition

Burbank, Calif., June 13, 2011 -- Citizen Kane, Orson Welles’ tour de force which the American Film Institute (AFI) chose as the #1 film of all time,  celebrates its 70th Anniversary with an all new 1080p hi-definition restoration from original nitrate elements in stunning 4K resolution and revitalized digital audio.  Warner Home Video will bring the iconic masterwork to a new generation with their new Blu-ray™ 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector’s Edition, complete with more than three hours of bonus content and an array of rare and collectible premiums including a 48-page collector’s book filled with photos and behind-the-scene details, a 20-page reproduction of the original 1941 souvenir program, lobby cards, and reproductions of rare production memos and correspondence (Blu-ray Disc $64.99 SRP;  DVD $49.92 SRP).

This classic story of power and the press starring, produced, directed and co-written by then 25-year-old Orson Welles, the film captured nine Academy Award®* nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Director, and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

These newest 70th Anniversary editions will present the film in the highest quality yet. "The work to recreate the original look of the film and to clean up the effects of aging was a painstaking, frame-by-frame process. The source for most of the picture was a 4K scan from a 1941 composite fine grain positive master" says Warner Bros.  Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) colorist Janet Wilson.

The new edition includes feature-length stories-behind-the-story that include the two- hour Academy Award-nominated documentary Battle over Citizen Kane and RKO 281, the Golden Globe® and Emmy ® winning HBO docudrama that chronicles the clash between William Randolph Hearst and Hollywood.  Memorabilia in the premium packaging includes the 1941 movie premiere newsreel, gallery of storyboards, studio correspondence, call sheets, rare photos and more.

Citizen Kane 70th Anniversary Edition is new to digital and will be releasing with iTunes Extras and will be available On Demand from cable and satellite providers and for digital download from online retailers including iTunes™, VUDU and Amazon Instant Video.

THE  EXTRAS!  READ ALL ABOUT THEM!

Disc 1
·    Commentary by Peter Bogdanovich
·    Commentary by Roger Ebert
·    Opening: World Premier of Citizen Kane Vintage Featurettes
·    Interview with Ruth Warrick
·    Interview with Robert Wise
·    Storyboards
·    Call Sheets
·    Still Photography with Commentary by Roger Ebert
·    Deleted Scenes
·    Ad Campaign
·    Press Book
·    Opening Night
·    Theatrical Trailer

Disc 2: The Battle over Citizen Kane (PBS Documentary)

Disc 3: RKO 281 (HBO Feature film)

Amazon only exclusive:

Disc 4:  The Magnificent Ambersons

About Orson Welles and CITIZEN KANE

CITIZEN KANE, according to director Martin Scorsese, made Orson Welles “responsible for inspiring more people to be film directors than anyone else in the history of cinema.”  Starring, produced, directed and co-written by Welles, CITIZEN KANE opened May 8, 1941 at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood and was nominated for nine Academy Awards®, winning the Oscar® for Best Screenplay.

The picture starred actors from Welles Mercury Theater, who at the time, were entirely new to motion pictures.  Joseph Cotten played Jedediah Leland, the best friend of Charles Foster Kane, while William Alland was the investigative reporter who delves into the life of Kane, in a quest for the meaning of Kane's dying word, “Rosebud.” Welles himself played the title role, from a boyish, ambitious young man to the old, bloated and embittered recluse he became.  Other actors Welles cast included Everett Sloane, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick and Paul Stewart.  Alan Ladd and Arthur O’Connell appeared in uncredited bit parts as reporters.

The legendary Gregg Toland was the film’s cinematographer, and Robert Wise, later a two-time Academy Award®-winning director, was the editor on the picture. One of the screen greatest composers, Bernard Herrmann created his first movie score for CITIZEN KANE, and was nominated for the Academy Award, but that same year Herrmann beat himself for the Oscar — for his second film score, ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY. After remaining out of circulation for many years, the film was re-issued by RKO in 1956, and in 1962 CITIZEN KANE was selected by a panel of film critics as the greatest film of all time. During the ensuing years, in poll after poll, CITIZEN KANE has consistently ranked as the highest embodiment of film art. Says critic Roger Ebert, “Seventy years later, this towering achievement is as fresh, as provoking, as entertaining, as funny, as sad, as brilliant, as it ever was. Many agree it is the greatest film of all time.” Critic and film historian Arthur Knight observed, “Less by imitation than by inspiration, the Orson Welles film has altered the look not only of American films, but of films the world over.”

You can read an interview with David Thomson by John Carvill  Here.  It' s an interesting but at the same time quite an idiotic interview. Why? Not because of the questions asked, which is usually the case, but because of the answers given, by Mr. Thomson.

I think the interview makes a very nice piece to discredit David Thomson as any kind of authority on Orson Welles, or for any one else in the cinema, for that matter.

Mr. Thomson’s answers to Mr. Carvill's questions on Orson Welles, which come at the very end of the long interview, seem to me to be very condescending.  That Mr. Thomson prefers  the 93-minute original cut of TOUCH OF EVIL,  which Welles himself detested, is obviously very revealing. It shows us where to place Mr. Thomson on the level of Orson Welles scholars.  Namely, way below Pauline Kael.  Obviously anyone who loves Welles work and the cinema would wish these people had never existed!

As Webmaster of Wellesnet, I don’t know anyone who would give David Thomson’s book ROSEBUD, anything less than an “F” except my good friend,  "Glenn Anders."  I'm sure Glenn and I will be talking about our differences when next we meet, and obviously if Mr. Thomson views Wellesnet, he is invited to reply, but as far as I know, he is the only writer associated with Orson Welles and his work who does not visit this site.  Unlike  most other Welles scholars and friends, such as Joe McBride, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Simon Callow, Christopher Welles Feder and Beatrice Welles, to name only a few.  But of course, Mr. Thomson feels he knows more about Welles than all of these people, as a reading of his discredited book, ROSEBUD will show.

Actually, I find it ironic that Mr. Thomson could bring Welles two daughters, who agree about little else, together in agreeing that Thomson's ROSEBUD is a complete abortion. But beyond the fax pas Mr. Thomson committed with ROSEBUD, I must also note the superior, John Simon-like attitude Mr. Thomson projects throughout his interview with John Carvill.  The tone is that Mr. Thomson is right, and everybody else is wrong. For example, Mr. Thomson’s view of Martin Scorcese and Leonard Di Caprio’s work. Obviously, it’s fine to say their films are bad, or you don’t like them, but to suggest they have both not been recognized widely elsewhere, because you don't like them, is simply idiotic in the extreme.

I don't know how old John Carvill is, but when I first met Mr. Thomson in San Francisco, in 1981, shortly after seeing THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS for the first time, I would have told Thomson to (excuse my French) go fuck himself if he had said what he did to Mr. Carvill.  So would two directors who were friends of mine, that Thomson professes to admire, Nicholas Ray and George Cukor.

Mr. Thomson's  suggestion that Mr. Carvill is too young to "appreciate "THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is, in my humble opinion, simply beyond the pale.  Orson Welles is obviously a far greater artist than Mr. Thomson, which I assume even Mr. Thomson would agree with (well, maybe not).  And how old was Orson Welles when he made  THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS?  26... So how does Mr. Thomson explain that?  "You are too young, Mr. Carvill."  My God, that has got to be the stupidest answer I have ever heard!  How old were Picasso and Van Gogh when they painted their earliest masterpieces on canvas?

Just imagine if in 1937,  GUERNICA had been "re-touched" by another artist who felt it needed a bit of color to dramatize the black and white and "CinemaScope" canvas Picasso had painted.  Picasso, as a true artist  would have burned the painting rather than seen it displayed in any version other than what he had intended.

Welles, as a film artist,  was in the same position five years later, except in 1942, he couldn't burn the negative of his original film.  It took the idiots at RKO to do that for him.  Ironically, they wanted to burn the negative of CITIZEN KANE,  but to destroy the artistry of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, they dumped it into the Pacific Ocean.

The bottom line is this:  David Thomson is no fan of Orson Welles or his legacy.

To anyone interested in Orson Welles or his works, please avoid Mr. Thomson and his trashy books like the PLAGUE!

Here is what Jonathan Rosenbaum had to say about Mr. Thomson's book  A Biographical Dictionary of Film:

"Rather than focus on its omissions and denials, which I've already done elsewhere, I'd like to raise my eyebrows at the notion that the book, whatever its merits as criticism, is any kind of reference book at all. Apart from skeletal and often incomplete filmographies, its facts are few and far between."

Read more by Jonathan Rosenbaum on David Thomson HERE.

Even after RKO drastically cut THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, I would have to say that based on the impressive ads I've recently come across, AMBERSONS actually must have had quite a bit of effort placed behind its initial release. This two-page trade ad certainly attests that RKO had quite a marketing campaign lined up for the film.

There's also the fact that even in it's truncated version, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS received many excellent reviews and eventually was nominated for four Academy Awards:

Best Picture - Orson Welles
Best Supporting Actress - Agnes Moorehead
Best Cinematography - Stanley Cortez
Best Art Decoration -  Mark Lee Kirk

The nominations for AMBERSONS were certainly no easy task for a film that was released in July of the awards year, especially if the film had been "dumped" by RKO.

However, it is widely perceived that AMBERSONS was orphaned by it's studio, partially because Welles was fired at the time of the pictures release by Charles Koerner and because the studios new motto, "Showmanship in place of genius" was a clearly meant as a slap in Welles face.

However, at least initially, RKO gave AMBERSONS an impressive campaign, with full page ads appearing in many national publications, such as LIFE, LOOK and  GOOD  HOUSEKEEPING. According to Joseph McBride, AMBERSONS box-office returns for major cities also boded very well for the films prospects when it opened in July, 1942.  "It was holding up beyond expectations in LA, doing sensationally in San Francisco, nice in New York and Baltimore, good in Denver and Omaha, and not bad in Boston and Philly." (taken from reports in VARIETY).

Yet most accounts on the release of AMBERSONS follow the the short and sweet version similar to the one David Kamp describes in his VANITY FAIR article:

"...The  Koerner regime, lacking any confidence in The Magnificent Ambersons, opened it without fanfare in two theaters in Los Angeles, on a double bill with the Lupe Velez comedy Mexican Spitfire Sees a Ghost."

That AMBERSONS opened on a double-bill with MEXICAN SPITFIRE SEES A GHOST was actually standard practice in 1942, so it in no way indicates that RKO was dumping the picture, which seems to be the implication.  AMBERSONS was the A-picture and SPITFIRE was the B-picture. Just as CASABLANCA played with a B-picture when it opened (and initially didn't do that well, either.)  SPITFIRE isn't even mentioned in the full pages ads RKO took out promoting AMBERSONS release at the Pantages and RKO Hillstreet theatres in Los Angeles.

However, RKO may have pulled the plug just a bit too quickly when AMBERSONS didn't perform as well as they would have liked, although it still apparently grossed over $500,000, which means it did fairly well for 1942 (during the start of WWII)  and it could hardly make even that much money if it had been dumped on the market.  The movie was always going to be a difficult sell and had it been made for it's original budget of $850,000 it might even have had a chance of breaking even!

It's also important to realize that at the time, no RKO film costing over $1,000,000 (such as THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) had made a profit for the studio.  In short, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS  actually had quite an  honorable release, especially compared to later Welles's films such as OTHELLO, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT and MR. ARKADIN.  Those independent Welles's productions really were movies that got "dumped" on the market.

Coming across an interview with Jean Renoir from the Summer, 1954 issue of Sight and Sound, I was astonished to read that Renoir had only the highest praise for RKO executive Charles Koerner, who after all was the man that fired Orson Welles from RKO after the double fiasco of The Magnificent Ambersons and It's All True. RKO's mounting losses and the problems of those two high profile films led to President George Schaefer's resignation in June, 1942.  Koerner took over as head of production and like any incoming studio chief, he fired all of the old regimes mistakes, which in Koerner's case meant first and foremost, Orson Welles and his Mercury unit.

Jean Renoir's comments, below, however led me to re-consider Koerner as the so-called "villain" in the rise and fall of Welles at RKO. Given the circumstances, no matter who replaced Schaefer, it seems fair to assume Welles and his Mercury players were going to be kicked off the RKO lot. Koerner, after all was not the man who ordered the drastic cuts in The Magnificent Ambersons, but George Schaefer, who was supposed to be Welles "supporter" at the studio. It was also Schaefer who had hired Welles to bring artistic movies to RKO in the first place, and when Welles delivered the biggest art movie of all time, he trembled at the threats of W. R. Hearst, but finally stood by Welles.  What else could he do after he had given Welles a contract with such carte blanche?

However, by the time of Ambersons, Schaefer was in a near panic about the mounting studio losses, which could hardly be blamed solely on Welles, since he had only made two films for RKO, which together had cost only a little over $2 million. But Schaefer wasn't ready to support a second Welles "artistic" masterpiece, and after the supposedly "poor" previews (Kane had no previews), he quickly agreed to cut the film down in order to "save" it.

What is clear, is Schaefer was making decisions out of fear, mostly about losing his job, and as his letters to Welles show, he was a very frightened man after the bad Amberson's previews.

Given what Renoir says in his interview with Francois Truffaut and Jacques Rivette, it seems likely that if Charles Koerner had hired Welles, and there had been a bad preview of Amberson's, he might have at least given Welles the chance to edit the film himself, even if he was in South America. As Renoir states, he got the chance to do that, even after his film Woman on the Beach was badly received in Santa Barbara.

This is, of course, merely a theory, but it seems to me, it's a far more plausible one, than the writers who place all the blame on the re-editing of The Magnificent Ambersons squarely at the feet of Orson Welles, claiming RKO was only acting in their best interests. I think that argument holds absolutely no validity. While Welles didn't always make the best decisions during this period, it's still safe to say if a 120-minute version of Ambersons had been released instead of the studio version of 88-minutes, it would have probably done just about the same (or possibly even better) at the box-office. It certainly would have gotten better reviews!

What's ironic, is that both the essays contained in the published scripts for Welles's first two RKO films suggest that: A) He was not the author of Citizen Kane, and: B) He was himself largely responsible for the fiasco that led to the re-editing of The Magnificent Ambersons.

******************************************

JEAN RENOIR on working at RKO

Interviewed by Jacques Rivette and Francois Truffaut

(From Sight and Sound, Summer - 1954)

******************************************

(more...)