Pampered Youth-1925 film based on The Magnificent Ambersons

[tadao]

I had the opportunity last week to see projected, for a second time, what remains of the 1925 silent film based on The Magnificent Ambersons. I'd previously seen it some 18 months back on my first visit to the London meetings of Group 9.5, a club dedicated to the Pathescope format. Some may be aware that exldcerpts were included on on the Criterion CAV Laserdisc of The Magnificent Ambersons issued in 1986. I was impressed by how much more satisfying the film presentation was than the excerpts on the Laserdisc, which look and feel far more primitive than their 1925 vintage would justify. Encountering the surviving material as preserved on 9.5mm was a small revelation in terms of quality and coherence of narrative.

Last week's showing was part of an event put on by the marvellous Kennington Bioscope organisation at London's Cinema Museum, in a programme presented by the renowned silent film historian Kevin Brownlow. The sequence consisted of Pathescope 9.5mm home digest versions of Vitagraph feature films believed not to survive in their original length and format. The home versions are reduced to one or two reels of 9.5mm film, with runtimes of 10-20 minutes; the selections included in this programme and another earlier in the summer is that the full length Vitagraph originals are thought 'lost', and that the digests are the only remaining versions.

Mr Brownlow was wittily withering towards the 1925 film and several of the others shown in his spoken prefaces, but both times I've seen it projected I've been impressed by the photography and with some pleasing similarities to the RKO version.

These Pathescope cutdowns are typically issued under a different title than their feature-length progenitors, and have their intertitles rewritten and reset, with character names replaced. The 1931 British issued digest of Pampered Youth is entitled Two To One. The reworked intertitles somewhat confusingly rename Eugene Morgan as George Morgan (and Georgie Minafer as Jack Forest; unproblematic for those who don't know the original character names, but leading to the unintended plot complication of my thinking for a moment that the mother would name her son after her former beau!). The Major and Isabel both remain Ambersons and Wilbur Minafer is Wilbur Forest. (Below, to minimize confusion between Georges and Jacks I'm using the names as they're given in the Pampered Youth castlist which match the source novella and the Welles film, and calling the Pampered Youth himself Georgie.) I had thought the practice of changing character names was for copyright reasons, although the mix of retained and changed names in Two To One may indicate it was done to localise to names more familiar in a different national market.


This truncated version is the basis for the excerpts included on the Ambersons CAV Laserdisc, whose jacket credits "Pampered Youth Fragment restored and preserved by David Bradley and Kevin Brownlow", but it shows much more of interest than the LD which segments contain little that chimes with the RKO production. If, as I was, you're aware of Pampered Youth only through these excerpts on the LD, you've not seen the surviving material that has the most resonance with the later film.

The excerpts included there consist of 'The Opening', a horse and dogcart race between the Eugene and Wilbur characters; 'The Ambersons Ball', two momentary shots extended by a static hold on a wide shot of the ballroom; 'George and Lucy's Ride' which corresponds quite closely to the snowride in the Welles film; and 'The Ending', Isabel's rescue by Eugene from a burning boarding house and subsequent reconcilliation of Georgie and Lucy. Needless to say neither the horse race and the boarding house fire have no equivalents in the Welles picture, although they make up the majority of the LD excerpts running time. I'm puzzled why these excerpts were selected for the LD, emphasing the difference in content over the parallels. Eugene's serenade and subsequent disgrace are mentioned on a slate on the LD but are not included there.

Significant segments seen in the two reel Pathescope Two To One that aren't on the LD are Eugene's disgrace, exterior shots of the Amberson mansion before the ball, an explanation of the passage of time and both Eugene and Isabel's widowhood, midshots of dancing and the Eugene/Isabel reunion and Georgie/Lucy meeting; then Georgie's turning Eugene away at the door, Major Amberson's money troubles and death, George's unsuccessful search for work and employment as ditch digger, his automobile accident, and a sequence leading up to the fire where Isabel's boarding house landlady admits Eugene and leaves her frying pan to burn while distacted by gossipping and eavesdropping.

A slate on the Laserdisc states of the two very brief shots they include of the Ambersons' Ball, "The footage in this excerpt is all that survives from this key scene"; thankfully it seems that more complete copies of the Pathescope cutdown have come to light in the interim as the print(s?) that I've seen in London have a nice (matte?) shot of the exterior of the mansion, mid-shots of dancing at the ball, and Georgie and Lucy's introduction.


As an appendix in his book on Welles, Charles Higham included quite a good synopsis of the surviving footage from the 1925 film, using its Pathescope character names, crediting David Bradley for help with preparing it (unsure whether this means he drafted it or provided a viewing opportunity of the material); however Higham doesn't point out that this description refers to the two reel Two to One version severely truncated from the theatrically released Pampered Youth, leading readers to the incorrect idea that the changed character names and plot foreshortening occured in the publically exhibited version and not only the home digest format.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xAtZkLq5clYC


The Pathescope cutdown in its 1931 issue displays qualities and internal narrative cohesion not in evidence in the Laserdisc excerpts, and shows more parallels with the 1942 feature too. The projection at the Cinema Museum ran 20 minutes with Mr Brownlow reading a transcription of the intertitles, many of which flashed for only a frame as the notching on this particular print wasn't reliably triggering the projector to hold the still frame as the format was intended to do. Pausing on the notched titles as the original projection equipment was designed to do would have added a few minutes to the running time.


The programme notes supplied at the KB event include a cast list sourced from the AFI (sourced, I assume, from contemporary materials), with the actors and their character names from the theatrical release version of Pampered Youth. The character rundown includes George Minafer as a boy, who isn't depicted in this cutdown version, along with Wilbur Minafer (appearing in the short version only in the prologue). 'George Amberson', Uncle Jack of the Welles film retaining his original name from Tarkington, and Fanny Minafer are listed although they barely register, appearing wordlessly as spectators to the dogcart race, among those at the ball and in the joyride.

As stated in the Higham book, Isabel doesn't die and she is the one reduced to genteel poverty in the boarding house, and thus able to be rescued by and reunited with Eugene Morgan ('George' Morgan in this two reeler).

The Eugene - Isabel reunion is a departure from Tarkington, but it's a comprehensible commercial choice of the day to give a happy ending to both couples and seems no more bizarre than the ending of the 1942 release. The fire sequence which preceeds it (occupying most of the second reel of the cutdown, and presumably left disproportionately and fundamentally complete from the full feature version) is naturally a purely cinematic invention; Mr Brownlow quoted a review from the trade press at the time of the theatrical release which stated with enthusiasm that this had improved Tarkington! That concept notwithstanding, it's an exciting sequence that played well to the audience at our screening.


With my less-than-photographic memory I felt a strong sense of resonance with the Welles film in the sequences of Eugene's disgrace (as does Higham's appendix, adding that a visual of the sewing circle is a less elaborate but similar motif to Welles's depiction of town gossipmongers); in the shots of the Amberson mansion exterior and wide interior; the joyride (in the silent version without the snowy setting but otherwise quite similar to the RKO feature), subsequent interruption of the young couple's clinch and motor ride homeward; Georgie's doorstep dismissal of Eugene's call (Higham's appendix remarks on this too); Major Amberson's last appearance in medium close portrait; Georgie's job hunt, automobile accident and hospitalisation. A quick visual reference to the 1942 film on the Laserdisc shows that the coverage of the job hunt and hospitalisation, but the unfamiliar city and the 'comeuppance' are described in terms similar to the visuals of the silent film.

Mr Brownlow pointed out in his introduction that special care was taken in the 1925 production in sourcing period appropriate vehicles. The Higham appendix also comments on this common attention to detail as a reason for similarity). Higham further states: "Of course it would be grossly unfair to charge Welles with plagiarism, although it is possible he saw Pampered Youth - he was ten or eleven when it was released. Although it is possible Welles screened it when he was preparing the new adaptation, the most likely explanation for the similar handling of such scenes as George's (or Jack's) rejection of Eugene or George at the door lies in the two films' common source material and in well-established conventions handling in such scenes."

A slate on the CAV LD questions "Had Welles seen Pampered Youth? Most of the similarities between the two films are material that appears in Tarkington's novel. However, Welles' use of the iris effect in the same way it is used in this scene ["George and Lucy's Ride"] in Pampered Youth is hard to explain in any other way.". I don't recall if there was an iris out during the projection; the excerpt of this scene on the Laserdisc ends with a vignette shot which I wou;dn't say is a smoking gun in terms of determining whether Welles or his team had made particular reference to Pampered Youth.

Simon Callow calls a chapter in Hello Americans 'Pampered Youth', although I don't have that volume to hand to see whether he makes any comment on the Vitagraph film. At a brief websearch I haven't come across information on when master material on Pampered Youth was destroyed, but certainly some now-lost silents were available for studio viewing by connected individuals into the 1960s.


With a crossed wire somewhere, Mr Brownlow indicated that Welles was only born around the time of Pampered Youth's release, doubting the Welles would have had an opportunity to see it, and mentioned The Magnificent Ambersons as dating to 27 years later, not 17. Welles, as those of us here know, turned ten years old in 1925. Mr Brownlow quoted Variety that the production was "heralded by Vitagraph with much trumpet and fanfare". Unfounded speculation on my part but my instinct says that the precocious and vociferous Young Orson might well have happened upon it or sought it out, particularly if the Tarkington source story was of interest to his father due to the automatative founding of Welles Sr's fortune (and misfortune) as Simon Callow's Edinburgh talk reminded me. He might even have been pointed towards it as a story of a headstrong youth who gets his comeuppance! Presumably prints remained in circulation on the second-run and fleapit circuits for some time after the opening. There are also Welles's collaborators on the RKO project to take into account - cinematographers, art directors, storyboard artists - older than Welles and also potential moviegoers in 1925 (maybe alreay in the industry), and established professions 16 years later. While the generational loss of the now surviving materials makes it look almost prehistoric in movie history, the features were released only 17 years apart, and there is enough in the surviving two reel Pathescope version to indicate the professional production values that would have been on show in the original release.

As part of one of the other Ambersons threads, someone mentioned that RKO acquired title to the property through Warners, the successors to the Vitagraph library, and that the acquisition included script material (from unproduced 1930s developments) as well as rights. Would it be right to assume at least some rights to the original picture were included? Other remade pictures had their originals kept out of circulation following a remake by another studio. Would print and/or pre-print materials have made the transfer of studio at the same time?


The Welles Ambersons certainly employs compositions, rhythms and techniques making direct quotation of silent-era conventions, whether or not that reference material included Pampered Youth itself, synthesising and shaping those elements as he did with disparate sources throughout his creative career. The narrated introduction to Welles's Ambersons with Joseph Cotten's changing outfits bears clear affectionate nostalgia for silent comedy films of the 20s, which we've so joyously seen reflected at greater length with the rediscovery of the Too Much Johnson interstitials, and bears similarities to sound era reworkings of vintage material with voice-over.

I see no plagiarism evident in any of the similarities whether or not Welles (or indeed his collaborators) saw the earlier film at a young age or later while preparing his own version. If he reworked, from memory or direct reference, any part of existing treatments other than the novella itself, it's part of a normal collaborative and developmental filmmaking process.


It would be great to see the two reel Two To One included on a future Ambersons Blu-ray. The 1930s print shown in London also shows a lot of black scratches (which seem to be printed in to the Pathescope prints from a scuffed master?), but unsurprisingly looked substantially better than the footage as it appeared on the Laserdisc, probably due both to the limitations of that format and its analogue master tapes at that time, and due to the telecine methods available not accomodating 9.5mm film with ease. The surviving Pathescope cutdown in its entirity provokes a new angle of interest on Welles's inspirations and references for Ambersons!

[atcolomb]

I still have my Criterion laserdiscs of Ambersons so I hope for the 75th anniversary next year Criterion will get the rights from Warner Bros and release a special edition on Blu-ray.

[Le Chiffre]

With a crossed wire somewhere, Mr Brownlow indicated that Welles was only born around the time of Pampered Youth's release, doubting the Welles would have had an opportunity to see it, and mentioned The Magnificent Ambersons as dating to 27 years later, not 17. Welles, as those of us here know, turned ten years old in 1925.

Yeah, pretty dumb mistake on Brownlow's part. I think it's quite plausible that Welles saw it when it was first released in 1925, since it was a midwest story and Welles even claimed later that Tarkington had based Eugene Morgan on his own father, Dick Welles. He may even have already read the Tarkington novel as well. If so, he would have no doubt been struck by Isabel surviving in the film version, since Orson had lost his own mother only the year before. Of course, I'm speculating too.

The Welles Ambersons certainly employs compositions, rhythms and techniques making direct quotation of silent-era conventions, whether or not that reference material included Pampered Youth itself, synthesising and shaping those elements as he did with disparate sources throughout his creative career. The narrated introduction to Welles's Ambersons with Joseph Cotten's changing outfits bears clear affectionate nostalgia for silent comedy films of the 20s,

Good point. In the scene where the townspeople discuss the Amberson mansion, you can see Laurel and Hardy lookalikes in the background, plus one of Fatty Arbuckle, whose career was destroyed by Hearst.

One of the posters at this Nitrateville thread on PAMPERED YOUTH (http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14278) says this:

A Vitagraph production, the negative probably went along with most of the other Vitagraph negatives in the huge Warner Bros. film fire of about 1934.

If that's the case, then perhaps Welles, while at RKO, requested a print of it for nostalgia's sake, and then learning it no longer existed in complete form, decided to remake it himself.

In any event, thanks for the rundown, Tadao. I too have had the Criterion LD for many years, but I look forward to seeing the longer Pathescope TWO TO ONE sometime. I agree it would make a superb extra on an Ambersons DVD.

[Le Chiffre]

Here's an interesting webpage on PAMPERED YOUTH, although it's really part of a blog devoted to silent film actress Alice Calhoun (who played Isabel in the film):
http://alicecalhoun.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... -1925.html

Released on February 1, 1925, Pampered Youth is the earliest known example of Alice’s work that exists today, and copies are still available for public resale from various sources, although the film is markedly inferior to the original shown in theatres. A condensed version was released in 1927 and re-titled Two to One, and both are in the archives of the Library of Congress Moving Images Collection. A nitrate version is also preserved at the University of California in Los Angeles library archives...But the surviving, snipped versions of Pampered Youth that are commercially available are missing almost one hour of the original film, having been reduced to only 24 minutes, as compared to the original 7 reels of film that was released in 1925.

[Roger Ryan]

...But the surviving, snipped versions of Pampered Youth that are commercially available are missing almost one hour of the original film...

Appropriate, in a way, since approximately 45 minutes of Welles' version was snipped, too. Now if someone would only delete a couple of hours from the 2002 version, we'd be all set.

[Le Chiffre]

Ah, too late since 2002's already on DVD, copies of which are selling at Amazon for as low as $0.59. Too pricey for me.

[Wich2]

As a guy who's revisited classic material myself, I'm not against remakes on principle.

But THAT one was a DOG.

Happy Holidays,
-Craig

[Le Chiffre]

I remember after it was first broadcast, someone online saying it "stunk up the whole house." I never thought it was quite that bad - it actually has a few good scenes in it here and there - but overall it's just very bland and mediocre, with no unifying vision. The thing that really pissed me off about it though, was that they exploited Welles's name to promote it, saying it was based on his original screenplay, when it actually made a mess of Welles's screenplay.