TMA memos - 70th anniversary Wellesnet blog series

[mteal]

If you haven't done so yet, check out Larry French's running log of memos from 1942 concerning the tragic undoing of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. He's posted some fascinating stuff so far, and I look forward to the rest.

Part 1:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1456

Part 2:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1481

Part 3:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1488

[ToddBaesen]

Given that the AMBERSONS previews were held 70 years ago, I imagine anyone who is still alive that can remember them would have to have been between 8 and 18 years old at the time, but wouldn't it be interesting to find someone who was there and hear what they had to say today?

Would they still think, "It stinks" or "It's Rubbish?" I'm sure they'd agree that in the 70 years since AMBERSONS, this year's Oscar winner THE ARTIST is a far better movie than that artistic dud THE TREE OF LIFE!

[Roger Ryan]

Just thought I'd point out that the programmers at TCM appear to have a pretty good sense of history. They aired AMBERSONS again this past Saturday...which was the 70th anniversary of that first ill-fated Pomona preview! Just a coincidence? Well, they promoted the showing with an interview clip of Robert Wise discussing how the previews affected the editing of the film, so maybe not. I didn't actually watch the showing; perhaps there was a Robert Osbourne or Ben Mankiewicz introduction that acknowledged the anniversary.

[mteal]

I like the fact that TCM is expanding into theatrical showings as well. I believe they're showing CASABLANCA tonight at selected theatres across the country, as part of it's 70th anniversary.

wouldn't it be interesting to find someone who was there and hear what they had to say today?

Too bad they didn't think of that 30-40 years ago, particularly when AMBERSONS made the Sight and Sound poll of greatest films twice.

[Roger Ryan]

Just a comment on the latest AMBERSONS "memo" entry:

As one can see from Jack Moss' March 23rd, 1942 letter, the final structure of the film is almost completely decided upon only six days after the first preview. With the exception of temporarily retaining the boarding house finale, the re-editing proposal accurately lays out the damage that will be done to the film...and more! Had R.K.O. stuck with this proposal, we would not have the long "kitchen scene" between George, Fanny and Jack, the scene of Jack and the Major in the carriage, the bathroom confrontation between George and Jack, the Major's fireside ruminations or Welles' original footage of George asking Roger Bronson for a job in the dynamite factory. So, looking on the bright side, it's good to know that these moments (some of the best in the film) were ultimately retained even though all of them (with the exception of the Bronson scene) ended up being shortened from what Welles had originally intended.

[mteal]

Part 4:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1496#more-1496

What's striking is how different the two preview versions were, and yet they were conflated to produce a flawed argument that the film needed a massive overhaul because it was unplayable. This based on only two previews where the audience saw radically different versions of the film.  Moreover, after inspecting the preview cards at UM, I was surprised at how much more positive they were then I was expecting, especially Pasadena. 

You're right, Roger: the fact that Wise and Moss had put together such a comprehensive "rescue" plan for the film only a few days after the previews suggests that that plan might have been in the works for awhile. Of course, the most surprising thing is that Welles himself eventually gave his blessing to all of the changes up to the Major's death. But then, by that time he probably had bigger things to think about, like saving what was left of his career.

Larry also included the first part of Welles's March 24th memo to Jack Moss. The second half of that memo is interesting as well, although confusing:

Positively new scene Bob shot where Bob discusses Eugene not well done enough. Absolutely insist Norman direct it. Must have intensity punch. Should be terrific music for this essential. Redubb Fanny "George, George", which got big laugh. Take out note of complaint, change to major key but still hushed. Sure this will kill laugh or I'm crazy. I guess I am anyway. 

Much love,
Orson

I have no idea what the "note of complaint" is, but I'd like to find out. Obviously something in Hermann's score. Welles's sentence doesn't seem to make sense, but I'm assuming that the "new scene Bob shot where Bob discusses Eugene" could only be the "Big cut" bridge scene where George finds Isabel unconscious, a scene the Pasadena audience would not have seen.

[ToddBaesen]

As Roger points out, only six days after a single bad preview, Jack Moss was ready to cut the film to ribbons... and as Jeff Wilson writes in his article on Jack Moss, if Welles was foolish, it was mostly because he put his trust in Jack Moss!

I think the reason Robert Wise got so much flak over the years is because he went on to become a big name director, while most people have no idea who Jack Moss was. Of course Robert Wise didn't stand up and take Welles's side against the studio, but I think the memos indicate that Moss was the real person who must bear the brunt of the blame for the cutting plan that was put into effect. As can be seen, before the previews Wise wrote to Welles that Moss had wanted to cut and re-order several scenes. And even if Wise had resigned in protest, as Herrmann eventually did, RKO would simply have assigned another editor to take over. Moss, on the other hand was given complete authority by Welles to act on his behalf, and it seems he had his own plan which he was rather eager to put into place, to the point of wanting to cut the film even more than the studio did! No wonder he took Welles memos and threw them in the wastebasket. He already had figured out how to save the film!

Welles biggest concern was saving his ending, so he apparently agreed to many of the drastic changes being proposed in the vain hope that would at least be left untouched.

[Roger Ryan]

Positively new scene Bob shot where Bob discusses Eugene not well done enough. Absolutely insist Norman direct it. Must have intensity punch. Should be terrific music for this essential. Redubb Fanny "George, George", which got big laugh. Take out note of complaint, change to major key but still hushed. Sure this will kill laugh or I'm crazy. I guess I am anyway. 

Much love,
Orson

This is very difficult to decipher. I agree that the "new scene Bob shot" would have to be George finding Isabel unconscious, but what does "where Bob discusses Eugene" mean? If Welles is dictating, he may have said Bob again when he meant "George", but did George actually discuss Eugene in that new scene? I assumed there was no dialogue at all; just George finding Isabel unconscious. Now it's possible that Welles is referring to what would have been the very next scene (given that his "big cut" was made) where the family has gathered in the upstairs hall which has Fanny and George "discussing Eugene". Either way, his next statement regarding the re-dubbing of the Fanny's "George, George" is definitely referring to this hallway scene. The last line does seem to refer to altering Herrmann's cue so it becomes less ponderous; unfortunately, this is the one cue that Tony Bremner decided not to record for the Australian Philharmonic Orchestra's AMBERSONS score CD so we have no way of knowing how it sounded!

[mteal]

Todd:
True, Moss was the one who spearheaded most of the changes. Wise did the actual butchering, but I think he was just going along with whatever Schaefer and Moss suggested and was basically indifferent as to what stayed and what went. However, the fact that he did an unsatisfactory job directing the "Isabel unconscious" scene that Welles ordered suggests that he may not have agreed with Welles's "Big cut". From this memo you posted it seems to me that Schaefer ordered the first additional cuts after that:

ROBERT WISE TO ORSON WELLES (excerpt):
March 16, 1942

DEAR ORSON:

REPORTING DEVELOPMENTS AMBERSONS. MR. SCHAEFER UNEXPECTEDLY REQUESTED RUNNING AMBERSONS TODAY FOR HIMSELF AND KOERNER AND 4 OTHER MEN UNKNOWN TO ME, PROBABLY EASTERN EXECUTIVES. FOLLOWING SHOWING SCHAEFER INQUIRED REGARDING SHORTENING LENGTH. HE HAS ORDERED ME TO PREPARE PICTURE FOR SNEAK PREVIEW TUESDAY NITE WITH FOLLOWING CUTS: BOTH PORCH SCENES AND FACTORY. HAVE ADVISED JACK MOSS.

Roger:
Too bad about the missing cue on the otherwise wonderful Bremner recording. When I was at UM I only found three pages (5,6&7) of the 3/14/42 Wise memo that you describe in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1406

I actually thought it might be from George Schaefer, since page 1-4 were missing. I'm glad you saw the whole memo, but I hope those pages are not lost. Anyway, here's an excerpt from it:

The picture as it now stands is 2 hours and 11 minutes long, and I feel very definitely that we must get some footage out of it. I would like to cut three scenes - - the factory and the two porch scenes. This would take out almost 11 minutes and bring the show down to just over two hours.

This cut would make perfect continuity and would not lose any story for us. The scenes we are losing are both darn good scenes, but it is going to be a matter of sacrifice wherever we lose footage and I feel that the footage in this part of the picture makes all of our later and more important scenes seem much longer. You will find in the alternates, film that we have made up to make this cut in the picture.

Jack agrees with these three cuts and in addition has other cuts and retakes he feels would help the show. One is to drop the bathroom scene between George and Jack and fade out on Mrs. Johnson's house. He feels that all the points in the bathroom scene are brought out in other scenes and that it would be better continuity to go from Mrs. Johnson's to George unwrapping the picture and turning Eugene away at the door.

Jack was quite bothered by Isabel's walk during the first part of Eugene's letter to her. He didn't mind it after she had sat down and the last walk up to the camera was all right, but the first part he felt was stagey and awkward. He suggested playing the first part of the letter over some shot of the inside of the house and then lapping to Isabel seated. You will find a rushed version of this among your alternates but we are making a new one with all the pauses shortened in the letter and with Eugene's voice reverberated to try and give an effect to it. I certainly agree that Isabel's first walk is bad, but I am not sure that this is the remedy. Have you any other ideas?

As I have said earlier in the letter, we have made and are sending to you the scene you requested of Isabel unconscious on the floor. However, both Jack and I feel that the cuts you propose to make using this scene are entirely too drastic and are sure that once you see the picture you will wholeheartedly agree with us. It is true that we need footage out of the show but not to the extent that we must definitely hurt the picture to make it shorter, for that is what we feel you will be doing in making such cuts.

If you are proposing the cuts for any other reason then footage, we cannot help but feel that you have been ill-advised as to the quality of the show and cannot too strongly urge you to reconsider these cuts.

All of us up here feel very definitely that you have a very fine picture and that you needn't sacrifice it for any reason.

[Roger Ryan]

Yes, the last time I went through the AMBERSONS files at U-M, I noticed the first pages of Wise's letter were missing as well - hopefully just filed elsewhere.

While Wise reports that Schaefer requested the first preview exclude both porch scenes and the factory scene, I think this was Schaefer simply agreeing with Wise's own suggestion since Wise mentioned two days earlier that those would be the first scenes he would cut.

[mteal]

Good point.

Two more observations:

The description of the Pasadena preview indicates that the boardinghouse ending was "cut down". I'd like to find out the details on that, if possible.

Thanks Jeff, for reminding us of your excellent writeup on Jack Moss:

http://www.wellesnet.com/OWA_12_04.htm

I'd also like to find out if there's any connection between the new contract detailed in that writeup and Schaefer's approving of AMBERSONS as Welles's 2nd feature, as asserted by Robert Carringer in Oedipus in Indianapolis:

"Welles liked to depict (RKO head George) Schaefer as something of a buffoon, as with the story that he had fallen asleep when The Magnificent Ambersons was first pitched to him. Perhaps he had, but Welles always neglected to mention that when Schaefer did give his assent for the film to proceed, it was with a major condition. Welles would give up the right of final cut which he had enjoyed in his original contract; after the first preview of The Magnificent Ambersons, the film could be edited at RKO's sole discretion."

[ToddBaesen]

Mike, thanks for posting the Robert Wise letter from March 14.

It's quite an eye opener, in that Robert Wise is actually telling Welles that his "big cut" is too drastic!

Then Wise goes on to say, "You have a very fine picture and you needn't sacrifice it for any reason."

Rather ironic, in that after the bad Pomona preview Wise suddenly was willing to make all kinds of "drastic" cuts, and was unwilling to stand by his earlier contention that Welles didn't need to sacrifice his very fine picture for any reason.

Following yours and Roger's suggestions on what Welles might have actually meant in his memo, here's a possible version:

Positively hate new scene that Bob shot where George discusses Eugene. Not done well enough. Absolutely insist that Norman (Foster) direct it. Must have intensity and punch. Should be terrific and the music for this is essential. Re-dub Fanny's line "George, George", which got a big laugh. Take out the notes that got complaint and change to major key but still keep hushed.

Sure this will kill laugh or I'm crazy. I guess I am anyway.

Much love,

Orson

[mteal]

I'm not sure why Welles made the "big cut", but my guess is that it had something to do with wanting to tighten up the human drama (what Wise and Moss called the "heart qualities" of the picture) in order to emphasize the film's social commentary. But everyone at the studio, including Welles' own people knew that the human drama was what would draw people into the theatre, and probably felt that Welles had gone too far in trying to balance those two sides of the picture.

As Barbra Leaming writes:

"The inherent wisdom of the public had been a theme of Orson's since he and Roger Hill had planned Everybody's Shakespeare, and the troubled relationship between the privileged artist/intellectual (such as he clearly was) and the general public was to become an important subtext of Orson's politics. In his case, it was a relationship that had been seriously put in question at the Ambersons screening at Pomona, which, for Orson, had epitomized the mass audience's unexpected rejection of what he had hoped to communicate to them."

On the other hand, here's Jonathon Rosenbaum from his book MOVIE WARS criticizing Robert Carringer's OEDIPUS IN INDIANAPOLIS essay:

Carringer accept(s) without qualm the conclusion of studio executive George Scahaefer that the first preview of Ambersons, when a version approximating Welles's own version was shown, was a "disaster"...I've seen most of the 125 "comment cards" myself - fifty-three of which were positive, some of them outright raves ("a masterpiece with perfect photography, settings and acting"; "the best picture I have ever seen") - and would conclude that declaring the preview a "disaster" on the basis of those cards is a highly subjective matter, very much dependant on what one is predisposed to look for."

What Schaefer probably saw above all else was that the film could not be made ready for it's intended Easter release, which would be a big blow to his already shaky reign as RKO head. This was probably what he really meant when he talked about "getting one sock in the jaw after another."

[ToddBaesen]

What I find fascinating is how even the "Bad" Pomona preview can be given different interpretations or "spins," depending, as Jonathan Rosenbaum notes, on your own viewpoint. But given the intensity of the "bad" comment cards and the make-up of the audience, I think we can safely say the overall response was very bad in Ponoma.

What is remarkable, is how little attention has been paid to how well the Pasadena preview went, only two days later, especially compared to Pomona. Yet many Welles books seem to lump the two previews together, calling them both "bad" or "disasters."

This is where Rosenbaum's comments should be noted, since 67 of the 85 cards from Pasadena were positive and featured comments such as these:


Much Better than CITIZEN KANE. Orson Welles is a genius.

Definitely 10 times better than CITIZEN KANE.

Orson Welles is the most tremendous director of the day. This is by far one of the finest pictures I have ever seen.

This preview cannot be praised too highly. Depressing but better than any propaganda picture.

The setting accurately portrayed the scenes of my own childhood and I saw some of my unlovely relatives.

Now, if the majority of the Pasadena cards were along these lines, the smart thing for George Schaefer to have done, would be to book the film as he initially planned at Radio City Music Hall for the Easter Holidays using the 117 minute version that was shown at Pasadena, and which still featured the boarding house ending.

It would have saved all the expense of the added re-takes and probably done just as well or better than the shortened version at the box office... although unless it did "boffo biz" it probably would be too late to save either Schaefer or Welles from being fired. But at least it would have saved THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS from it own tragic fate!

[mteal]

Yes you would think that, with a little tweaking, the Pasadena preview probably could have been made ready for Easter. Problem solved. It would also have alleviated the problem of appealing to younger audiences by restoring Anne Baxter's later scenes to the film (Welles's Pomona cut completely eliminated her from the second half of the picture). Too bad the Pasadena cut wasn't shown in Pomona.

We see from this memo excerpt you posted that, although Moss and Wise (with Cotton) made up the basic game plan for shortening the picture, they did so mainly because of the pressure they were getting from Schaefer (and Keorner?):

"Schaefer and his associates advocate many drastic cuts, mainly for purposes of shortening length. Bob Wise, Joe Cotten and myself have conferred analyzing audience reactions and exercising our best judgment we believe the following suggested continuity would remove slow spots and bring out the heart qualities of the picture."

*****************************

Clinton Heylin in DESPITE THE SYSTEM points out the folly of Schaefer's post-preview panic, but actually leans more towards the Pomona cut as the preferred version:

The preview system itself was based upon a very skewed form of faith in the inherent wisdom of the paying public. David Selznick highlighted the fallacy it played upon when writing about the possibility of reviewing REBECCA in December 1939. His comments apply just as well to THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS:

"It is a very tricky picture, with very peculiar moods and a very strange sort of construction and playing. I don't want to take the chance of finally editing it according to the reactions of an audience that has come to see a Marx Bros. picture, or even a Joan Crawford picture, as might be the case at previews. I think the whole preview system is wrong, in that it is the equivalent of trying out a Eugene O'Neill play on the road by advertising to the public that they are going to see the Ziegfield Follies, and then having the reactions of the Follies audience determine how the O'Neill play should be cut."

Even though much of what was lost in the so-called "big cut" was exquisitely shot,...there is a lot of merit in the single hefty cut volunteered by Welles...The whole European sojourn reads like a segment from a bad eighteenth-century novel...Isabel dying because she is unable to reconcile her divided feelings is equally contrived, but far more aesthetically satisfying. It also makes George's rejection of Eugene as his mother's suitor an impulsive act, the tragic consequences of which happen too soon for him to recant his initial course of action.