Cinedrome - Another Ambersons blog series

[mteal]

Looks like we're not the only ones obsessed with The Magnificent Ambersons in this 70th anniversary year. Here's a very impressive and well-researched 5-part blog series on the film's making and unmaking, at James Lane's Cinedrome:

Part 1:
http://jimlanescinedrome.blogspot.com/2 ... rsons.html

Part 2:
http://jimlanescinedrome.blogspot.com/2 ... rsons.html

Part 3:
http://jimlanescinedrome.blogspot.com/2 ... ns_21.html

Part 4:
http://jimlanescinedrome.blogspot.com/2 ... rsons.html

Part 5:
http://jimlanescinedrome.blogspot.com/2 ... ns_14.html

Part 6:
http://jimlanescinedrome.blogspot.com/2 ... ns_28.html

*

[mteal]

Todd wrote:
I was just reading part 6 of Jim Lane's Blog posts on THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and he comes up with yet another new "interpretation" I've yet to see:
It was Robert Wise who "saved" the film, and it was mostly Welles's own fault for Flying Down to Rio!! I don't think even Robert Wise would believe that, as when asked, he always said the longer version was better, but to make the film play for an audience, it had to be cut down.

You're right, Todd. After all the work Lane obviously did on the blog series, it's disappointing to see him come to an overly simplistic conclusion like that. The opinions of anyone who worked with Wise has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's still a well-done series in general, though.

[Roger Ryan]

I, too, thought that Mr. Lane's research was superb in this series...up until that final installment!

This conclusion to the six-part blog series is filled with Ad hominem attacks and contradictions. If AMBERSONS is so perfectly re-edited by Robert Wise, why does Mr. Lane express any concern about the fate of the film at all? Clearly, Welles wasn't needed to finish the picture; Wise and company took over and did a sensational job. Lane suggests that Carringer's supposedly unpopular book-form reconstruction ("...no great demand for it...") reveals that nothing of substance was edited out and that there was never a version that was considered "perfect"; the film only got better with the various revisions. But then he includes a reference to Wise himself admitting that the 132 min. version was superior to what ended up being released!

"His mistake was in thinking he could do anything: He could make an ambitious documentary about South America even though neither he nor anyone on his crew had ever made one before." Hmm, kind of like him thinking he could make a dramatic feature film in 1940 even though he had never made one before, right? If Welles was truly the kind of artist who only comes around "once in history" and displayed "prodigious, even titanic gifts", why was he not supposed to challenge himself and his audience? I agree with about half of Mr. Lane's comments in this final blog including the suggestion that Welles didn't fully grasp the nuances of editing that early in his film career (although I think his inexperience was reflected more in technical choices than in story or dramatic content), but the other half feels like a scattershot attack on Welles for trying to live up to being that singular artist Mr. Lane admires.

I think it's also reductive to say that Welles was making only poor decisions in regards to AMBERSONS once he left for Brazil. There are a number of editing decisions that Welles requested that Wise implemented that remain in the released version of the film. If the 88 min. edit plays well, then Welles must take some of the credit.

Finally, Mr. Lane's statement regarding that a 148 min. edit never existed is not accurate. While documentation is lacking, more-than-likely the initial rough cut of the film assembled at the end of January or early February, 1942 ran to that length. A number of the frame enlargements sent to Welles in mid-February are from scenes not in the 132 min. edit. Comparing these to scenes found in the shooting script, it appears that approximately 16 minutes of footage was whittled away for the initial fine edit (132 min.) of early March.

[ToddBaesen]

Maybe Mr. Lane was trying to recreate AMBERSONS with his blog series... it's great until the very end, then it all falls apart with a ridiculous ending!

Seriously, I think the comments cards Mike posted are a real eye opener for anybody doing research on the film.
The comments from Pasadena are absolutely glowing! If I were Welles in Rio reading the comments that were sent to him, I would be quite pleased and wonder what all the fuss was about. George Schaefer was apparently so spooked by the walk outs and laughter at Pomona, he couldn't realize he had a better film than CITIZEN KANE on his hands, as many at the Pasadena preview said.

79 of the 95 cards were excellent.

5 were mixed and only 16 were bad!

And if Mr. Lane thinks there was no "perfect" version of the film, I'd say 79 people at the Pasadena preview would disagree. If there was a good version of the film for RKO to release, I'd bet on the 117 minute version shown at Pasadena. It would have also probably done much better at the box-office, because the people who hated it were going to hate it at any length.

Roger, do you have any theories on the different footage counts between Pasadena and Ponoma? The 11,858 figure at Ponoma is probably a mistake, but do you think it is possible they did show the 132 minute version? The Pasadena showing lists 10,361 so they clearly made the changes needed to bring the running time down to under two hours.

[mteal]

It's possible that they showed the 131-minute cut at Pomona, since there is no mention in the preview cards of the new scene where George finds Isabel unconscious, that that scene was "too melodramatic", or whatever. If they did show the 131 though, that would mean that Jack Moss was lying to Welles in his breakdown of the two previews (It's hard to know who might have been in kahootz with who). It's possible, but unlikely. I think Schaefer was eager to see Welles' version (with the "big cut") bomb, and so he picked Pomona, a town with a college campus and lots of rowdy teenagers who would be, as Callow puts it, "predictably bored and bewidered by it". He adds, "It's imossible to believe that RKO's motives in showing the film in (the Pomona) context were anything other then Machiavellian."

If there was a good version of the film for RKO to release, I'd bet on the 117 minute version shown at Pasadena. It would have also probably done much better at the box-office, because the people who hated it were going to hate it at any length.

That reminds me of something Stanley Kubrick said about 2001, which also received a hostile reception from some people when it first opened, because of it’s slowness and length. Kubrick said “The people that love 2001 love it no matter what it’s length, and the same holds true for the people that hate it.” That film went on to be one of the all-time classics, as well as a box office hit.

Lane suggests that Carringer's... reconstruction reveals that nothing of substance was edited out and that... the film only got better with the various revisions. But then he includes a reference to Wise himself admitting that the 132 min. version was superior to what ended up being released!

Good takedown of Part 6, Roger. “Nothing of substance edited out?” Absurd. The entire headlight subplot was edited out, for one thing, which was a main reason for their descent into poverty. I also agree with you about that 148-minute rough cut, and find myself wondering what was in those 16-17 minutes; perhaps Cortez’s long walk through the mansion (which Houseman in his book claims to have seen, and considered to be one of the most striking things in the film), and the suggestive night scene between Isabel and George - just before George’s unwrapping of Wilbur’s picture - for which a frequently-used still survives. Movies routinely run 148 minutes nowadays. Wouldn’t have been too long for me.

[Roger Ryan]

Roger, do you have any theories on the different footage counts between Pasadena and Ponoma?

I see no reason to doubt Jack Moss' telegram to Welles detailing how the film was edited for the two initial previews. Here's how he describes the Pasadena screening:

First cut, the factory scene. Second cut, the first porch scene. Third cut, bathroom scene with Jack and George. Continuity again as shot. Put back all of your big cut, except Major and Fanny in second porch scene. Continuity as shot, to the end of railroad station, Jack’s goodbye scene. Followed by Fanny’s boiler scene, Bronson’s office, George’s walk home, Indian legend, accident. Lap out on accident, omitting the line “riff raff.” Lap from newspapers to Eugene exiting hospital, to process shot where Eugene says, “take me to Miss Minafers,” then to boarding house. Boarding house cut down. Put the line “that’s the end of the story,” under a fade out on matte shot of street.

This is pretty close to what Robert Wise was recommending to Welles in his March 14th letter: the factory scene and the two porch scenes are gone plus the bathroom scene has now been removed, the accident scene has lost its original ending, Eugene reading of George's accident in his factory office is out and the boarding house scene has been cut down.

Basically, somewhere around three-to-four additional minutes have been removed beyond what Wise initially recommended. More importantly, the overall structure adheres to how that initial 131 min. fine edit was sequenced, meaning that Welles' own "big cut" had been restored and Moss' ideas for changing the final third of the film were not yet followed through on. This appears to be confirmed both by Moss' description of the Pasadena preview sequencing and by Wise's subsequent letter detailing audience reaction to each scene.

As to the cuts, the factory scene does seem kind of crucial as it is an excellent opportunity to remind the audience how much time has passed (going from the auto we have seen earlier in the film to the more modern one Eugene has developed) and as an early indicator that Eugene and Isabel may be rekindling their romance. These may be the reasons the scene was ultimately restored for the final cut. In the Pasadena edit, the scene of George and Lucy riding through town would have followed the rainstorm argument between Jack and George. This would be acceptable, although George's line "I'll still take a horse any day" works best when the viewer understands that George and Lucy are driving home from the factory tour (the released version screws up this continuity as well). I think the content of both porch scenes are important to the story (the first scene sows the seeds for George's paranoia and Fanny's jealousy; the second explains the family's financial woes), but it seems like neither of these scenes were ever going to be in the movie. Losing the bathroom scene is not a great loss, but it's a fun scene and reminds the viewer that Jack is the voice of reason. The cut portion of the accident scene is, essentially, the punch line which confirms that George was the victim ("Riff-raff" is to AMBERSONS what "Rosebud" was to KANE!), but since the scene is followed by the close-up of the newspaper article detailing the accident, this isn't a great loss. The whole action of getting Eugene from the factory to the hospital then to the boarding house has always struck me as awkward (obviously, I have no idea how this actually played) so I'm thinking that going from the newspaper close-up to Eugene leaving the hospital is actually an inspired choice. Finally, we're told that the boarding house scene has been cut down. I have to imagine that they removed some of the more superfluous moments such as Fanny's exchange with Mr. Fleck. There's only so much that could be cut before continuity would be noticeably disrupted.

Overall, I agree that the Pasadena edit appears to be the one screened version that was most faithful to Welles' original conception of the film. However, despite the more positive response from audience members who filled out the preview cards, the studio maintained that there were still walk-outs and disgruntled viewers who didn't fill out cards. As I mentioned in another thread, if RKO could have afforded for AMBERSONS to be a specialty picture, this may not have be viewed as much of a problem. But given the dire circumstances that the studio and Schaefer were in, they were determined to turn AMBERSONS into the kind of film it could never be.

[Roger Ryan]

It's possible that they showed the 131-minute cut at Pomona, since there is no mention in the preview cards of the new scene where George finds Isabel unconscious, that that scene was "too melodramatic", or whatever. If they did show the 131 though, that would mean that Jack Moss was lying to Welles in his breakdown of the two previews (It's hard to know who might have been in kahootz with who). It's possible, but unlikely.

I think this is unlikely as well. Schaefer realized they were contractually obligated to preview a version approved by Welles; this would have been the Pomona preview. After that, RKO could do as they please. I doubt that Schaefer wanted to get into a legal skirmish over one preview. As you say, choosing Pomona might have been calculated, but if the film did play well there then Schaefer would have known that the film would play even better for an upscale older audience. He may have gone for a worst case scenario-type preview hoping for the best.

...I also agree with you about that 148-minute rough cut, and find myself wondering what was in those 16-17 minutes; perhaps Cortez’s long walk through the mansion (which Houseman in his book claims to have seen, and considered to be one of the most striking things in the film), and the suggestive night scene between Isabel and George - just before George’s unwrapping of Wilbur’s picture - for which a frequently-used still survives...

I'd like to go back and research this to try and nail down what may have been in that initial rough assembly. I'm pretty sure the walk through the mansion was in there (two or three frame enlargements exist - the notable one of the hallway with papers strewn across the floor and another one where the camera appears to be passing the parlor). Also, I feel certain that the night scene you mention was part of the assembly. The scene with Eugene and Isabel by the tree was also longer with dialogue describing time dissipating like smoke from a chimney. An earlier scene after the ball where George looks at himself in the mirror (the "Hamlet" scene) and Isabel comes in was also shot (note that this scene is set up in the movie when Isabel tells George "I'll come and say 'goodnight'" before closing her bedroom door). I also suspect there was a scene shot where George is ridiculed on the street by youths in a passing motor car. Production stills and frame enlargements suggest additional or longer scenes with the "Greek chorus" townspeople. And there is a mysterious frame enlargement showing Eugene (in the dark coat he wore during the boarding house scene) talking with two well-dressed men. At first, I thought this was a shot from the boarding house scene itself, but I now think it may be from a short scene where Eugene is told that George has accepted a job in the dynamite factory.

Taken all together, these moments could have easily added up to 16 minutes, making the initial rough assembly 148 minutes total. From that to what remained of Welles' footage in the released version means that over an hour was ultimately discarded, nearly half the picture as shot!

[mteal]

Yes, I'm convinced that Hermann even wrote music for that Isabel monologue concerning time and the sky. It would have been a very poetic moment in the film, but my guess is that Welles was dissatisfied with Delores Costello's delivery of it. I'm also fairly convinced that Cortez's walk through the mansion to Isabel's bedroom would have accompanied Welles's missing narration about Isabel's room being cut into new walls and floors, etc. I wonder if Welles eliminated it and restrutured the scene as a slap in the face to Cortez.

In part 4 Lane talks about the original boardinghouse ending and Cotten's concern about it being "more Chekhov then Tarkington". Lane notes that it does indeed bear some resemblance to the last scene of Chekhov's UNCLE VANYA.

Here's an image from the last scene of Vanya, from a Russian production. Note the grammophone. Coincidence?:

[Roger Ryan]

Yes, I'm convinced that Hermann even wrote music for that Isabel monologue concerning time and the sky. It would have been a very poetic moment in the film, but my guess is that Welles was dissatisfied with Delores Costello's delivery of it. I'm also fairly convinced that Cortez's walk through the mansion to Isabel's bedroom would have accompanied Welles's missing narration about Isabel's room being cut into new walls and floors, etc. I wonder if Welles eliminated it and restrutured the scene as a slap in the face to Cortez...

All of this is possible, but I think Welles really just wanted to cut down the film's length. It's telling that none of the films where Welles had final cut ran longer than 120 minutes. In three instances (KANE, THE TRIAL, CHIMES), single scenes were cut that would have pushed the running times just beyond 120 minutes. He told Bogdanovich that he didn't like sitting in a theater longer than two hours and he may have made it a point to make sure his films didn't exceed that time limit. In retrospect he said that the number of years covered in the AMBERSONS story deserved a longer running time, but we can surmise that Welles still would have edited the film to under two hours if he had been given final cut.

That UNCLE VANYA still is interesting. I've not actually seen the play, but wouldn't be surprised that Welles found some inspiration in it.

[mteal]

I’ve never seen UNCLE VANYA either. I did see a stage production of Chekhov’s THE CHERRY ORCHARD about 10-12 years ago, which I enjoyed very much, although I didn’t care for the 2004 Michael Cacoyannis film of it (with Alan Bates and Charlotte Rampling), which I thought was dull. One website I came across said that VANYA is to CHERRY ORCHARD as AMBERSONS is to KANE, which is an interesting analogy.

Some quick notes from a casual Google surfing: Laurence Olivier’s renowned 1963 production of Vanya is available to watch on Youtube, in pretty decent video quality. A great cast includes, in addition to Olivier as the country doctor Astrov, Michael Redgrave (Borgamir Trebic in MR. ARKADIN) as Vanya, Joan Plowright (who was in Welles' MOBY DICK REHEARSED), and Fay Compton (Amelia in Welles' OTHELLO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KvAcT27fgQ

Other DVDs of interest would include the new Criterion edition of VANYA ON 42ND STREET, a modern version thought to be one of Louis Malle’s best films; and AUGUST, a 1996 film by Anthony Hopkins, which transposes the story to Wales (Hopkins not only starred, directed and did the adaptation, but even wrote the music score, so it’s quite the auteur piece). I guess it’s time to hit my local library.