The Magnificent Ambersons

What do we all think of Orson Welles’ infamous second outing as a director? Is it one of the all-time greats as some say, or is it overrated? Personally, I’m not sure what to think. It has some brilliant moments, but it doesn’t hook me in as a viewer. There are moments of visual brilliance as well, but Welles has done better. Yet there’s something about the film that I cannot help but love such as George’s comeuppance or the opening narration to name a few. I wonder how much better the film would have been if we had seen it as Welles intended, I’d like to say a lot better, but with what’s available I’m not sure. It’s a good movie, but it leaves a lot to be desired.

I think it is fantastic, but flawed by studio interruption. It feels like it’s not finished.

I agree, there are some gripping moments especially towards the end which just abruptly end. It’s a shame, and even more of a shame that studio’s still cut films like this.

I love Magnificent Ambersons quite a bit, but unfortunately it airs infrequently so I’ve rarely been able to catch the whole thing. Yes, it’s been hampered by studio interference, but is it that much worse than his other Hollywood projects? In my opinion, only the ending is a little weak but just about everything else that comes before that: the ball, horseless carriage ride, the crumbling of the Amberson prestige/fortune, the first fight between Fanny and George “I’m moving to a hotel!” are excellent.

I think it’s one of those films that was initially underrated and later a bit overrated, much like his “Touch of Evil”. I feel we can safely say it’s top-tier Welles, yet I wouldn’t go so far as to call it one of the best Hollywood films of the 40s.

I need to see this. Hopefully it comes on TCM next week, or something… :/

Savvy

I enjoyed it when I saw it. I think even with the cuts it was a good film. Except, they should have never changed the ending. The ending doesn’t work at all. All the characters just kind of decide to completely change their personalities to please the audience.

I heard when Welles watched it with his friends years later, he said something similar. “It’s still a good film, though I hate the ending”.

I also heard the studio destroyed the original cut, but there’s also some rumor of some copy that got sent to Brazil or something that hasn’t been found. They’ll probably never find an unmolested original cut, but if it could happen to Metropolis, who knows?

Magnificent Ambersons might be a torso, a film which probably can´t be reconstructed never again in the version Welles attended. But this torso is still for my side the finest thing among all films by Orson Welles.

Yup, I’m with Rüdiger on this one. It’s my favorite Welles as well.

When I first saw I didn’t think it was so great I thought it felt choppy in its rythim, but when I gave it another chance I was blown away despite the ending. Now I would rank it along the best of Orsen Welles’ work.

Best use of the medium of cinema ever…

Best ever? Even better than “Kane”?? How and why?

Well, I’ve never seen another scene to match the cinematic brio of the Amberson ball sequence (mentioned above) and the “Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo” automobile ride is one of the most magical few minutes in cinema too. I find it a deeper, more emotionally engaging film than Kane (and most other films – some are what we might call “deeper”). The tacked on ending is a shame, but it doesn’t completely spoil the brilliance of the rest. I feel it is the best group of sequences I’ve ever seen, rather than I think they are…if you get what I mean.

I get it. For me, “Ambersons” just didn’t hit me that hard. I like it, I just don’t consider it a towering achievement.

I constantly shift back and forth on my opinions, I feel like there are brilliant sequences which engage me, but they’re just that, sequences. The flow is totally lost in the hatchet job editing. I feel like a lot of people try to make excuses for the editing and deny that it impacts the film in any way. Even Robert Osborne says in the VHS intro that the cuts could have been a blessing in disguise and that the film can hardly be more perfect.

Perhaps my knowing before hand the studios messed with the film influenced my judgment, but the film didn’t feel whole,and it felt like a rough draft of a film. That was my impression when I saw it.

Granted, like anyone else I would love to see the original version [only a pipe dream at the moment] but, imo, Ambersons still works well regardless of the re-editing. In contrast, in The Lady from Shanghai, which I also love, I thought the omissions felt more obvious.

The knowledge of the cuts definitely influenced my opinion, I probably would have been blown away had I not known about the cuts. Unfortunately the whole bloody affair is common knowledge.

I was fortunate to experience “Citizen Kane” on a double bill with “The Magnificent Ambersons” at the Astor Theatre earlier this year. “Citizen Kane” is much superior, but it’s obvious “Ambersons” could have been so much more…it has a very short running time, and the ending (or perhaps the lead-up to it) certainly should have been more substantial. A film that attempts to cover the rise and fall of the Ambersons…and it only runs 88 minutes? Even if you WEREN’T aware of the legendary studio meddling, you might very well feel something was missing. That said, I positively adore the following exchange between George and Lucy…

Lucy: What are you studying at school?

George: College.

Lucy: College.

George: Oh, lots of useless guff.

Lucy: Why don’t you study some useful guff?

George: What do you mean, useful?

Lucy: Something you’d use later in your business or profession.

George: I don’t intend to go into any business or profession.

Lucy: No?

George: No.

Lucy: Why not?

George: Well, just look at them. That’s a fine career for a man, isn’t it? Lawyers, bankers, politicians. What do they ever get out of life, I’d like to know. What do they know about real things? What do they ever get?

Also, let’s not forget the spoken credits by Orson Welles at the end of the film. It’s hard to completely dismiss a film with spoken credits when the speaker is Orson Welles.

Even in its ruined-by-the-studio form it’s some kind of masterpiece.

Booth Tarkington was a great as well as very popular novelist and the book (everyone who loves the film must read it) is his masterpeice. it was extremely close to Welles’ heart as he knew the period from whence it came and George Mianfer was a nightmare version of himself. (Tim Holt is Beyond Brilliant in the role by the way)

This is a film about the REAL AMERICA that everyone keeps blathering about. As one might expect this REAL AMERICA is a haunted house of dashed hopes, half-baked ambitions, lost loves and “Old Times” that were “Better.” And what’s momet pognant about it is these “Better” times were mere moments in duration.

Agnes Moorhead gives one of the greatest performances in the history of the cinema in this one. The scroe by Bernard Herrmann is achingly lovely.

In fact the whole film is achingly lovely, and proof ostiive of Welles’ greatness — even though his only “appearance” is as the film’s narrator.

Just look at this opening

I weep for what the cinema has become.

I weep for trash dumped carelessly by motorists destroying our precious natural environment.

Still a fine film. I think Welles has to take some responsibility for its deformation.

He was too keen on playing the slighted artist. I don’t believe he put up much resistance to the studio interference.

It is unfortunately true that Welles was a bit too careless and too busy with different projects that the studios could deform his film. But still it needs to take just three or four sequences to see that Magnificant Ambersons is even in this deformed version Welles masterpiece.
And by the way – André Bazins descriptions of the great “Strawberry tart sequence” is a brilliant introduction to this film. As biiter it is this deformation, it is still with a long distance my favorite film by Orson Welles.

I had a very hard time warming up to this film. My first few viewings were at a time when I was just too young to understand the film. A recent viewing on TV had me absolutely enthralled by the great Welles moments and very annoyed by the obviously non-Welles moments.

Mark D. Vanselow’s favorite

I totally agree that Welles could have done more, he should have come back from Brazil and protected his child instead of just sitting around and whining about it afterward. Or he could have actually acted in the movie, they wouldn’t have been able to re-shoot anything if he’d acted in the film, and plus if George Amberson Minafer is in a way Welles himself, I feel Welles would have brought so much more to the film than Tim Holt did.

…

I loved most of it until near the end where RKO cut about 40 minutes from the film and shot a new ending with a few of the main actors. But it’s till worth watching But Orson Welles did go down to Brazil to make “It’s All True” an anthology film RKO and the US government asked him to make. RKO told him they where going to send him a copy of the film and some editing equipment but they never did. It’s still not as bad all and all though.

I don’t think Welles would have suited the role of George Minafer very well. While the character may reflect Welles’ own upbringing, he didn’t have the right personality for it. George is a conceited, spoiled, whiny type of character. A person who comes across with an undeserved sense of superiority, at least from another’s point of view. Plus, Welles lack of presence [not counting the narration] makes the film very unique in that it’s the only of his film that doesn’t feature him on screen at all [ not counting the yet unfinished The Other Side of the Wind ].