"Mexican Spitfire Sees a Ghost" -- and so can we - Film that helped sink Ambersons is back

[NoFake]

If you want to watch the film that was egregiously screened with THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, forming a wildly incongruous match, it's available at "Hollywood's Attic": http://www.hollywoodsattic.com/shoppin....id=3885

[Roger Ryan]

"Newlyweds Dennis and Carmelita have several obstacles to deal with in their new marriage: Carmelita's fiery Latin temper, a meddling aunt and a conniving ex-fiancee who's determined to break up their marriage."

Heck - this actually sounds like the plot to "Ambersons"! Maybe the two films weren't as mismatched as we thought...

Try this: "Middle-aged lovebirds Eugene and Isabel have several obstacles to deal with in their newly reignited love: Isabel's stubborn pride, a meddling sister-in-law and a conniving son who's determined to break up their relationship."

[NoFake]

LOVE it! And by sheer coincidence, yesterday I was listening to the Mercury radio production -- and felt anew the absence of that "meddling sister-in-law." I could probably find this in one of my innumerable Welles volumes -- so forgive me for posing this -- but does anyone know why Welles eliminated her from the radio script?

[Roger Ryan]

...does anyone know why Welles eliminated her from the radio script?

I suspect the deletion was to simply shorten the story so it could be played in an hour; the Fanny subplot is not really needed for the Eugene/Isabel/George conflict to play out. However, the richness of that conflict is greatly reduced without the character of Fanny, something Welles must have recognized when adapting the novel to film. Interestingly (given her absence from the radio adaptation), Fanny becomes the central figure in the film, the only character we follow from a position outside the Amberson drama (as a member of the town's "greek chorus") through to the end where she has been spit out the other side.

[NoFake]

Fanny becomes the central figure in the film, the only character we follow from a position outside the Amberson drama (as a member of the town's "greek chorus")

That part always puzzled me -- where Fanny speaks as a stranger, as if she's not Fanny at all, but Aggie Moorehead playing another role. I never could get my head around that.

Also, it's interesting that in the book, Georgie displays a perceptible degree of compassion and concern for Fanny, which is in little evidence in the film. Thoughts...?

[Terry]

Fanny Minafer wasn't part of the Ambersons clan yet. Isabel didn't start dating Wilbur until shortly thereafter. I think she was still playing Fanny, even as part of the chorus.

[Tony]

oops! :laugh:

[Tony]

It's always seemed strange to me that Welles focussed on Fanny so intensely in the film (in fact, too much for my tastes) but left her out of the radio show completely. The first time I heard the show, I was shocked. :O

[Roger Ryan]

That part always puzzled me -- where Fanny speaks as a stranger, as if she's not Fanny at all, but Aggie Moorehead playing another role. I never could get my head around that.

Also, it's interesting that in the book, Georgie displays a perceptible degree of compassion and concern for Fanny, which is in little evidence in the film. Thoughts...?

Store Hadji is correct - Fanny is simply a townsperson at the film's beginning, although I suspect at the time we first see her she is well aware that her brother is dating Isabel but is keeping quiet about the relationship. Notice in that early shot that she is standing next to Mrs. Johnson; the two of them will continue to confide and defend each other after Fanny becomes part of the Amberson household. In the cut first veranda scene, we see how Isabel's haughty ridicule of Mrs. Johnson further alienates Fanny from her extended family. Also cut from the film was Fanny's formal introduction at the ball which would have clarified her identity as Wilbur's sister much earlier.

Ultimately, I believe the re-editing is also responsible for defusing the impact of George's compassion towards his aunt. The scene where he asks for forgiveness at his dead mother's bedside was originally intended to come before Fanny's breakdown. Once George has received his "comeuppance" (basically the realization that he senselessly destroyed his mother's relationahip with Eugene combined with the loss of his wealth) and has demonstrated contrition, we begin to view him more sympathetically and more readily recognize his compassion towards his aunt in the subsequent breakdown and office scenes (he is really giving up his own goals in order to support Fanny). This change of attitude is obscured, however, in the released version because the "comeuppance" scene is placed after the breakdown and office scenes so we don't view George's actions in the same light.

[Tony]

I never thought that George didn't care about Fanny; in the Kitchen scene, he is genuinely upset when he realizes he and his Uncle have hurt her. And when it is only Fanny and him left, George sacrifices a law career and instead does the dangerous job so Fanny can live in the place she wants. It's George who saves Fanny from a complete breakdown. This is why (sorry, Roger), I have always thought Welles's boarding house ending to have rung untrue: after the accident, when Lucy and George decide to get married, George and Fanny no longer have to worry about money, as Eugene is a millionaire and will probably expect his son-in-law to take over the business. My ending would have been a cathartic audience-pleasing scene of the hospital visit with Georgie, Lucy, Fanny, and Eugene entering. Then, perhaps, Eugene does the voice-over (those same words he speaks in the RKO cut, that he speaks in Welles's screenplay, that Eugene writes in the letter to Isabel in the book) as the camera dollies back, and the film fades. Short and sweet, leave em with a smile on their faces, it matches up with those happy credits that are in the picture as it is, and RKO would have had a bigger hit on their hands. The audience needs to see the forgiving scene: it makes all the preceding pain worthwhile. Welles's boardinghouse scene is not only not in the book, but (for me) it has the bizarre quality of combining Tarkington's happy ending (in terms of Eugene's dialogue) with a very depressed and disinterested Fanny. This has never made sense to me. However, If I were George Schaeffer in 1942, I would have offerred Welles the option of the changes ending as above in return for no cuts: I think Welles might have accepted, seeing as he himself offerred up the "big cut" of the first preview, as well as the happy-go-lucky re-shot screen credits that he suggested in his telegrams and memos.

To quote Larry French: "Welles went on (in his memo to Jack Moss of March 27, 1942) to list many major changes he thought would improve the film's audience acceptance, giving extensive instructions for scenes to be re-shot, re dubbed, or re-edited. Welles largest cut was the deletion of all the scenes related to George and Isabel's European Trip...Welles apparently felt that by removing large portions of non-essential story material — in this case all the scenes pertaining to George and Isabel's trip to Europe — he could save the key material he really hoped to keep, such as the very downbeat ending. If Welles suggested cuts had been carried out, instead of having Isabel choose George over Eugene by going abroad, Welles would have simplified her conflicted decision by merely indicating Isabel has become too ill to consider Eugene's proposal (by substituting a new scene, where George would simply find Isabel unconscious in her room."

This is actually how the picture was first previewed; it was George Schaefer who ordered Welles's big cut restored!

And here's another memo from Welles to Jack Moss, this one from April 2, 1942:

"To leave audience happy for AMBERSONS, remake cast credits as follows and in this order:

First, oval framed old fashioned picture, very authentic looking of Bennett in Civil War campaign hat. Second, live shot of Ray Collins, no insert, in elegant white ducks and hair whiter than normal seated on tropical veranda with ocean and waving palm tree behind him—Negro servant serving him second long cool drink. Third, Aggie blissfully and busily playing bridge with cronies in boarding house. Fourth, circular locket with authentic old fashioned picture of Costello in ringlets, looking very young. Fifth, Jo Cotton at French window closing watch case obviously containing Costello's picture tying in with previous shot; sound of car driving away. Jo turns, looks out window and waves. Sixth, Tim Holt and Anne Baster in open car—Tim shifting gears but looking over shoulder—as he does this, Anne looking same direction and waving, they turn to each other then look forward both very happy and gay and attractive for fadeout. Then fade in mike shot for my closing lines as before."

This was never shot, but who knows if Schafer ever even saw it, as we now know that Moss was throwing out many of Welles's telegrams, not even bothering to show them to RKO.

Reading the Welles's proposed changes, I don't think he would have rejected my suggestion of the re-shooting of the final scene- or would he have?


???

PS: Anyone interested can find many memos on-line at this address:

http://ambersons.com/Memos.htm

[tonyw]

Yes, Roger. Fanny is in those scenes and I believe that Erskine Sandford also appears in these chorus segments which reporoduce the theatrical tradition that Wellles often used, namely using actors in different roles. That is why the Robert Wise revision of CITIZEN KANE is so galling in regard to the newsroom sequence where we can clearly see Cotten, Sandford, and Schilling as opposed to their dark visages in the pre-1991 versions.

Also, this is a very good discussion of AMBERSONS to begin the New Year on Wellesnet and to inspire and thank Jeff for his efforts.

[Roger Ryan]

No apology necessary, Tony! I think your suggestion for an alternate ending has merit and would be a satisfactory, if conventional, closing scene. I would only suggest that Eugene and Lucy should be shown leaving the hospital in a wide shot that reveals the dark, overbearing city. The ending to the released version of "Ambersons" is so shockingly inconsistent in tone from what comes before that most viewers/fans/critics become fixated on the original "boarding house" scene (and Welles himself certainly placed great importance on it in later interviews) as a kind of save-all. For me, much more damage was done to the film by the cutting of crucial information and scenes concerning the loss of the Ambersons' wealth and the changing town in addition to the completely senseless reordering of sequences.

At the same time, I suspect that boarding house footage would have been an unexpected and dynamic closing sequence, consistent with the tone Tarkington establishes in the few paragraphs he devotes to it in his book. Your reasoning is sound, Tony, when you bring up that Fanny's spirits should be lifted to hear that George and Lucy are considering marriage (I would have voted for that line of dialogue to be removed since it comes off as awkwardly expository and is ultimately extraneous). But I tend to see Fanny as someone who has been broken by her involvement in the Amberson clan, still wracked with guilt over her meddling in Isabel's affairs and lamenting her spinster status. She maintains a happy exterior for her card-playing cronies, but when Eugene shows up her fascade starts to slip. He now represents the unattainable and a reminder to her of everything she lost or never had. She reaches her darkest mood when he starts to romanticize about Isabel and it's the incongruency between these two people that I believe Welles wished to stress. In a way, Fanny shows her strength by not revealing more of her emotional state to Eugene. She leads him to the door and returns to the card game probably hoping that her fellow boarders won't ask her about the gentleman caller. If George and Lucy marry, Fanny will attend the wedding, but will probably remain distant from Eugene. She may regain some semblance of wealth, but she will still be alone. All the dreams and expectations she had as a young woman joining the Amberson family by proxy have been emptied. She's lost her Eden like so many Welles characters do.

[Roger Ryan]

Yes, Roger. Fanny is in those scenes and I believe that Erskine Sandford also appears in these chorus segments which reporoduce the theatrical tradition that Wellles often used, namely using actors in different roles. That is why the Robert Wise revision of CITIZEN KANE is so galling in regard to the newsroom sequence where we can clearly see Cotten, Sandford, and Schilling as opposed to their dark visages in the pre-1991 versions.

tonyw- The difference, however, is that both Moorehead and Sanford are only playing one character each in "Ambersons". As "Roger Bronson", Sanford is punched in the stomach by George as a boy and later proclaims the adult George to be "the most practical young man" he ever met. It's the same character all the way through; note that as a boyhood friend of the Major, Bronson has always been on the peripheral of the family and speaks of them with familiarity to the other townsfolk. The only slight breakdown in logic is that Welles gives Sanford the key line about George getting his comeuppance some day. Later, Welles' narration implies that the townsfolk who wished for the comeuppance were no longer living or had forgotten about it which is shown not to be true when Bronson shows up alive and well two scenes later.

Also, we can't blame Robert Wise for the brightening of the newsroom sequence in the DVD release of "Kane"; Wise was only responsible for the overly dark and blurry transfer done in 1991 (which, as you can tell, I like even less than the overly bright digital touch-up done in 2000).

[Glenn Anders]

I fear that THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS would not have its reputation as a butchered masterpiece if the boarding house scene had been deleted early in the editing. It is that scene which gives the movie its bite, which would have set it above any film of its type ever made. Even the milder endings suggested here would have been matched by films like Sam Wood's KING'S ROW. The version we have is no better, as a whole, than half a dozen films of the time -- John Huston's IN THIS OUR LIFE, also released in 1942, is superior to most of them.

In that legendary missing sequence, it is the terrible, depressing irony that Eugene, her life-long love, has managed to patch up things between George and his daughter which weighs on Fanny, who should have been the tragic center of the film. She has nothing but a squalid death to look forward to.

Glenn

[Tony]

Roger:
I agree with absolutely everything you have so beautifully said: my happy ending is, for me, only an improvement in tone and quality from the happy ending that RKO stuck on, and it is conventional. Personally, I don't like unhappy endings in films: I think they are negative, pessimistic and even nihilistic. This is my prejuduce: I think films should be life-affirming: they are not real life. Hit em hard, if you want, but leave them with hope. I take the "Sullivan's Travels" philosophy here.

One thing has always surprised me: Tim Holt and Anne Baxter were, I believe, RKO contract players, and Agnes Moorehead and Joseph Cotten were Mercury players. You'd think that Holt and Baxter would have no problem re-shooting the ending, as they would have more loyalty to RKO than to Welles. And conversely, you'd think Moorehead and Cotten would have more loyalty to Welles. But it was Moorehead and Cotten who chose to participate in the re-shooting, which I believe he held against them for many years; after all, if they had refused, then RKO could not have re-shot. Of course, Baxter, Holt, Costello, Moorehead and Cotten all took part in re-shooting of other scenes, but for the final scene, RKO could not have re-shot without Moorehead and Cotten. The only answer could be that they were more worried about their future careers than for the picture, and/or perhaps they actually thought the re-shoots were improvements. The other mystery for me is this: if RKO was going to re-shoot the final scene, why didn't they go all the way and shoot the hospital scene with Moorehead, Holt, Baxter and Cotten? They had to know that that would have played better with an audience than anything else. And the only answer I can come up with is that they retained the two actors that Welles used in his original ending, and used some of the same lines for Cotten's character as had Welles (and indeed as had Tarkington) out of a loyalty to Welles. Unfortunately this was a solution that pleased no one, and which was hastily and poorly shot to boot. However, there was a nice touch: isn't Shifra Haran's name in it as a nurse?

I remember Robert Wise saying once that the picture as Welles edited it was a masterpiece that wouldn't play to wartime audiences, so they had to cut it down to about an hour and a half and put a happy ending on. But that everything that they did, they did with the intention of making Ambersons as good as possible as a shorter film. I also remember him saying "We couldn't have done that bad a job, as the picture has become something of a classic" And I recall that when he said that (in the seventies) the Ambersons was number #8 on the AFI list, while Kane was #1.