since no Welles version of AMBERSONS exists we can never know for sure how good (or bad) it might have been.
I must beg to differ here.
There was a sort-of script produced of the film as it was rough-cut by Welles, waiting for Wise to come to Brazil to continue the cutting. It wrote out all the edits and continuity and every bit of dialogue. (Some of you film people help me out on what that kind of script is called, please....)
It recounts that the film ended with Fanny (Moorehead) in a rest home after her breakdown, still quite broken, and Georgie working hard and difficult hours to earn the money to keep her in there, as I recall.
I'd call that VERY much-different from the sight of (an independent) Fanny leaving a hospital, smiling at the thought that Georgie will soon recover.
The source material was the problem, specifically the crazy son who wouldn't let his mother find love. Welles would have had to rewrite an otherwise excellent book . Technically it is a phenomenal achievement but that damn novel...
Problem? The book won a Pulitzer in 1918.
I'd say the 1942 MOVIE audience was the "problem", being entirely unwilling to accept a movie that wasn't happy in the end.
Or the way the studio ultimately did NOT want to release a film of that type of novel. Couldn't they have said something BEFORE an entire film was shot, especially considering the book was extant?.
The initial preview responses for AMBERSONS were not as bad as the studio made them out to be, in spite of the fact that they'd picked an audience unlikely to respond to the material - a Saturday-night crowd, many of whom were teenagers, who'd come to see a Dorothy Lamour musical. The fact of the matter was that Welles' goose was cooked at RKO. He'd caused them a lot of trouble and cost them a lot of money and made a lot of enemies in the process. When his protector, studio head George Schaefer, got the boot the Welles-haters were in charge and it was all over but for the vengeful and purposeful shredding of Welles' reputation. Of course, Welles gave them plenty of ammunition.
I have to say, though, whenever people make the argument about AMBERSONS that the material was too dark for the times I think of both THE LITTLE FOXES (1941) and KINGS ROW (1942).
since no Welles version of AMBERSONS exists we can never know for sure how good (or bad) it might have been.
I must beg to differ here.
There was a sort-of script produced of the film as it was rough-cut by Welles, waiting for Wise to come to Brazil to continue the cutting. It wrote out all the edits and continuity and every bit of dialogue. (Some of you film people help me out on what that kind of script is called, please....)
You were almost there - it's called a continuity script.
And, yes, the AMBERSONS continuity script does tell us exactly what was contained in Welles' first cut, but that's not the same as seeing it on the screen. In addition to which, Welles himself was likely to have recut the film, and possibly even reshot scenes, had he been available and allowed to do so. He'd foolishly signed away his right to final cut after KANE and so, with Welles unavailable to supervise the cutting, the studio started hacking away.
Mentioning the last scene in the studio version, (which, if memory serves, was scored by Roy Webb), reminds me that Mr. Welles was not the only one who was upset by the treatment of AMBERSONS. As most of you probably already know, Bernard Herrmann insisted on having his name removed from the credits.
Mentioning the last scene in the studio version, (which, if memory serves, was scored by Roy Webb), reminds me that Mr. Welles was not the only one who was upset by the treatment of AMBERSONS. As most of you probably already know, Bernard Herrmann insisted on having his name removed from the credits.
I don't know if Mr. Turner had anything to do with it, but yes, the 2002 TV movie was derived from Welles' original screenplay. I tuned in to only one scene, one of my favorites in Welles' film, the gala ball, and in a negative way it was a profound demonstration of the importance of a director in the film-making process. Same script, but totally missing the dynamism provided by Welles' staging, camera work, pacing, tone, handling of actors, etc., etc. -- in short, his vision.
I don't know if Mr. Turner had anything to do with it, but yes, the 2002 TV movie was derived from Welles' original screenplay. I tuned in to only one scene, one of my favorites in Welles' film, the gala ball, and in a negative way it was a profound demonstration of the importance of a director in the film-making process. Same script, but totally missing the dynamism provided by Welles' staging, camera work, pacing, tone, handling of actors, etc., etc. -- in short, his vision.
exactly. Welles was a cinematic genius, beyond compare! brm
since no Welles version of AMBERSONS exists we can never know for sure how good (or bad) it might have been.
I will concede that "it's not the same as seeing it on a screen". While I don't think it's THAT much of a stretch to compare the two versions in their differing formats (and since I don't think it unreasonable either to extrapolate from his last film KANE, about how good it might have been), I'll still concede your point.
And if only to further my reputation as a pedantic little poop, I am unable to let a couple of your remarks pass without comment.
He'd foolishly signed away his right to final cut after KANE...
I do agree that Welles was foolish, but not for signing away KANE. (I think it's only in RETROSPECT that Welles could be called "foolish," and putting our perspective onto someone living in that time doesn't profit us much. I'd be interested if your remarks are based on the Higham book, since Leaming says Higham seemed to have a very limited scope in what he was willing to look at, historically.)
At the time Welles "signed away" KANE, he was earning no money, even though he still had 2 pictures left to make for RKO. Before he "signed it away", he wouldn't have made any money off KANE until it made $500,000 (I think that's the amount). Given how tepid the public (as opposed to critical) response was to Kane, I don't blame him thinking it would never amount to much financially, even over time.
Where I think Welles WAS foolish, was the way he handled himself personally and financially at this time. He married for reasons that weren't very sound, had child he wasn't ready to be a father to, and spent money lavishly, well beyond his means. So at the time he "signed away" KANE, he was divorced and having to support both of them, plus his own lifestyle. And given how he spent money hand over fist, just paying his own way was costing him a very pretty penny.
So that's why, financially, he really, really needed to make this deal with RKO, and "signed away" KANE.
I have to say, though, whenever people make the argument about AMBERSONS that the material was too dark for the times I think of both THE LITTLE FOXES (1941) and KINGS ROW (1942).
I'll differ with you again here. THE LITTLE FOXES was a long-running stage hit, so it had a (very recent) reputation, a reputation that included its dramatic nature. AMBERSONS was a "hit" 20 years earlier.
KINGS ROW ended on a high note (just listening to Korngold's music can confirm this), with the Ronald Reagan character SUDDENLY breaking out of his funk and declaring (with a big smile, if I recall) that he's gonna beat this missing leg thing, by golly . AMBERSONS as planned by Welles ended with the young man, having gotten his comeuppance, in HUGELY reduced circumstances, alone, in a darkened room praying, with Herrmann's score announcing his anxiety and misery (even his End Title is only slightly less sad than this). End of picture.
I think endings leave a really significant impression on an audience, and RKO thought so, too, to a degree that made them want to change AMBERSONS.
So for these reasons, I'd call comparing FOXES and KINGS ROW with Welles' cut of AMBERSONS, "apples and oranges."
While I don't think it's THAT much of a stretch to compare the two versions in their differing formats (and since I don't think it unreasonable either to extrapolate from his last film KANE, about how good it might have been), I'll still concede your point.
But it is a stretch, and a big one in my view, directly comparing the studio's released version of the film with Welles' rushed first cut. When Welles, stuck in Brazil, got news of the preview reactions he sent word back via cable to his Mercury confreres to cut some scenes, reshoot others, and shoot new material, including a last-minute "happy ending" shot of George and Lucy driving away in a car, smiling & waving! Some of his changes were made but it was already too late at that point, RKO had decided to recut the film on their own terms. So we have no idea how it might have turned out had Welles had the opportunity to finish it himself, or even finish it under studio orders. You could say that the continuity script represents Welles' initial vision of the film, but there is no "Welles version" of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, on film or on paper, because the first cut was just that - a first cut, not his final word on the material. He got no final word on the material.
It may seem obvious to consider the continuity script as "Welles' version" but given the complicated situation surrounding the making of the film I think that would be a mistake.
I do agree that Welles was foolish, but not for signing away KANE. (I think it's only in RETROSPECT that Welles could be called "foolish," and putting our perspective onto someone living in that time doesn't profit us much. I'd be interested if your remarks are based on the Higham book, since Leaming says Higham seemed to have a very limited scope in what he was willing to look at, historically.)
At the time Welles "signed away" KANE, he was earning no money, even though he still had 2 pictures left to make for RKO. Before he "signed it away", he wouldn't have made any money off KANE until it made $500,000 (I think that's the amount). Given how tepid the public (as opposed to critical) response was to Kane, I don't blame him thinking it would never amount to much financially, even over time.
Where I think Welles WAS foolish, was the way he handled himself personally and financially at this time. He married for reasons that weren't very sound, had child he wasn't ready to be a father to, and spent money lavishly, well beyond his means. So at the time he "signed away" KANE, he was divorced and having to support both of them, plus his own lifestyle. And given how he spent money hand over fist, just paying his own way was costing him a very pretty penny.
So that's why, financially, he really, really needed to make this deal with RKO, and "signed away" KANE.
"Signed away KANE"? But that's not what I said and I'm not sure how such a thing would even relate to what we were discussing.
What I did say was that he signed away his right to final cut after KANE and that has everything to do with what we were discussing. Welles' right to final cut kept RKO from changing KANE in any way, shape or form once he had finalized the picture. It even kept Ted Turner from being able to colorize KANE years after the fact. Not having final cut enabled RKO to butcher AMBERSONS with no input from Welles, which they did with a vengeance.
A director having final cut on a studio picture is almost as unprecedented now as it was then, and signing away such an artistically valuable right once acquired could only be construed as the height of foolishness whatever the time period!
"Signed away KANE"? But that's not what I said and I'm not sure how such a thing would even relate to what we were discussing.
What I did say was that he signed away his right to final cut after KANE and that has everything to do with what we were discussing. Welles' right to final cut kept RKO from changing KANE in any way, shape or form once he had finalized the picture. It even kept Ted Turner from being able to colorize KANE years after the fact. Not having final cut enabled RKO to butcher AMBERSONS with no input from Welles, which they did with a vengeance.
A director having final cut on a studio picture is almost as unprecedented now as it was then, and signing away such an artistically valuable right once acquired could only be construed as the height of foolishness whatever the time period!
You are correct. I misread your original post.
Strangely, my argument still stands. I still cannot call him foolish for signing away his right to final cut on AMBERSONS given his financial situation, his stupifying ability to spend money and (one more point I failed to notice before) that he was 26 when he was doing all this.
I'm really going to have to read a bio of Joseph Cotten to see if that corroborates the story Welles tells of him, being a sort-of "Judas" and helping push for changes in AMBERSONS.
His autobiography mentions nothing of the re-cutting of AMBERSONS.
