Just saw Ambersons for the first time...

[C.P. Czarnecki]

I heard rumors from people who were present at the Director's Guild talk with Welles that he actually got to retain or re-insert his version of Aunt Fanny's breakdown. There are many conflicting reports as far as this is concerned. Does anyone know more for sure?

[Roger Ryan]

I heard rumors from people who were present at the Director's Guild talk with Welles that he actually got to retain or re-insert his version of Aunt Fanny's breakdown. There are many conflicting reports as far as this is concerned. Does anyone know more for sure?

It's unlikely he would have retained that footage; it's certainly not been discovered among his possessions and seems implausible that he would have kept footage of just that scene and not the entire long version of the film. As I mentioned previously, the scene as it appears in the released version of the film combines the reshot material with Welles' original footage. My opinion is that this reshot material is among the least harmful alterations to Welles' vision. The dialogue is virtually the same as in the original scene; the main difference being that Moorehead was asked to tone down her delivery since preview audiences found her hysterics unintentionally humorous. We are fortunate that all involved in the re-editing thought it okay to retain the original scene's final tracking shot which is one of the highlights of the film. I don't think this was a point of contention either; in other words, it was always part of the re-editing plan to retain the shot.

Perhaps you're thinking of the earlier kitchen scene after George returns home from college? There was some question whether that scene would be retained. It was reported that George Schaefer asked for it to be kept in just prior to release (maybe due to Welles' pleading?).

[C.P. Czarnecki]

No no, I didn't mean that Welles kept that scene in his possession, I meant that he was able to retain it in the film, i.e. the re-shot scene was not used. Apparently he said that in the Director's Guild talk.

[Roger Ryan]

No no, I didn't mean that Welles kept that scene in his possession, I meant that he was able to retain it in the film, i.e. the re-shot scene was not used. Apparently he said that in the Director's Guild talk.

Again, Welles may have been referring to the earlier kitchen scene which was "out" at one point, but made it's way back in prior to release. The first half of Fanny's breakdown scene was definitely reshot by Jack Moss when Welles was in Brazil and remains in the film. Welles' version of the scene was all done in one shot beginning with Fanny already on the floor leaning against the boiler. Nicholas Musuraca was the cinematographer on the reshoot and his footage doesn't blend particularly well with this original shot which the released film cuts back to on George's line "Get up Aunt Fanny". As I mentioned above, I don't think there was a plan to remove the Welles footage completely, only "soften" the first half of the scene. Note how Moorehead is directed to position her head to the left at the end of the reshot footage; it looks like Moss was attempting to match the action to Welles' original shot. In other words, it appears that the decision to cut back to the original footage at this point was agreed to prior to doing the reshoot.

By the way, the early kitchen sequence with Fanny, George & Jack and Fanny's breakdown (which begins in the kitchen) are among the film's many paired scenes. They are meant to ironically comment on each other.

Welles can not be held as the utmost authority on the reworking of AMBERSONS. He was quoted at one point as saying that the first "six reels" were retained exactly as he cut them which is simply not accurate. By the end of the sixth reel over twenty minutes of Welles' footage had been removed and several sequences had been transposed.

[MartynH]

I have just found out that ten days ago it was announced that half an hour of missing scenes from Fritz Lang's Metropolis were found in a Buenos Aires vault. The extra scenes had been there since 1928. I am a fan of Metropolis but the interesting thing for Welles fans is that if Ambersons were to be found it doesn't necessarily follow that the film woud have decayed. This is one of the things I have always been concerned about. Lang's film is over a dozen years longer than Ambersons.

I still retain the hope Amberson's could still be found.

[Roger Ryan]

I have just found out that ten days ago it was announced that half an hour of missing scenes from Fritz Lang's Metropolis were found in a Buenos Aires vault. The extra scenes had been there since 1928. I am a fan of Metropolis but the interesting thing for Welles fans is that if Ambersons were to be found it doesn't necessarily follow that the film woud have decayed. This is one of the things I have always been concerned about. Lang's film is over a dozen years longer than Ambersons.

I still retain the hope Amberson's could still be found.

Actually, the long version of METROPOLIS recently recovered from the Bueno Aires film vault is a 16mm dupe (of the original nitrate print) made around 1962, or so I've read. Although it's in pretty poor shape, that's the main reason it's still viewable.

The advantage some of these recently uncovered "lost" films or missing long versions have over AMBERSONS is that they were actually released at some point. Once a film gets into circulation, even for a short time, the odds of a print surviving somewhere are greatly increased. As we know, the long version of AMBERSONS was never released. That combined with the existing internal studio documentation notating that all alternate edits had been destroyed does not bode well for a longer version to exist. JOURNEY INTO FEAR, however, was issued (in Aug. 1942 for about two to three weeks) in an earlier form prior to being recalled for further editing, and that early version has survived.

[Tony]

Roger: do you know how many prints of the Ambersons that Welles and Wise "completed" in that Florida cartoon studio existed? My guess is that it must be only two: one for the studio to hack up in Hollywood, and the one that was shipped to Welles in Rio. My thinking is that if there were only 2 prints of the "finished" Ambersons (let's call it the "Welles cut"), and we know the studio destroyed theirs (or all the parts they cut out) in Hollywood and we know they ordered the RKO studios in Rio to destroy theirs, the likelihood of a print existing is next to nil.

Years ago a friend and I were discussing this, and I queried why Welles wouldn't hide his version, store it away in some vault. My friend, who is a real Hollywood expert, pointed out that in those days there was no TV, and re-releases of films were incredibly rare, so there would be no reason for Welles to keep a copy; he gave it up because he legally had to and there was no hope, in those days, of it ever being seen.

It always breaks my heart to recall that when the Paramount studio exec found parts of "It's All True" in the vaults just before Welles's death, he called Welles to tell him. Welles had no interest in IAT; he just asked "Did you find my Ambersons?"

[Roger Ryan]

That's pretty much the case. There were probably five or six prints made total prior to release. These would have been the various versions struck for the known previews (only the first two would have been close to what Welles intended). All of these prints were controlled by the studio and persumably destroyed in Dec. 1942. In addition, Wise sent Welles a 14 reel version in mid-March, 1942 (the 131 min. edit) along with 10 reels of alternates which probably consisted of things like the Wise-shot scene of George finding Isabel unconscious and different editing of existing scenes (including alternate audio mixes) and snippets that were being considered that didn't make it into the 131 min. edit. All of these reels were reported as being disposed of by the Rio office in late 1944.

[Lance Morrison]

Was thinking about Ambersons lately. Wanted to resurrect a thread to post some ideas, picked this one by diceroll.

Apologies in advance for any slips in cognition, logic, memory, or bounty of ignorance and assumption. Film is not my first language.

I was surprised and pleased to find Carrington's book at my university library several months ago. Reading through it, i was able to get a good laugh out of a lot of this--- certainly his theories on Orson's inability to complete the film.

But, reflecting, i have found myself increasingly interested in the idea that Welles' conception of Geroge Minafer is so divorced from Tarkington's that he basically weeded out anything humanizing and endearing and charming about the character, making him an unbearable focus (by hollywood standards) for a film, with few if any redeeming features. Of course it is nothing unusual for Wellesian film practice to viverge from that of greater hollywood, but i thought of it differently when showing the film (with 15 minutes of disclaimers about what was to follow) to a friend. She felt that it was absolutely inconceivable for this character Lucy to find anything to love at all in this character George. This may reveal more about the friend of mine than the film itself, but seemed logical to me, although it had never caused me personally any disbelief.

Taking the book's word that Tarkington's Minafer is more "likeable" than Welles', the question becomes why he made this alteration, and whether it was wise. For Carrington feels the film would always have been somewhat of a mess because of this direction; he does think having someone like Welles himself play the character would have endowed the character with a somewhat unwritten charisma that would have made him far more bearable, but of course we assume that Welles was getting what he wanted out of Holt. And I don't see there as being a lot in the excised scenes for us to have a differnet opinon of him than we do as released.

Was Welles overlooking this aspect--not seeing the lack of "positive" traits in George? Was he trying to, in his mind, enhance George's later redemption in the story by making the contrast stronger, the connection between these acts and those of earlier in the film subtler? When i read what Joseph Cotton wrote to Welles about the long cut projecting some sort of "vague psychological significance" and gloom upon the audience, i picture this described feeling, and wonder if the full picture was producing, whether consciously or not, the emotional detachment Brecht (and in film Godard and Fassbinder) sought with his Entfremdungseffekt, leaving the mind open for contemplation.


I am variously surprised, touched, and amused how all over the internet can be found lamentations by non Wellesians about the butchery of the film. Folks who are happy to give Welles Touch of Evil--now that it has been "properly restored"---and, with reservations, Ambersons as near masterpieces alongside Kane, who know not the other films, and yet participate in this yearning. Presumably these folks are not ignorant of the amazing compromise hollywood has forced upon the majorty of its creators, not only Mr. Welles; i'd like to think they aren't so naive. Perhaps they have sensed in the film some sort of dialectic between the artist's and the system's aesthetics. Or maybe their laments are in general emmanating from the human prediliction for yearning, yearning for forever lost footage, yearning for forever lost time.

[nextren]

Presumably these folks are not ignorant of the amazing compromise hollywood has forced upon the majorty of its creators, not only Mr. Welles

Well, he had final cut on Kane. I lament he didn't have final cut on Ambersons, that's all. He would have had it, if Kane had made money, which would have happened if Hearst hadn't boycotted it; etc.

Nowadays final cuts and directors' visions are not unknown.

Interesting comment about Lucy falling for George. At first she only knew he was arrogant, cocky, and influential. So she fell for him. However, after she got to know him better, she terminated their relationship. Her remarks to her father (in the "Indian legend" conversation) show she realizes she had made a mistake by falling for George, who is sort of a monster.

Welles liked to have a monstrous figure at the center of his movies. Kane, George, Arkadin, Quinlan... And the monster always gets his "comeuppance" by the end.

Kane was the most sympathetic of these monsters. We see what made him tick, see his humanity underneath. Welles wavered in humanizing his different monsters: some of them are humanized, others barely so. Welles personally had a strong moralistic streak (Good vs. Evil), as Simon Callow observed, and I think it sometimes hurt his stories. George may be an example of this, as you suggest.

[nextren]

I just noticed that the newspaper which Morgan (Cotton) reads near the end, announcing George's accident, is a Kane paper! In the insert shot, a Jed Leland (Cotton) column is on the left-hand side of the screen.

[Roger Ryan]

I just noticed that the newspaper which Morgan (Cotton) reads near the end, announcing George's accident, is a Kane paper! In the insert shot, a Jed Leland (Cotton) column is on the left-hand side of the screen.

Yes, this is one of the best in-jokes of any movie because of it's accuracy*: during the same time period that Eugene reads of George's accident (circa 1912), Jed Leland would have been writing his syndicated drama column for Kane's newspapers. Incidentally, the insert of the newspaper's front page was a reshoot done after Welles was in Brazil since the studio probably wanted to soften the impact of the original headline "AUTOMOBILE BUTCHERY!" (the replacement headline reads "AUTO CASUALTIES MOUNT"). The former is much closer to the kind of sensationalistic headline Kane's Inquirer was known for. Since the newspaper was always intended to be the Indianapolis Inquirer (the film's only reference to the actual location of the "midland town"), I feel pretty certain that the inclusion of Leland's column was a joke Welles instigated himself.

*Another in-joke that is less accurate would be the inclusion of Jack Holt's name on the movie marquee during George and Lucy's last walk through town. Tim Holt's father was indeed a movie actor who started his career in silent films, but not before 1914, a good nine or ten years after that "last walk" scene is supposed to take place.

[Jeff Wilson]

If I can step in briefly here, Welles did not lose final cut on Ambersons so much as he let Jack Moss stupidly give it up. Look for my article about Moss on the main site, it has more details. One of the real tragedies of Ambersons is that Welles could have gotten the film he wanted, if his affairs had been managed better.

[nextren]

Roger, thank you for your comment. It was informative as usual. I am much interested in obtaining a copy of your celebrated reconstruction of "Andersons." Have you any to hand? What is the price? My best thanks for any information you can give me by PM.

[Roger Ryan]

Nextren, please enable your "private message" function, so this can be discussed off-line. Thanks.