Ambersons website - Original Ambersons memorabilia

[majoramberson]

Hi everyone. I recently launched a website - www.ambersons.com - to display my collection of original Ambersons memorabilia, including advertising, movie posters, and movie magazine articles. The site also has a lengthy FAQs section, clips, character profiles, and lots of images. Enjoy!

[Obssessed_with_Orson]

majoramberson:

just been to your web site.

wonderful

questions answered that even i didn't know. i didn't know how the ambersons went from having it all down to nothin'

ever find that deed to the house

[Jeff Wilson]

Indeed, nice work!

[Welles Fan]

I agree, great site! I like this conclusion about Ambersons, from the FAQ:

So, if this is such a great movie, why did it bomb?

Welles blamed the failure of Ambersons on RKO, since they were responsible for cutting so much of the film. However, it seems just as possible that Ambersons was just not that interesting to a general audience. Understandably, audiences in WWII America were more interested in musicals, comedies and patriotic fare than they were in some depressing period drama. If the original version existed, it would likely be hailed today as a masterpiece, much the same as Citizen Kane. And Ambersons didn't entirely bomb, since it was nominated for 4 Academy Awards including best picture. As well, Agnes Moorehead won the New York Film Critic's award for her role as Aunt Fanny.

[majoramberson]

Thanks for all your compliments. I came across Wellesnet just today, by accident. It's great to meet up with other Welles fans, and to get new and up-to-date information. I have to update my FAQ to include the release of the French Ambersons DVD, which I didn't know about. I look forward to many future visits to this excellent site. Jeff.

[jaime marzol]

major:

nice site.

killer quality you got on the pics, are those captures, or scans, or what? care to divulge some secrets?

[majoramberson]

Jaime-
Glad you like the site. No secrets about the pics. I didn't have much experience before I started, so there was lots of trial and error. Having Photoshop helped a lot. I scan at 150 dpi and then reduce the file size to 50-60% and the resolution to 72 in Photoshop. This brings the file size down considerably without affecting the resolution too much. You can either do this manually or with Photoshop's Save For Web feature. Photographs give the best scans by far. Scanning from books or magazines usually produces a moire pattern, so I descreen at 150-200 lpi - the final scan is usually OK, but not nearly as good as the original. Also, I usually adjust the brightness and contrast to match that of the original print. Later. Jeff.

Major's quote for today - "Georgie, you musn't say liar".

[jaime marzol]

thanks for info, major. your pics are vibrant, they jump off the screen.

[ToddBaesen]

-

Great website, Major Amberson!

Very nice seeing articles on the film that appeared in 1942. The one by Dolores Costello is great, even if it's obviously ghostwritten. It seems to be highly accurate about Welles shooting style on the set. Compare the description of the Camera exploring the Amberson Mansion, with Stanley Cortez's own account, 30 years later!

DOLORES COSTELLO: To Orson, there's no such word as can't. An example of his indomitable determination against the word "can't" occurred during the shooting of the scene (where Tim Holt returns to the deserted Amberson mansion). Orson had an idea that he wanted to get a shot of Tim walking up the staircase, which had several landings and sharp turns, all heavily padded with carpet. Everyone connected with the picture insisted it couldn't be done. Well, the young director likes nothing better than a challenge to attempt the impossible. He ordered the camera strapped firmly to the cameraman's chest, then instructed the camera-carrier to follow Tim as he walked up the stairs. But his idea didn't work. The cameraman's shoes kept slipping on the heavily carpeted stairs, throwing the camera a little out of focus at each step.

Orson ignored the technical crew's quizzical looks, which silently screamed, "I told you so." To everyone's amazement, he ordered the man carrying the camera to remove his shoes and socks and to try the scene again, working in his bare feet. The idea worked perfectly, as the man's bare toes could grip the rough surface of the carpet. Once again the "Boy Wonder" had proved there's no such word as "can't."


STANLEY CORTEZ ON THE SAME SCENE: For one sequence, when the camera explored the Amberson mansion after everyone has left it, I took the shoes off my camera operator, and with a heavy Mitchell camera he walked up the stairs with it and through the empty rooms. We used a periscopic finder, and a thirty-one inch lens. He had to move and we had to choreograph him like a ballet dancer as he walked, so the weight was not unbearably heavy.


-

[majoramberson]

Thanks for your praise, Todd.

I hadn't read Stanley Cortez's account of the shooting of the "last walk in the mansion" scene. Where's it from? I'm not sure which account is more accurate. Do you think that Cortez is giving himself too much credit?

I recently bought an old issue of American Cinematographer on eBay, which has an interview with Cortez and his work on Ambersons (it's in the mail so I haven't read it yet), so it will be interesting to find out if there are other conflicting reports of his filming. All I've ever read about the shooting of that mansion scene was that Welles assigned it to Cortez as part of his official demotion, since he was being replaced as head of cinematography by Harry Wild.
- Jeff.

Major's quote for today - "What do you say about it Isabel? By jingo. She's blushing"

[ChristopherBanks]

Love the site, Major.

It made me want to go and watch the film straightaway.

Do you have any more stills from missing scenes?

[majoramberson]

Christopher-
Thanks for your message - that's always nice to hear. Right now I don't have any more stills from missing scenes, although two of the books that I mention in the FAQs section (Robert Carringer's Reconstruction book and Bogdanovich's This is Orson Welles) have several of these missing scenes. If I can get some good scans from them I'll add them to the site. I do have a few more behind-the-scenes photos to add, probably in the next couple of weeks. One is a photo of Welles with Stanley Cortez on the set. The others are some rare images from the icehouse where the sleighride was filmed. I'm always adding getting new material as I get it. Later.

Major's (missing) quote for today - "Well, Fanny, maybe we'll be partners. How about it? And millionaires, too!"

[mteal]

Fabulous site, Major - thanks much. You have a VERY impressive collection, with some great shots of the missing stable scene between Eugene and Lucy. I love that mysterious first page with the photo that fades in and out with the caption "The magnificence of the Ambersons began in 1873...". Great touch. BTW, for anyone curious, that photo is from one of the more suggestive of the missing scenes that was supposed to have come right after Jack and George's argument in the bathroom about Isabel's relationship with Eugene. In the missing scene, George goes into the ballroom and stands there alone in the middle of it. Isabel comes in and asks him if he wants to be kissed goodnight. He looks at her stonily and then leaves. Then, in the original script, George unwraps a picture of his dead father and says "Father. Poor, poor man. I'm glad you didn't know". The next scene showed him rudely sending Eugene away.

One small quibble, Major: In the "Behind the scenes" section, the photograph caption "Lucy with Pendennis" is actually not correct. Pendennis is the Amberson horse, and this shot is from the missing scene where the Morgans put the car away in their own horse stable (and the horses complain loudly about their mechanical stablemate, which is why Lucy has to calm them down). Great site, though. Thanks again. If you're interested in more rare pics from Ambersons, the Lilly library has a motherlode of them, but they're not cheap.

[majoramberson]

Hi mteal.
Thanks for all your comments! I appreciate you letting me know about that picture with the horse, and I've corrected the mistake. Now I finally know what that scene was! When I acquired those pictures, I couldn't figure where Eugene and Lucy were. After I read your message, I dug out a script that I have (dated 10/7/41), but hadn't looked over completely. Sure enough, there's the scene with Eugene and Lucy talking in the stable, after they arrived home from the ball, and Eugene is trying to keep the car motor from freezing over. I'm glad you liked that intro. flash movie. It was originally part of a longer movie with several stills progressing through lap dissolves, and Herrmann's End Title playing in the background (in true Ambersons style, I cut it drastically). I didn't realize that amazing deep focus photo was also from a missing scene. The scene is also in the script that I have, but I hadn't noticed before. There's a lot that isn't in the cutting continuity, which is what I usually refer to.

About the Lilly library, I'd love to make a pilgrimage there some day. Have you been there? I didn't realize that you could get copies of their photographs. I've contacted them to ask what the cost is, and how many of the 500 or so in the collection are actually available for copying. Thanks again.


Major's quote for today - "This town seems to be rolling right over that old heart you mentioned just now Jack...Rolling over it and burying it under!"

[Jeff Wilson]

Regarding the Lilly and photos, the cost depends on 1)whether they've made prints of the photo before and 2)what size you want. If they've never made a copy, they have to make a negative for that purpose, and that cost is around $30-40 if I recall correctly. For those photo buffs in the audience, that explanation may be wrong, but that is the gist of it.

If they have a negative on hand, then you pay for the size you want, 5x7, 8x10, whatever. I bought only one photo from my visit there (the others I wanted hadn't negatives made) and the one 5x7 I got was $7.50, I think? Also, if you want to publish it in any way, you have to pay for that right. It's $25 for non-commercial use (books, web sites, whatever). It's $75 for commercial publication, which is relatively normal by those standards.

I would think they have more unpublished photos than published, simply because of the cost of making the negatives, but I could be wrong. Out of the four photos I wanted, three fell into the non-negative category. Well worth visiting for any Welles fan/scholar, though.