NEW AMBERSONS - Anybody seen it?

[Lee Gordon]

The new version of The Magnificent Ambersons airs on A&E in January.
It was screened in Germany last summer and yet we have seen no detailed reporting on it yet.

Does anyone know if its premier was successful, or if RKO plans to have Robert Wise make improvements

[Cole]

Lee,

Yes, I’m sure I read somewhere about Robert Wise contributing to the new AMBERSONS. He cut a little here, added a little there, and he gave it that cutesy “Sound of Music” feel that only someone like Robert Wise could provide.

[Cole]

If you’re ultra-anxious to see the new version of the MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (or you’re a retired shoe-bomber with a lot of spare time on your hands), you may want to check out A&E’s web site devoted to the new movie: http://www.aande.com/tv/shows/ambersons/

I’ve only read bits of it so far, but I have noticed a few things that would indicate that the people involved with the production are not especially well-informed. For instance, in the short bio they give of Orson, it states: “Citizen Kane is not the only Orson Welles film to be considered outstanding these days -- Touch Of Evil, The Third Man, and yes, The Magnificent Ambersons, are among those that…[etc.]” There is also a short interview of James Cromwell, who will be playing Major Amberson in the new movie, and of his several harsh criticisms of the original movie, one is that the movie “has very little to do with the book.” He then states, “I haven't read the book.” (Can I therefore infer from this little admission that his other comments about the movie were also uneducated opinions?)

I’m sure there are a number of intelligent people involved with the new movie, but what I’m reading so far isn’t doing much to raise my expectations about its quality. I’ll certainly hold off purchasing a copy of the movie for the time being (which is already available in both VHS and DVD).

[Welles Fan]

Take everything Cromwell says with a mountainous grain of salt. I just read that Vanity Fair piece on Ambersons, and Cromwell had this to say (largely as an explanation as to why the remake has little to do with Welles' version:

"I think Welles knew he had a bad film. It's a horrendous film! It was horrendous before the edit! As a followup to a film that essentially rewrote all the rules? Come on! I just don't believe the performers are compelling. There's no magic between Costello and Cotten. It looks like a second-rate Hollywood period melodrama.I think Welles knew he didn't have anything. Even before he finished the film, he splits? I think he was scared shitless to fight with RKO."

The author of the article, David Kamp, mentions that "Cromwell played William Randolph Hearst in RKO 281, HBO's movie about the making of Citizen Kane, and could have been carrying around some osmotic antipathy toward Welles".

The director, Alsfonso Arau, says "I love Citizen Kane, but I'm not crazy about Ambersons. I think in many ways it's old-fashioned. It would be a romantic thought that Orson Welles is sitting on a cloud, applauding me, but I'm not motivated by that at all. The challenge I have is not to follow his act" (italics mine0.

So, you may as well kiss goodbye the notion that the Ambersons remake will give a glimpse as to what the uncut version was like.

[jaime marzol]

everytime i read something like this:

"I think Welles knew he had a bad film. It's a horrendous film! It was horrendous before the edit"

it's like checking into a literature chat room and reading that shakespeare sucked, and hemingway was overated. why would that writer want to quote cromwell anyway? he's just a lousy actor. why not quote a guy at a filling station? the guy at the filling station might have as much in comon with ambersons as cromwell, if not more.

[LA]

"I think Welles knew he had a bad film. It's a horrendous film! It was horrendous before the edit!"

Bleugh. I thought they were using the Welles connection purely as a publicity angle, but I was hoping to be proved wrong.
I don't think I'll be going anywhere near the Arau Ambersons.

[Welles Fan]

Also, some people like Cromwell get their information and opinions from one source, and parrot them as though they are their own thoughts. I remember in college, a fellow Wellsian and myself were discussing Kane. I think I had just bought the Nostalgia Merchant VHS (this was around 1980) of Kane and we had just watched it. A guy starts up with "Orson Welles did not write Kane. He had little to do with making the film. The cameraman had a lot to do with the look of the film, which looks exactly like a move he photographed called Mad Love", and so on. All I could say was "so you've read Pauline Kael's attack on Welles in The Citizen Kane Book. Try reading another viewpoint before subscribing to hers! And learn to credit your sources!"

I think Cromwell must've read some such thing in his "research" for the Hearst role, and has placed the words "I think" in front of someone else's (probably Arau's) opinion.

[jaime marzol]

the whole thing with Arau is too sad. all this lousy Ambersons version does is stop a better version from being made. it's sort of like Housaman's version of Ceaser stopping Welles' version.

i can picture Arau directing. he gets that grin on his face that we know so well from The Wild Bunch, picks up his megaphone and yells, "ok, you godamned gringos, let's shoot this fucker."

then meg tilly gets pissed.

has anyone heard the commentary track for Bound? meg tilly walks in the recording room half way through the film, and comandeers the commentary. in that 50 minutes she was in the room she found about a dozen opportunities to mention her accadamy award nomination. she is a shallow, indifferent star, but she has great tits.

[Jeff Wilson]

I caught a very brief "Making of The Magnificent Ambersons" commercial on A&E last night, and Tilly commented that people would like it because the girls would think the guy playing George was cute, guys would love Gretchen Moll, and older people would like the love story. Whatever. They didn't show enough clips to make any kind of judgment on the show, however. Looks like it's showing on the 13th. Welles was not mentioned in the promo piece.

[ChristopherBanks]

Welles knew he had a bad film on his hands?

I think it's a case of pot calling the kettle black.

They know they've got a film that no-one will give a shit about on their hands and since the "mea culpa" to Welles angle hasn't generated enough publicity, they've tried another tactic; namely "the original sucked ours is better".

Remakes are a much-maligned field of movie-making, and by slagging off Welles and the original they're justifying this new version's existence. A safe bet too, in many ways - most of the general public haven't seen "Kane", and "Ambersons" is even more obscure.

The comment that got me was "old-fashioned"...a story filmed in 1942 from a book written close to the turn of the century-1900? What an oaf. I wouldn't be surprised if they've replaced the original dialogue with anachronistic James Cameron modernisms. I'm surprised he didn't add "And ours is in colour too" to his list of incisive comments.

[mteal]

Jaime,
Glad you mentioned Arau's cameo in THE WILD BUNCH, one of my all-time favorite movies ("Pleeeeese! Cut thee fuse!").

But to have him direct the new AMBERSONS when he didn't even like the original is rediculous, and shows how little respect the producers have for Welles. I'll watch the new AMBERSONS, but my hopes are not high.

[jaime marzol]

i loved Wild Bunch. the director's cut in lbx is great. i saw it first run in a drive-in when i was 12? back in the days when you could stretch out on the hood of the car without fear of it caving in. have loved it ever since. Wild Bunch, along with The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly are the greatest modern westerns, i think.

arau reprised that Wild Bunch smilling mexican roll in about a dozen films after Wild Bunch.

[Jeff Wilson]

I'm curious how Ireland is going to double for turn of the century Indianapolis; the brief scenes I saw just looked lusher and greener than what I had in my mind for that time. Certainly more pastoral than in Welles' version.

[Fredric]

Jaime:

You mentioned The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but not the one Leone made next: Once Upon a Time in the West, my favorite of them all. What gives?

[Jeff Wilson]

From the New York Post, 12/28/01:

A&E's three-hour remake of Orson Welles' classic "The Magnificent Ambersons" is off to an inauspicious start - even before it's hit the airwaves.

First, actress Madeleine Stowe, who's starring in the remake, called the shoot "12 weeks of agony," saying director Alfonso Arau "botched" the movie. "All he wanted to talk about was incest," Stowe told a Canadian newspaper.

Now it appears that Welles' daughter, Beatrice Welles, isn't too thrilled with the hoopla surrounding A&E's remake, since it's revived insinuations that the 1942 original - slashed by RKO Studios without Orson Welles' knowledge - ruined her father's career.

Last week, A&E was offering up Beatrice Welles to talk about how the original "Magnificent Ambersons" affected her father. Then, suddenly, the opportunity was rescinded - Welles had suddenly made herself "unavailable" to talk to the press.

"From what I understand, she's not unhappy with this particular movie but is upset about what's being said about the original movie, that it almost ruined her father's career," says one insider. That's kind of strange, considering that Beatrice Welles surely knows that's what's been said about "Ambersons" for almost 60 years now. A&E's "Ambersons" airs Jan. 13 (8-11 p.m.).