Just saw Ambersons for the first time...

[Tony]

It's my impression that Welles wanted to give Moorehead a great role, a role which didn't even exist in his radio adaptation, so increasingly the story becomes centered around Fanny and her sad life; in this way, I think Welles was perverse, since the central drama should be the two generations of lovers and their troubles. However, Moorehead did get an Oscar nomination for it.

I'm one who feels the original would be a brilliant, fascinating failure, but a failure nonetheless. Several of the people who worked on Kane and who also worked on Ambersons (George Schaeffer, Joe Cotton, Robert Wise, a.o.) felt strongly there was something really wrong with Ambersons. Could they have been right? I personally never entertained this possibility until I finally read Welles's final scene, and then I too felt strongly there was something really wrong with it. It just seems pointless, although he essentially repeats the same lines that Tarkington uses and that the studio also uses in their version. What they did was to change the location, and they did that for the same reason I would have: in order to shift the drama to the hospital. They still had Eugene say them to Fanny, as Welles had him do, but they should have gone farther: Have Fanny and Eugene and Tim and Lucy in the room together, and have Eugene say them or think them: it was this kind of catharsisis missing from both Welles's version and the studio's half -measure. The whole picture "bears down on people" as Cotten wrote, and you really needed something to lift peoples' spirits at the end. If the whole drama had been about Fanny from the beginning, then perhaps the boarding room scene would have worked. But ultimately I think the script is unfocussed, and needed a lot of work. I don't think it's unimportant that Ambersons was the very first project that Welles worked on without Jack Housman, as Housman was not only the manager of the Mercury but the script editor as well, and he kept Welles focussed on the project at hand. Over the years subsequent to Ambersons, I believe Welles proved true over and over again what Housman had said about him:" Orson's great weakness lies in his scriptwriting." And of course, the two together revolutionized American stage, radio and film. In another ten years, they would have revolutionized television as well.

[Roger Ryan]

Tony, I think you're right on almost all counts! I especially agree that Houseman would have been a tremendous asset to Welles had he stayed. In fact, if Houseman had stayed and Arnold Weissberger had been kept on (and Jack Moss was left to his magic career), this portion of Welles career might have gone a little smoother.

Ultimately, I don't think Welles' original AMBERSONS was a failure, but it was not a very commercial movie which is what everyone involved hoped it would be. Upon finishing the 131 min. edit, Wise states in a letter to Welles that he thinks the film is very good; he recommends losing a few scenes and tightening others up, but appears enthusiastic about the results. He seems as genuinely hurt as anyone when the preview audiences respond badly to certain elements of it. Obviously the poor reaction at the previews colored Wise's opinion of the film.

It's true that Welles' boarding house ending is perverse and that an ending reuniting everyone in the hospital room would be a much more traditional and logical closing scene (Tarkington himself seemed unable to conclude his novel in a satisfying manner). But I think Welles was being very innovative in creating such a left field, low key finale. It's unexpected and, because of this, it forces the viewer to see the events leading up to it in a new light. Like many things Welles did, the boarding house scene was ahead of its time and appears to have had an influence on more recent filmmakers despite the fact that the scene now only exists on paper! Bogdanovich has acknowledged the scene inspired his low-key finale to THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. I've mentioned before that Barry Levinson almost certainly was quoting it in the last scene of AVALON. But take a look at the conclusion of last year's Best Picture Oscar-winner NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and I suspect you'll see the same kind of "perversity" at work (and the audiences are still puzzled and frustrated by having expectations upended).

[NoFake]

It's true that Welles' boarding house ending is perverse and that an ending reuniting everyone in the hospital room would be a much more traditional and logical closing scene

And traditionally American. What Welles did was more in tune with what European filmmakers were doing (and continue to do): not spoon-feed the audience, but make the viewer think.

[Tony]

Roger: well, you've argued for Welles's ending more persuasively than anyone else has, probably even Welles! you've almost got me convinced! Ultimately, of course, we'd have to see it to actually form a judement. I still think it's illogical on every level...

No country for Old Men: yes, and the Sopranos too! why don't we just go back to Blow-Up to see a great example of an unusual unexpected ending, or even McCabe and Mrs. Miller, or Bonnie and Clyde, or The Wild Bunch, or Straw Dogs, or L'Aventura, etc...

The trouble is, I'm not too fond of those kind of endings; I think they're artistic cop-outs. But perhaps I'm just too conventional in my expectations. My dream for Ambersons would be the whole show minus the boarding room scene, with my ending replacing it. I think the studio wanted that too, and what has always mystified me is why didn't they have Baxter and Holt in that last shot, esp. as they were contract players, I believe, for RKO at that time. Still, if Cotten and Moorehead hadn't agreed to re-doing that last scene, it couldn't have been reshot. I guess they were thinking of their future Hollywood careers at that time.

BTW, Roger: did I mention that somebody (was it you?) sent me your version of Ambersons? Really fantastic! I wish you had the funds to do it up proper in a DVD release, or as an extra disc to accompany the Ambersons.

[Roger Ryan]

Well, I was thinking specifically about films that end with a low-key conversation between two characters who were not necessarily the focus of the film's events, but whose conversation and its subtext puts the earlier events in a new light (all three of the films I mentioned fit that bill).

For the record, I do like low-key, unexpected endings (I grew up with late 60s/early 70s films including many of the ones you mentioned) along with happy, fully-expected endings. They just have to be earned, that's all. I agree that it's impossible to know whether Welles earned his.

I'm glad you like my reconstruction despite the fact that I did not include your "dream" ending!

[Glenn Anders]

I can only continue the heap of praise on Roger's reconstruction of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.

And I like the influences Tony finds on current pictures. I just wish I had thought of one of them when I reviewed NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. A denouement was very important to Welles, I think.

And then, somewhere here, at one time, we carried on a discussion of my theory that THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is really about Aunt Fanny . . . .

To me, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (as Welles would have desired it) would have been "a feminist" portrait of a more modest, middlewestern Charles Foster Kane-type of figure (and one of his father, and himself, too) from Fanny's viewpoint. Right up to the end, Fanny would have been endlessly forgiving of Eugene Morgan for not seeing that she was his "true love."

But, then, she was only an "old maid."

In almost every picture that Welles ever made, a woman was the real victim.

Glenn

[tonyw]

I second my distinguished colleague in praising Roger's version especially his reconstruction of the ending. It is unique and really needs to be included in a future DVD version where Roger could offer a very informed commentary that would counterpoint anything Robert Carringer would say.

[Tony]

I think Roger once wrote (please correct me if I'm wrong, Roger) that if he could have some more technology, he could fully animate the missing scenes, and get different voices for the characters. I think this would really be the best way to go on a reconstruction, barring a fully-loaded CGI presentation costing millions.

And yes, it would mean a lot to have Roger's on a second disc accompanying the studio cut.

There's still time!!

[Roger Ryan]

I think Roger once wrote (please correct me if I'm wrong, Roger) that if he could have some more technology, he could fully animate the missing scenes, and get different voices for the characters. I think this would really be the best way to go on a reconstruction, barring a fully-loaded CGI presentation costing millions.

And yes, it would mean a lot to have Roger's on a second disc accompanying the studio cut.

There's still time!!

The "fully-loaded CGI" idea and using technology to "fully animate the missing scenes" would be the same thing. This was part of a very speculative discussion we had about a year ago on this board:

http://wellesnet.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=819&highlight=

As you can see from the earlier thread, which special effects expert Randy Cook contributed to, the animation idea is not practical at all. I proposed that it might be conceivable at some point in the future that CGI would be advanced enough to recreate realistic human movement affordably and that the lost AMBERSONS footage could be recreated in this fashion using the existing frame enlargements from the lost scenes as "key frames" (to use the technical term). Again, this idea is not practical with today's technology.

The best solution to recreating the lost footage is the simplest: redo the soundtrack with voice actors who approximate the original Mercury Theatre Players (no need for precise mimickry) in the manner of a radio play and allow the many existing publicity stills and frame enlargements to serve as visual accompaniment.

[chipm]

I think I might have mentioned this to Roger in a PM awhile back, if so (or even if not) it is worth mentioning here...

I would love to see his version with the kind of animation that was used to "restore" Doctor Who's Invasion. This was a ten episode series where half the episodes were lost - except for the audio. The comparison with Ambersons comes in that the series at this point was in black and white and they used black and white animation for the restoration. Pretty ingenious. You can find out more here: http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Who-Invasion/dp/B000KGGIR8

Here's an image:



I believe they did this with Flash and not anything quite so fancy as full CG. I mention this here because not only is this a inexpensive solution, but fairly do-able.

Ahhhh. One can dream!

Chip

[Alan Brody]

Or how about this style?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_TV-gierM

[tonyw]

I remember raising the CGI idea with Roger some time ago and know about the DR. WHO restoration of missing episodes. But that series was cartoonish to begin with and lends itself to that form. The poignant final sequence of AMBERSONS would not.

[Jeff Wilson]

Hey all, received this in an email and being in the middle of moving, don't have the resources or brain power to reply accurately, so here it is if someone would be good enough to help:

I have a question regarding "The Magnificent Ambersons" that you might help me with. I lack the proper books to dig into this, but my main question regards the scenes that were reshot without Welles' consent. As far as I know these are the scenes were Eugene comes to visit Isabel but is stopped at the staircase, the discussion between George and Isabel in the bedroom, Fanny's breakdown at the cold radiator and the ending. I have heard rumors from various people that Welles actually got to retain his version of the first three scenes. We all know that the ending is not his, but what about the other three scenes? Were the reshots used in the finished product that we now have, or was Welles able to retain his versions?

[Roger Ryan]

Hey all, received this in an email and being in the middle of moving, don't have the resources or brain power to reply accurately, so here it is if someone would be good enough to help:

I have a question regarding "The Magnificent Ambersons" that you might help me with. I lack the proper books to dig into this, but my main question regards the scenes that were reshot without Welles' consent. As far as I know these are the scenes were Eugene comes to visit Isabel but is stopped at the staircase, the discussion between George and Isabel in the bedroom, Fanny's breakdown at the cold radiator and the ending. I have heard rumors from various people that Welles actually got to retain his version of the first three scenes. We all know that the ending is not his, but what about the other three scenes? Were the reshots used in the finished product that we now have, or was Welles able to retain his versions?

The only thing retained from Welles' original shoot pertaining to the scenes mentioned above would be the long tracking shot following George and Fanny out of the kitchen and across the sparse living room to the window. The first half of Fanny's breakdown at the boiler was reshot by business manager Jack Moss (the initial two-shot of George and Fanny and subsequent close-ups of each). On George's line "...get up Aunt Fanny", the scene cuts to Welles' original footage.

The scene were Eugene is prevented from seeing the dying Isabel approximates what Welles intended (in his original footage, only Fanny goes downstairs to turn Eugene away who is more pleading and less forceful), but the scene was completely reshot by assistant director Freddie Fleck. The bedroom confrontation scene between George and Isabel was completely reshot by editor Robert Wise (although the shot of George approaching the bedroom door is from the original footage). In Welles' original scene, George burns the letter Eugene wrote to Isabel and demands she end her relationship with the man before storming out of the bedroom. There was then a follow-up scene where George reads a letter Isabel has left for him explaining that she will do what George asks (the soundtrack is Isabel's voice reading the letter which was intended to mirror Eugene's voice-over during the earlier letter-reading scene).

[C.P. Czarnecki]

I was the one asking the question via email and in a moment of forgetfulness I didn't remember that I had an account on this forum. Anyway, thanks a lot to Jeff and Roger for clearing this up. Has Welles ever said anything about these reshoots, what he thought of them etc.?