MovieChat Forums > The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) Discussion > The point of the movie

The point of the movie

posted 10 years ago by Rizzyay
6 replies | jump to latest

People have been speaking how the movie didn't have relatable characters etc.

I disagree. The characters were idiots, thus very relatable to pretty much everyone.

However, I didn't feel as though this was Orson Welles' point at all. Nobody likes George, and her mother is just, well, plain weak and somewhat pathetic, we all know that. Of course it is a story about how George learns humility. As such, it is just a morality among many others. But...

I've always felt that the moviemakers (mr. Welles in particular, of course) had a much bigger picture in mind: to demonstrate a certain aspect of history, and how things turned out after the automobile "revolution" that, like Georgie and Eugene point out in their dinner table discussion, changed everything. I've read (from an Orson Welles interview) that it wasn't only the ending they cut out, they also cut out all the scenery with the town turning into a black, disgusting place - the decline of the Ambersons thus representing the decline of western civilization.

You get the idea from the movie as it is - from the speech at the beginning to the dinner table discussion to what happens to George eventually. But the true vision behind it would have been more clearly presented in the original version.

As it is, the movie is worth seeing. It is brilliantly directed and it portrays a living picture of history. But this movie could have been a true masterpiece...

8/10 for the movie, 1/10 for the final editing.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I wouldn't do the things the characters do so I can't say I relate to them but I can understand who they are and where they're coming from.

I saw in the movie all the things you mentioned: the condition of the town, the decline of the quality of life, the parallels between what happens to the characters and to society in general. What I think helps is the fact I do NOT listen to the TCM introductory comments until after the movie ends. I love those tidbits of information but I prefer to form my own opinions. I'm also not at all interested in having the entire plot of the movie laid out for me before I see it.

I can completely understand Welles' frustration; no one ever wants their projects altered by others. He has my sympathies but I feel I got the gist of the story in this movie. I don't know exactly what was edited out but from what I hear the first hour or so is all his original work; just as he intended it.

The ending is different and some scenes were re-shot but I suspect most of the cuts were done in the interest of time. I'm not a Welles' scholar by any means but from what I've seen of his other work I get the impression he's over-the-top, he likes to push boundaries, and he demands a lot of control. These may be his issues with the edit; he didn't get his way.

In regards to this movie, it's said Welles had elaborate sets made and scenes that were done over and over until they were precise. It was probably hard for him to see all that effort go to waste but I suspect what's left, the movie we see, is a scaled down version of almost the same thing Welles would have delivered.

For instance, the condition of the town is shown rather briefly and George's transformation is quite subtle. Welles may have taken several minutes more on each to do the same thing. I've also heard the ending we see is closer to the version in the book. I may not have been Welles' vision but I'm satisfied what we saw did tell the story of the Ambersons.

[–] MagAmbersons 10 years ago

The first hour of the film was reworked almost as much as the final third. The alterations included changing the order of the sequences seen in the opening montage which disrupted it's logic (a segment was cut describing the thriftiness and conservative nature of the town which is what the extravagance of the Ambersons was in conflict with, not with "all-day picnics in the woods" and "an open-house on New Year's" which is what the film implies now), the elimination of over a third of the "Last Ball" in which the characters of Wilbur and Fanny are more fully developed and/or introduced (how long does it take the viewer to realize who Fanny is related to in the released version?) and the almost systematic removal of any reference to Major Amberson's tax problems, his parceling off his land and building cheap housing to shore up funds, the bad investments in a headlight company and his forgetting to deed the mansion to his heirs (which is how the family loses its fortune - crucial plot information).

Some of the changes seem completely inexplicable: a brief six second shot showing George's diploma was meant to follow Wilbur's wake to establish that several months had passed and that George had graduated from college. However, this footage was cut making all the dialogue regarding Eugene attending the commencement in the subsequent scene difficult to place in context.

I don't think all of the deleted/altered footage was of equal value, but by cutting over forty minutes outright, shooting two new closing scenes (I'm willing to forgive the three re-shot scenes that come earlier since they don't deviate too far from Welles' intent) and re-shuffling the existing footage throughout, the released version significantly hampered the story's continuity and altered its tone.

Of Welles' other studio films, only THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI was changed to this degree, but in that case, at least the tone remained consistent throughout even if the story's continuity was wrecked.

Having said this, I'm pleased you can enjoy the movie "as is" - there is still much to appreciate.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

I'm not sure what the correct solution was supposed to be. As I said I can see Welles being unhappy with his movie being chopped up and edited by others. On the other hand, this was done, I suspect, to save the project.

He wanted to make movies he wanted to make. He was creative and had a passion for what he did. The problem is he seemed to forget there has to be a balance. The movie 'industry' is like any other. The product that's being put out had to make money for the company; meaning the studio. If his movie ends up being too long, too complicated, or too artsy for the moviegoer (in the opinion of the people who are paying attention to the business side of things), that's a problem.

That happens in any business. If the cost to make some fabulous product is more than the company can expect to earn back from selling it something has to happen. I think that was Welles' problem. He felt he was a genius and every movie he made had to be a masterpiece but he forgot that everyone who would see it was not on his level. He had to find a way to find a balance that was acceptable to him. I don't know if he ever did because it seems like many of his movies were, at some point, taken away from him; edited by others; and became a disappoint for him. After so many similar occurrences, it's a wonder he was able to keep making movies.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] MagAmbersons 9 years ago

Oh absolutely - I agree. Welles saw himself as a popular entertainer (and his work did produce decent profits on radio and on the New York stage); however, I don't believe his artistic sensibilities as a filmmaker were in-line with what any of the Hollywood studios wanted. The public responded well to the personage of Welles and he remained a relatively popular actor for the majority of his career, but his directorial efforts were attempts to raise the bar higher and present ideas and points-of-view that were uncommon in mainstream films. As RKO president George Shaefer told him after the initial AMBERSONS previews, it's "expensive to educate the public". Welles kept thinking he could work within the Hollywood system and bend it to showcase his own particular artistry. Ultimately, he realized this was futile and focused instead on independent film productions.

My frustration with the studio's re-editing choices on AMBERSONS is that I don't believe the film could be re-shaped enough to make it the kind of popular hit RKO desired. I suspect Schaefer thought a period drama that had won a Pulitzer as a novel would be a safe bet after the controversial CITIZEN KANE. He didn't count on Welles taking the story into such a dark Chekovian direction. However, had the studio just released Welles' cut, I doubt it would have done significantly worse box office than the 88 minute edit. I'm not against creative collaboration and believe some of the reworkings undoubtedly improved things like pacing, but the massive re-cutting and re-shooting were the results of panic and simply wrecked one version of the film without creating a version that would be a financial success.