Magnificent Ambersons reconstruction

[CineCraft]

I just shipped this off for scanning in 4K. The beginnings of a new project I am undertaking: a reconstruction of the long version of The Magnificent Ambersons!

[edmoney]

Can you elaborate on what this reconstruction entails?

[CineCraft]

Can you elaborate on what this reconstruction entails?

Using my print as the basis for a new 4K scan, combined with archival documents and reference photos, I will be creating a precise reconstruction of the 132 minute version, using animation and voice actors to fill all the missing footage and dialogue, to create a cohesive replication of Welles' original edit of the film.

[edmoney]

Can you elaborate on what this reconstruction entails?

Using my print as the basis for a new 4K scan, combined with archival documents and reference photos, I will be creating a precise reconstruction of the 132 minute version, using animation and voice actors to fill all the missing footage and dialogue, to create a cohesive replication of Welles' original edit of the film.

Very intriguing! Is this something that you anticipate will be shared with or distributed to the public in some way? And if I may ask, what was the genesis behind this project? I'm not too familiar with how these types of arrangements work, but it sounds like a pretty significant undertaking since it involves gaining access to an actual print of the film, working with collaborators and various tools for a 4K scan, animation, etc.

[CineCraft]

Very intriguing! Is this something that you anticipate will be shared with or distributed to the public in some way?

I hope when completed that I might be able to interest the rights holders in allowing it to be made public. Absent that I hope to make it available for academic study and for screenings. It will all be free of charge. I'm doing it for pleasure of doing it.

And if I may ask, what was the genesis behind this project? I'm not too familiar with how these types of arrangements work, but it sounds like a pretty significant undertaking since it involves gaining access to an actual print of the film, working with collaborators and various tools for a 4K scan, animation, etc.

Roger Ryan did a wonderful reconstruction several decades ago, that I saw in Professor Tony Williams's seminar on Welles. I thought it was wonderful, and that one day when the technology was available, I might attempt a new version. I love the restorations of Rick Schmidlin, but these tend to be more scholarly, using still photos and storyboards and title cards to convey what is missing, but without as much emphasis on trying to create a cohesive narrative experience.

I come from a dual background. I am both a historian of film and a filmmaker, and I've wanted to combine these two skills to make a new kind of film restoration, one that uses the film art to recreate the past, to both honor the original, while also creating something that works as a narrative. This will be as much a work of art, as it is a work of scholarship. I am doing the work alone, funding it myself, because I do not have any of the rights anyways, and do not wish a legal challenge. I shall do it, and offer it to the world.

[JMcBride]

I'm curious why you are planning this in light
of the fact that Roger Ryan has already done
his own reconstruction and did an excellent job of
it with what we had in terms of publicity stills, frame enlargements, and the cutting
continuity. He was able to represent missing scenes
and to reorder the film in the continuity Welles intended. Sure, the acting
of the previously missing dialogue is amateurish, but Welles
admired amateurism (see his comments on Katharine
Hepburn and his own acting) because it stems from "to love." And I very much like the
fact that Roger and his co-actors don't really try to
imitate Welles's actors, because that would be corny to have
a faux Agnes Moorehead or a faux Joseph Cotten when we hear the real actors
in the scenes from the release version. Instead
Roger and his fellow cast members faithfully and with low-key genuine (non-"actorish") feeling read the lines as found in the cutting continuity of the long version we have lost.

The strong emphasis on hearing the lines from the cutting
continuity emphasizes their importance in the Welles version
and the coherence of the story in that version (sometimes
Roger has to make do with only a still or two, which enables
us to focus on the dialogue even more intently, as in the verandah scenes). The end result
is radically different from the RKO release version -- shockingly
so. You get a vivid sense of how powerful the film once was in
its dark view of American industrial pollution and ruination
of the landscape. RKO did its best to water down those
elements, and Roger does his best to restore them. The characters
are also far more coherent rendered. When I
teach Welles, I first show the RKO release version, and
a week later I show Roger's version, and the students
are stunned by the difference and impressed with his version.

He has talked about possibly upgrading his version with more frame
enlargements he has found and possibly different actors, as well as
more technical resources,etc., but has had no real bites to date. I regret that Criterion,
which was offered the opportunity -- and I endorsed it -- declined
to include his restoration on the new edition. So my question is,
why try to start from scratch if Roger has already done it
so well and could do it even better if he had the resources
and the go-ahead from the rights holders?

[CineCraft]

I can assure you I mean well, and I have been in touch with Mr. Ryan during this endeavor. My efforts are not intended as a refutation of his work. Far from it, his film was a real revelation to me. I love restoration and I do pro bono restoration work. And I have an idea for how to do this, so it will be something different enough that it won't supplant Mr. Ryan's work, but support it.

When the final results are seen, I hope the intent will be understood. It's going to be something wonderful.

Best Wishes,

BR

[tonyw]

I'm surprised that a claim is being made for exclusive rights concerning making an alternative version that is entirely open to others who want to pursue their own independent paths and follow a creative pattern that Welles himself often followed, namely that of creativity and the possibility of alternative scenes and versions.

For the record, when I had the opportunity of running 400 level classes on Welles and a 300 one to celebrate his centenary (ignored by our Cinema and Photography Department along with the passing of key talents like Jacques Rivette and Jeanne Moreau who also never received a tribute in the annual film festival organized by that department), I ran both Roger's version and another one by a former member of this site. They were in the nature of comparison and never promoted as the "original version" but rather as interpretative avenues. For my part I wrote a critical reconstruction titled "The Fall of the House of Amberson" in a print edition of FILM INTERNATIONAL combining the theatrical release, lost scenes in the screenplay, and Tarkington's novel to give an idea of what I regard as Welles's magisterial achievement that we are unlikely ever to see again.

The person you are criticizing is a very accomplished graduate from a department we both have deep reservations about in terms of its disrespect both for the achievements of classical Hollywood cinema and the artistic achievements of film in general. At this point of time, I can not remember which reconstruction version I screened but if there is anybody to blame for implicitly setting him on this path then blame me and not a creative person who is already following his own path in much the same manner as Welles did.

He has every right to follow his own path and I'm sure Roger would not object. Refusing anyone the right of making his own version reminds me of a Hollywood studio attitude that threatens a lawsuit even over a polite letter inquiring whether an old TV series could be available for research. Years ago, the former partner of a deceased film director threatened me with legal action if I dared to use "fair right" copyright to quote from a book which he (and not the original author!!!) held copyright to.

I feel the appropriate attitude to this dilemma is encouragement to all concerned and not prohibition. I hope Roger will eventually develop and refine his version but I also hope that others will also follow in his path (and that of the anonymous compiler of another version) so that we can have as many possible versions available no matter what the nature of the sources used are. I also speak from the perspective of someone often denied access to archives due to the fact that my name and university (there, deservedly so!) are not regarded as "prestigious" enough. Despite these barriers, I went ahead and did it anyway. Thus I give full support to this person and wish him luck in this very important enterprise.

Finally, due to falling enrollments and this university's uncertain future, I am unable to teach film classes anymore and have refused the request of my current Chair to "dumb down" such classes. The low enrollment of only three students for a Nicholas Ray class reaffirmed the attitude of a Chair who had never heard of Nicholas Ray! This particular person who wishes to engage in his own Ambersons RECONSTRUCTION, has now unfairly found himself in a crossfire He belonged to a group of very creative students I had the pleasure of teaching throughout my time here. Thus, he deserves encouragement in the path he has chosen, not confronting someone deciding to close the door as in THE TRIAL!

[JMcBride]

No one denied this guy his right to try to do his own version for private consumption. You're
imagining that claim was made, Tony. I am just wondering why he would do it when
Roger Ryan already has done a good one, and if so, how he
thinks he would improve upon it. Isn't that always the question
with creative work?

[CineCraft]

The challenge is, as a filmmaker, it is difficult for me to explain what my process will be. Rather I must show. But with the advances in technology since Mr. Ryan's original, sterling effort, I wanted to reach for something that goes beyond reconstruction, to create something that lives and is a cohesive narrative, while also conveying to viewers what remains and what was lost. The new scenes will not just be stills, but full motion, like storyboards brought to life and blended seamlessly with the extant material, and combined with new actors reading the lost dialogue.

When it is done, you all will see. It will be a magnificent, new way to appreciate the Ambersons.

[JMcBride]

Well, good luck to you with it.

[Roger Ryan]

Just for the record, "CineCraft" and I have, indeed, been sharing notes and discussing a lot of Ambersons minutiae over the past few months, and I have greatly enjoyed our correspondence. I welcome a new reconstruction of the film as it will allow me to experience something closer to Welles' original intentions from the "outside" (as opposed to knowing where every sound effect came from and where every edit occurs since I put them there).

[CineCraft]

Thank you all for the vote of confidence. I promise you, you will not be disappointed.

[CineCraft]

"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo!"
A frame from the 4K scan of my print of "The Magnificent Ambersons." The work begins!

[nickleschichoney]

Hi CineCraft: What kind of animation are you planning to use and which animation studios, if any, are you considering for the animated segments?