Cotten quote re original ending of MA

[Colmena]

I gather then Joseph Cotton, at some point, characterized the original ending of Magnificent Ambersons as "too Checkovian for its own good." Or something like that. Can anyone please locate that quote for me?

Thanks!

[jbrooks]

I don't have my copy at hand, but a web search tells me that this is covered in Barbara Leaming's biography.

After attending the Pomona preview, Cotten wrote that Welles's script for Ambersons was "doubtless the most faithful adaptation that any book has ever had" but that "the picture on the screen seems to mean something else...It's more Chekhov than Tarkington." ("Yes, exactly!" Welles told Leaming. "That's just what I was making!")

[Le Chiffre]

Yes, that was part of the letter Cotten wrote to Welles in Rio right after attending the Pomona preview. The tone of the boardinghouse ending seems to bear some resemblance to the bleak ending of Chekhov's UNCLE VANYA.

Here's a fuller excerpt from Cotten's letter to Welles:

.
You have written doubtless the most faithful adaptation any book has ever had, and when I had finished reading it I had the same feeling I had when I read the book. When you read it, I had that same reaction only stronger. The picture on the screen seems to mean something else. It is filled with some deep though vague psychological significance that I think you never meant it to have. Dramatically, it is like a play full of wonderful, strong second acts all coming down on the same curtain line, all proving the same tragic point. Then suddenly someone appears on the apron and says the play is over without there having been enacted a concluding third act. ...It is a dark sort of movie, more Chekhov than Tarkington.

Just a guess, but I think the part about "wonderful, strong second acts all coming down on the same curtain line, all proving the same tragic point" may refer to Welles' decision to move George's repentance scene to much earlier in the film, leaving the film without a dramatic climax, and having instead, just a long, slow and tragic fadeout.

It's worth noting that the repentance scene was restored to its original place near the end of the film for the second, Pasadena preview, where the film got a better reaction from the audience. But I've seen no evidence that Cotten attended that preview.

As Robert Carringer put it in his great book on Ambersons, a more sophisticated, upscale audience in Pasadena counts for a lot, but there's no question the two audiences saw very different versions of the film.

[Colmena]

JC: It is a dark sort of movie, more Chekhov than Tarkington.

But Tarkington is also dark! (I've read the book.) In the original ending not only do you have the bleak Checkovian wrap up in the boarding house, but then we see Cotten driving his car into the over-built, polluted, sprawling American city... That's Tarkington.

And also a view of the American city that would be very untypical for 1942! But if MA had been left intact, it would have then turned out to be highly prescient two decades later, post Jane Jacobs.

Thanks for those replies.

Where can I find the Cotten letter?

PS The Cotten letter is quoted in part on p. 121 in _This is Orson Welles_, but with no reference of Checkov.

[Roger Ryan]

Interestingly, as heard in the Welles-Bogdanovich interview tape excerpts included on the Criterion release of Ambersons, Welles states that it was the studio re-editing which turned the film into a series of second acts with an arbitrary ending. Twenty-odd years later, Welles seems to remember Cotten's critical assessment, but appropriates it to describe the butchered released version!

During a rare early-1980s British National Film Theatre audience Q & A (included on the Studio Canal Blu-ray of The Third Man), Cotten stated emphatically that he considered the original cut of Ambersons to be better than the released version. I suspect forty years of hind-sight and a continued friendship with Welles influenced his opinion.

[Wellesnet]

Where can I find the Cotten letter?

I don't know where the letter in its entirety can be found, but a more extensive excerpt can be found at the new Ambersons website discussed recently. The letter is dated March 28, 1942:
http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/correspondences/

[Le Chiffre]

Cotten stated emphatically that he considered the original cut of Ambersons to be better than the released version. I suspect forty years of hind-sight and a continued friendship with Welles influenced his opinion.

Another interesting thing is that, in his autobiography, Cotten barely mentions Ambersons at all, skipping completely over the recutting issue. Maybe it was too painful for him to put into writing.

Thanks for the Jane Jacobs reference, Colmena. I'm not familiar with her work, but will look into it. I do know that Henry George does figure in Welles' research files at Lilly. His 1879 classic PROGRESS AND POVERTY, according to Wiki, inspired Ebeneezer Howard's "Garden City" movement, which in turn was analyzed at length by Jacobs in her most famous book THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES.

Matthew Asprey Gear's recent Welles book also has some nice discussion on the darkness of Tarkington's vision and how it related to Welles's film, in its original form.

[Wellesnet]

I gather then Joseph Cotton, at some point, characterized the original ending of Magnificent Ambersons as "too Checkovian for its own good." Or something like that. Can anyone please locate that quote for me?

The following excerpt is from a March 28, 1942 letter from Cotten to Welles. He had attended the March 17 preview in Pomona with George Schaefer and Robert Wise.

Dear Orson:

In cases such as this great difference of opinion in the editing and cutting of AMBERSONS, people usually say “nothing personal, of course” as an excuse to say whatever they think. In my case, I have no business interest in AMBERSONS, Mercury or you; but a great personal feeling about all three, especially you, and whatever I say I know you will take in a personal way, and I want you to.

I have often been wrong in discussing scripts and plots with you, and I agree that I’m wanting in intellectual concept and understanding of art. I do, however, have a reliable instinct, and as often as I have been wrong about actual ideas, I have been right about audience reactions. I also know by now just about what your reaction to audiences is, and I am writing this to you because I know you would have been far from happy with the feeling in the theater during the showing last week. The moment the temporary title was flashed on the screen THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, a Mercury production by Orson Welles, there was a wonderful murmur of happy anticipation, which was warming and delightful to hear and feel. And the first sound of your voice was greeted with applause. Certainly I was fair in assuming at this point that the audience was with us. Then something happened… it happened gradually and awfully and the feeling in that theater became disinterested, almost hostile and as cold as that ice-house they had just seen and my heart as heavy as the heart of Major Amberson who was playing wonderful scenes that nobody cared about.

You have written doubtless the most faithful adaptation any book has ever had, and when I had finished reading it I had the same feeling I had when I read the book. When you read it, I had that same reaction only stronger. The picture on the screen seems to mean something else. It is filled with some deep though vague psychological significance that I think you never meant it to have. Dramatically, it is like a play full of wonderful, strong second acts all coming down on the same curtain line, all proving the same tragic point. Then suddenly someone appears on the apron and says the play is over without there having been enacted a concluding third act….It is a dark sort of movie, more Chekhov than Tarkington… The emotional impact in the script seems to have lost itself somewhere in the cold visual beauty before us and at the end there is definitely a feeling of dissatisfaction… chiefly, I believe, because we have seen something that should have been no less that great. And it can be great, I’m sure of that. It’s all there, in my opinion, with some transpositions, revisions and some points made clearer… points relating to human relations, I mean.

…Our cables that fly back and forth, I know, present everything in a very unsatisfactory manner. They often must be misinterpreted at both ends. Jack, I know, is doing all he can. He is trying his best to get Bob Wise to you. His opinions about the cuts, right or wrong, I know are the results of sincere, thoughtful, harassed days, nights, Sundays, holidays. Nobody in the Mercury is trying in any way to take advantage of your absence. Nobody anywhere thinks you haven’t made a wonderful, beautiful, inspiring picture. Everybody in the Mercury is on your side always. I miss you horribly and will be a happier soul when you return.

We all love you… and until then remain forever, as all of us do,

Obediently yours,

Joe

[Roger Ryan]

...Another interesting thing is that, in his autobiography, Cotten barely mentions Ambersons at all, skipping completely over the recutting issue. Maybe it was too painful for him to put into writing...

I think it probably had more to do with the scope/length of the autobiography which Cotten keeps pretty light and breezy. To bring up the recutting situation would require some lengthy background information to provide the proper context, and I don't think Cotten or his editor wanted to spend that many pages on a film that was far less of a milestone for the actor than Kane was the previous year and Shadow of a Doubt would be the next year. Also, Cotten was writing the autobiography when Welles was still living and may have avoided the re-editing controversy in deference to his friend.

[Le Chiffre]

Then something happened… it happened gradually and awfully and the feeling in that theater became disinterested, almost hostile and as cold as that ice-house they had just seen and my heart as heavy as the heart of Major Amberson who was playing wonderful scenes that nobody cared about.

That may be the most powerful part of the letter, and the most honest and poignant description of the Pomona preview I've come across. With everyone else, from Schaefer to Wise to Jack Moss, one gets the sense that there is some ulterior motive and manipulation at work in their reactions. Cotton just seems concerned about his friend, and I think this letter is probably what started to break Welles's will to resist the changes proposed by Moss and the studio. Here, once again, one has to consider the radical changes Welles himself had already made to the story. Still, one can see the sense of betrayal in Cotten's words. Did he realize how much he was helping to ruin Welles's career in Hollywood, perhaps partly for the sake of enhancing his own career as part of the Hollywood mainstream?

Also, Cotten was writing the autobiography when Welles was still living and may have avoided the re-editing controversy in deference to his friend

Yes, perhaps also fear of offending Welles who knew he had been betrayed by Cotten, and Moorhead as well. It's still a striking ommission by Cotten, considering how important Welles and the Mercury were to his career. The avoidance seems a bit glaring to me, although I can understand his reasoning.

[JMcBride]

The story I heard after Welles's death was that
Cotten sent the ms. of his autobiography to Welles so Welles
could write an introduction. When Orson died, Cotten asked
for it back, but it could not be found. Evidently this was
the only copy (a writer's nightmare, which a professional writer would
know to avoid). So Cotten had Sidney
Sheldon ghostwrite the version that was published. That's
one reason it's sort of bland and impersonal.

[Le Chiffre]

Like many Welles-related stories, I find that a bit hard to believe; not necessarily that Welles would lose the manuscript, but that Cotten would not have made another copy of it. In the 1991 documentary, ORSON WELLES: WHAT WENT WRONG, a very frail-looking Cotten is seen at his home, while another actor reads excerpts from the book, as Cotten was apparently unable to speak by that time. Got to get that show uploaded sometime.

[RayKelly]

The story I heard after Welles's death was that Cotten sent the ms. of his autobiography to Welles so Welles could write an introduction. When Orson died, Cotten asked for it back, but it could not be found. Evidently this was the only copy (a writer's nightmare, which a professional writer would know to avoid). So Cotten had Sidney Sheldon ghostwrite the version that was published. That's one reason it's sort of bland and impersonal.

Then there is this bit from a 1987 Washington Post interview with Joseph Cotten and Patricia Medina:

Why did he write the book?

"He wanted to be taken as an author," says Patricia, lashes fluttering. It was she who edited the book. In fact, she says, after her husband's stroke he was unable to work, so she cut 500 pages from the manuscript.

What's left is an index somewhat short on references to Ingrid Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock and Marilyn Monroe, just a few of the luminaries Cotten worked closely with. Instead, we find information on Patricia herself: "Medina, Patricia: beauty described ... as card player ... courting of ... See also Cotten, Patricia Medina ... appreciation for ... care during illnesses ... as coach ... early medical aspirations ... honeymoon with ... meeting with Hepburn ... orthopedic problems ... photographic memory ... remodeling recommendations ... after Selznick's death ... in Venice ... willingness to travel."

Is Cotten that coy about his colleagues, or did his wife of 26 years edit them out?

"I don't like dirt, really, " he explains.

[Le Chiffre]

Very interesting, Ray, thanks. So maybe Cotten's complete version is still out there somewhere? You never know.

[Roger Ryan]

...In the 1991 documentary, ORSON WELLES: WHAT WENT WRONG, a very frail-looking Cotten is seen at his home, while another actor reads excerpts from the book, as Cotten was apparently unable to speak by that time. Got to get that show uploaded sometime.

Cotten's stroke made it very difficult for him to speak (and he suffered from some aphasia as well - inability to recall the correct word he'd be searching for), but he would speak on occasion. He had considerable difficulty speaking during that British National Film Theatre audience Q & A in the 80s (he claimed his doctors advised against doing it) which made his statement regarding the original cut of Ambersons being superior to the released version notable in that he was clearly putting every bit of focus and energy he had into making the statement. I remember the press coverage of Cotten (along with Ruth Warrick and Sonny Bupp) attending a 50th Anniversary screening of Citizen Kane in 1991 during which he summoned the strength to tell reporters "it [Kane] was a damn good picture".