Ambersons shooting script

[PMBen]

While it's been quite well established that RKO didn't really play fair with Welles, I've often wondered why the ending of The Magnificent Ambersons in the shooting script is totally different to how he actually intended to conclude the story. What he shot had really nothing to do with it, and I can't help but wonder if he didn't deliberately misguided them as to what the film was going to be. Also, I don't quite understand how can a shooting schedule be planned and managed if what you intend to film is totally different to what's in the script that you've shared with all your crew.

I'm sure there will be somebody in this board who will be able to shed some light for me on these aspects.

[JasonH]

I think it was simply a case where the right ending announced itself to him while shooting. That the last scene was a swerve from what was scripted doesn't mean it didn't happen organically. The proof of this is how incompatible the studio ending feels despite the fact that it's "on paper" closer to Tarkington. As Welles put it, "It's a tremendous preparation for the boardinghouse" -- the material was building toward it, and he might have become more conscious of it as he went along. Welles wrote the script in a mere nine days, so it's not surprising that he was still seeing opportunities to refine the adaptation even in the production process.

I don't know that it's uncommon for this kind of discovery to occur along the way, even for a studio movie. Welles developed a much more nimble, opportunistic style as a film maker in his post-RKO career, but even a production like AMBERSONS could easily adapt to this sort of change, since it wouldn't have really had any budget or logistical implications. I don't think it's really throwing much of a curveball at the crew, either.

[Roger Ryan]

... I don't know that it's uncommon for this kind of discovery to occur along the way, even for a studio movie. Welles developed a much more nimble, opportunistic style as a film maker in his post-RKO career, but even a production like AMBERSONS could easily adapt to this sort of change, since it wouldn't have really had any budget or logistical implications...

Contemporaneously, Journey Into Fear also lacked a suitably scripted final scene during principal shooting resulting in Norman Foster concluding the preview version of the film with Joseph Cotten's character left on the hotel ledge with his wife berating him. In addition to sending along further editing instructions for Ambersons from Brazil, Welles was also concocting new script pages for a concluding sequence for Foster's film (Welles' preferred ending had the Cotten character learning of his wife's affair with Colonel Haki just as the hotel elevator doors closed on his startled expression!). Ultimately, Welles successfully lobbied RKO to pull Journey Into Fear from release (part of his argument was that the film had been released without a suitable ending) and allow him to do a quick re-edit and shoot a brand-new closing scene.

Holding off on committing to an ending extended to Welles' approach on The Lady From Shanghai as well. The initial Dec. 1946 cutting continuity shows that virtually the entire film had been shot and edited before the concluding Fun House/Hall of Mirrors scene had even been shot, giving Welles considerable latitude in tailoring the ending to fit a nearly completed movie.

[Le Chiffre]

Welles' preferred (JIF) ending had the Cotten character learning of his wife's affair with Colonel Haki just as the hotel elevator doors closed on his startled expression!

That sounds great, although I doubt it would have gotten past the censors in 1943.

Roger, do you know on what date(s) the Ambersons "Boardinghouse Ending" was shot? I'm assuming it was either 12/42 or 01/43, but it would be nice to know how early or late in the schedule Welles committed to it.

That 12/46 LFS CC sounds like a fascinating document as well.

[Roger Ryan]

Welles' preferred (JIF) ending had the Cotten character learning of his wife's affair with Colonel Haki just as the hotel elevator doors closed on his startled expression!

That sounds great, although I doubt it would have gotten past the censors in 1943.

Exactly. Welles was frustrated because he envisioned Journey Into Fear as a combination thriller/sex comedy. Eventually, not only was the wife's implied affair with Haki completely eliminated, but the relationship between Howard Graham (Cotten) and Josie (Delores del Rio) was kept entirely platonic (whereas they shared a kiss in a scene on the ship actually shot by Foster and likely included in the preview version).

Roger, do you know on what date(s) the Ambersons "Boardinghouse Ending" was shot? I'm assuming it was either 12/42 or 01/43, but it would be nice to know how early or late in the schedule Welles committed to it.

Principal photography for Ambersons began on Oct. 28th, 1941 (the "Dining Room" scene and the subsequent staircase scene between George and Fanny were the first to be shot) and ended Jan. 22nd, 1942 (a day spent getting multiple set-ups of the townspeople commenting on the Ambersons as a "Greek chorus", although various pick-up shots and re-shoots were done during the following weeks through Feb. 25th). The "Boarding House" scene commenced shooting on Dec. 23rd (1941), nearly a full two months into principal photography, at the end of an extraordinarily productive day that, apparently, saw the entirety of Eugene and Lucy's "Garden" scene shot as well as the footage of Eugene in his factory office reading of George's accident. Two more days were devoted to shooting the "Boarding House" scene on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th (yes, they took Christmas Day off). An exterior shot of the boarding house was shot as a pickup on Jan. 31st (1942), the same day exterior footage of the decayed Amberson mansion and the hospital were shot. Some kind of pick-up shot for the "Boarding House" scene was filmed on Feb. 25th (Welles was in Brazil by that point).

That 12/46 LFS CC sounds like a fascinating document as well.

Although the initial edit of The Lady From Shanghai would have likely been considered too long by Welles since it ran well over two hours, it's obvious from the cutting continuity that Welles was including numerous transitional scenes to re-orientate the audience to the change of locale as well as scenes devoted to fleshing out various characters' motivations. The absence of this additional footage in the released version results in the story being difficult to follow as the film tends to lurch around with the O'Hara voice-over added by Welles late in the edit process an attempt to paper over the discontinuity. Columbia head Harry Cohn famously offered a thousand dollars to anyone who could explain the film's story to him, but I wonder if this occurred after Cohn saw Welles' initial cut or after viewing the likely more difficult to follow 87 minute release version.

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks Roger, for the great info. So the Boardinghouse was shot from 12/23 to 12/26. That would put it right in between Welles' 12/22 Christmas show for Lady Esther (with Tim Holt and Ann Baxter), and the 12/29 L.E. show with guest Rita Hayworth (the first time she and Welles ever worked together).

The "Boarding House" scene commenced shooting on Dec. 23rd (1941)...at the end of an extraordinarily productive day that, apparently, saw the entirety of Eugene and Lucy's "Garden" scene shot as well as the footage of Eugene in his factory office reading of George's accident.

Perhaps out of necessity. The whole production seems to have been put into hyperdrive once Welles accepted the South American job from Rockefeller.

I can't help but wonder if he didn't deliberately misguided them as to what the film was going to be.

IIRC, Welles said the boardinghouse ending was inspired by his search for Richard Bennett, whom Welles had seen on the stage as a child, and whom he wanted to play Major Amberson. Welles finally tracked Bennett down to a shabby, overcrowded retirement home, and Bennett was undoubtedly grateful for the chance to work in a film one more time. So yes, it's quite possible that Welles had that ending in mind from the start, but we'll probably never know for sure.

the O'Hara voice-over added by Welles late in the edit process an attempt to paper over the discontinuity.

Interesting. Didn't Welles do something similar to both JIF and MR. ARKADIN? It was also a technique that had worked well in JANE EYRE.

[Roger Ryan]

the O'Hara voice-over added by Welles late in the edit process an attempt to paper over the discontinuity.

Interesting. Didn't Welles do something similar to both JIF and MR. ARKADIN? It was also a technique that had worked well in JANE EYRE.

Yes, the choice to use a voice-over to cover continuity lapses was a solution Welles chose for both Journey Into Fear and The Lady From Shanghai, more or less out of necessity. But I think the use of narration, along with the entire flashback structure, for Mr. Arkadin was more of a creative choice that Welles hit upon at some point during production. One gets the impression watching that film that some of the flashbacks were prepared for during shooting, but not to the extent we see in the Corinth version (or the "Comprehensive Version"). I suspect Welles thought he could make the film more interesting in post-production by incorporating a more complex flashback structure, although it's just as likely that additional narration was required to clarify plot points not clearly covered in the footage he shot. Note as well that Welles chose to use introductory narration for the shortened version of Macbeth in an apparent attempt to ease the audience into the film and explain the theme of his adaptation. Given his radio background, you would imagine Welles would choose to use first person or third person narration more often, but he tended to use it sparingly in most of his features (apart from the essay films, of course).

[Le Chiffre]

Besides the short MACBETH, he also added narration to the beginning of the American version of OTHELLO. I can't say I'm crazy about either addition, although anything done by Welles is of interest.

In fact, besides the original Macbeth and Othello, the only Welles films that don't have narration at the beginning are KANE, THE STRANGER and TOUCH OF EVIL, and the "News on the March" scene seems like narration until Welles reveals the trick of having it part of the story proper.

You're right that all this goes back to the radio shows, which were pretty much all set up by Welles' narration. I especially like the clever use of it in the radio Ambersons, where we find out who the narrator is at the end.

Welles actually added a line of narration to TMA's boardinghouse ending: "Ladies and gentleman, that's the end of the story." I think it was Robert Wise who wrote to Welles that that line got a big sigh of relief from the Pomona audience. I'm pretty sure it was not part of the Ambersons shooting script.

[Roger Ryan]

I totally forgot about Sir Ralph Richardson’s wonderful narration in Chimes at Midnight. Yes, Welles clearly used narration more than a lot of filmmakers (although maybe not as often as Kubrick!) and logically so. I might have just been reacting to the few instances where we know or suspect Welles included the narration as a compromise, the films where it tends to not quite fit in as seamlessly as when it was planned from the beginning.

[JasonH]

I can't help but wonder if he didn't deliberately misguided them as to what the film was going to be.

IIRC, Welles said the boardinghouse ending was inspired by his search for Richard Bennett, whom Welles had seen on the stage as a child, and whom he wanted to play Major Amberson. Welles finally tracked Bennett down to a shabby, overcrowded retirement home, and Bennett was undoubtedly grateful for the chance to work in a film one more time. So yes, it's quite possible that Welles had that ending in mind from the start, but we'll probably never know for sure.

I think the idea of the scene might have also been encouraged by the quality of the performance he was getting from Agnes Moorehead. He certainly seemed to be as an awe of it as test audiences allegedly found it risible. As he said to Bogdanovich, "It became the great role" (emphasis mine) on the basis of the boardinghouse ending and the original version of the boiler scene.

It wouldn't be unlike Jacob Zouk in MR. ARKADIN -- the evidence is that he was a much smaller character as the script envisioned it, and I suspect the work Akim Tamiroff was doing demanded his expansion. Also from This Is Orson Welles: "And Tamiroff as Zouk - in the full version it's the best he's ever done. It was almost the leading part."

An exaggeration, but Zouk certainly goes down as the most prominent of the tertiary characters, and Welles' description might have made even more sense if this scene really did once exist, as it positions Zouk as the first character we meet. (I suppose it's been confirmed that nothing of this was discovered in the eight hours of raw footage in Luxembourg?)

[Roger Ryan]

… I suppose it's been confirmed that nothing of this was discovered in the eight hours of raw footage in Luxembourg?…

I was told by the producers of “The Comprehensive Version” in 2005 that no footage of Zouk leaving a jail cell had been found. Alex Fraser’s description of some kind of test screening is, indeed, dynamic and not completely out of character for how Welles might have structured the opening of Mr. Arkadin, but Mr. Fraser had a fanciful side (I believe it’s been confirmed he posted using two different forum identities, both of which were often in “communication” with each other on the board including the thread you linked to), so he very well may have embellished the recollection.

I agree that Welles likely sought to expand Tamiroff’s role once shooting began and Welles became charmed with the performance. And, to bring this back to Ambersons, it’s equally likely that Welles was struck by how good Moorehead was in the Fanny role and did not want to leave the character after the kitchen boiler scene but see her through to the boarding house referred to in the earlier scene, something Tarkington doesn’t bother with as he seems less interested than Welles in the fate of Fanny.

[JasonH]

Fanny and Zouk are linked in another way - Welles said that the boardinghouse scene was about "impecunious old age," which Zouk just as surely represents. For all the broad comedy of Akim Tamiroff's performance, it is a role underlined by melancholy. Combined with comments Welles made in interviews lamenting the way society discards of old people, it seems a subject that preoccupied him. It probably isn't a coincidence that these characters should be the ones that ended up getting added emphasis.

[Steve Paradis]

Combined with comments Welles made in interviews lamenting the way society discards of old people, it seems a subject that preoccupied him.

Peter Bogdanovich: "I was having dinner with Orson Welles and I said "Have you ever seen 'Make Way for Tomorrow'?"
He said "Oh my God, that's the saddest movie ever made! It would make a stone cry! And nobody went!'

https://youtu.be/At9IuaKcO78?si=mnv5ovPT1vkson75