Well...what a difference a website and a few pictures can make! The original title for my review was going to be: "Much Ado about Nothing", but coming to this site and reading Austendw's response and going to the Ambersons.com, that he mentioned, has changed my mind. Go to "Lost Images from Ambersons" and you will see for the first time, some powerful stills from the lost segments.
Based on this, plus Richard Carringer's book "The Magnificent Ambersons-a Reconstruction", and what survives of the film, I think that maybe, just maybe, this could have been one of the greatest films of all time!
But so many "ifs" persist, however:
1. If only the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. 2. If only Wells had stayed to successfully complete the picture. 3. If only the studio had waited, instead of panicking and chopping it to pieces (what they did amounts to a "bucket brigade on a sinking ship"). 4. If only Wells and the studio hadn't severed relations and he been able to come back later.
And then there are other questions that linger as well:
1. Was this story really the best choice immediately after Citizen Kane? 2. Was Tim Holt the best choice as George, or should Wells have played the part? 3. Was Well's interpretation too dark, Gothic, gloomy, and heavy handed? 4. Was Well's camera technique unnecessarily expensive, cumbersome, and overdone? (Many, many shots are "from low to high" necessitating an elaborate ceiling for every single interior set. In fact, Wells seemed to prefer this angle almost exclusively for some reason. A silly one was Wilber Minafer's funeral, where the camera appears to be in the coffin, and moving!) 5. Did this just happen to be the wrong fare for the new wartime audiences?
We will probably never know the true answers to all those questions. What we have now is the remaining pieces to a mystery that will remain unsolved forever...RIP Orson...
Update (10-14-05): After carefully reviewing all the facts, I have come to the conclusion that this film suffered from "artistic overkill"; but it was a group effort, not just Well's fault. The entire Mercury cast & crew simply went "overboard" in the telling of this quaint and simple Victorian story, and instead treated like it was the grandest tragedy of all time. Blame it on their inexperience with the medium. They had been lucky with their first film "Citizen Kane". That film had plenty of artistic excesses, but the subject matter was more compelling, and held the audience interest throughout; this time they were not so lucky. Apparently, what seemed to them so wonderfully dramatic in front of the camera, simply did not translate to the viewer on the screen; again, because it is a different medium from that of stage or radio productions.
I know that there are lot of fans of Wells & this film, and it's hard for them to admit fault. It's easier to blame RKO, the audience, or other circumstances; but the truth is that Orson, cast, & crew simply got "carried away". There is plenty of evidence for this, mainly from Richard Carringer's book: "The Magnificent Amberson - a Reconstruction". The previews were terrible, the management staff at RKO agreed that the film was too downbeat & somber (they can't all be wrong, that's their business), and even Bernard Herrmann's score (wonderfully recreated by Preamble Records in 1990, I have a copy), reveals a different Herrmann: dark, downbeat, excessively dramatic, & "too somber" (the exact words RKO general manager George Schafer used to describe it). Also, the thing that strikes me the most is the odd ending that Wells "tacked on". The simple ending that Tarkington gave us was perfect; why "mess with it"? It confirms my impression that Wells interpretation was a darker, somber view (and too much so, perhaps). He simply didn't believe in happy endings, and the audience "paid the price"!
Now whether the original version would hold up today, I guess we will never know. One only has to move ahead to 1944 and "Jane Eyre" to see the difference (with some of the same participants: Orson, Agnes Moorehead, & Bernard Herrmann), when a director (Robert Stevenson) & crew (20th Century-Fox) knew how to strike a balance between art & entertainment.
Want further evidence...? Move ahead to Well's later efforts "The Stranger" (1946), "The Lady from Shanghai"(1948), and especially "Touch of Evil" (1958) All were gimmicky, arty, dark and overly melodramatic (and commercial failures!). That was Well's style, he couldn't change. He admitted in his later years, that it was a mistake for him to go into movie-making, he should have remained with stage productions (and maybe TV, by implication). RIP Mr.Wells...!
Best regards,
Steve
Based on this, plus Richard Carringer's book "The Magnificent Ambersons-a Reconstruction", and what survives of the film, I think that maybe, just maybe, this could have been one of the greatest films of all time!
But so many "ifs" persist, however:
1. If only the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. 2. If only Wells had stayed to successfully complete the picture. 3. If only the studio had waited, instead of panicking and chopping it to pieces (what they did amounts to a "bucket brigade on a sinking ship"). 4. If only Wells and the studio hadn't severed relations and he been able to come back later.
And then there are other questions that linger as well:
1. Was this story really the best choice immediately after Citizen Kane? 2. Was Tim Holt the best choice as George, or should Wells have played the part? 3. Was Well's interpretation too dark, Gothic, gloomy, and heavy handed? 4. Was Well's camera technique unnecessarily expensive, cumbersome, and overdone? (Many, many shots are "from low to high" necessitating an elaborate ceiling for every single interior set. In fact, Wells seemed to prefer this angle almost exclusively for some reason. A silly one was Wilber Minafer's funeral, where the camera appears to be in the coffin, and moving!) 5. Did this just happen to be the wrong fare for the new wartime audiences?
We will probably never know the true answers to all those questions. What we have now is the remaining pieces to a mystery that will remain unsolved forever...RIP Orson...
Update (10-14-05): After carefully reviewing all the facts, I have come to the conclusion that this film suffered from "artistic overkill"; but it was a group effort, not just Well's fault. The entire Mercury cast & crew simply went "overboard" in the telling of this quaint and simple Victorian story, and instead treated like it was the grandest tragedy of all time. Blame it on their inexperience with the medium. They had been lucky with their first film "Citizen Kane". That film had plenty of artistic excesses, but the subject matter was more compelling, and held the audience interest throughout; this time they were not so lucky. Apparently, what seemed to them so wonderfully dramatic in front of the camera, simply did not translate to the viewer on the screen; again, because it is a different medium from that of stage or radio productions.
I know that there are lot of fans of Wells & this film, and it's hard for them to admit fault. It's easier to blame RKO, the audience, or other circumstances; but the truth is that Orson, cast, & crew simply got "carried away". There is plenty of evidence for this, mainly from Richard Carringer's book: "The Magnificent Amberson - a Reconstruction". The previews were terrible, the management staff at RKO agreed that the film was too downbeat & somber (they can't all be wrong, that's their business), and even Bernard Herrmann's score (wonderfully recreated by Preamble Records in 1990, I have a copy), reveals a different Herrmann: dark, downbeat, excessively dramatic, & "too somber" (the exact words RKO general manager George Schafer used to describe it). Also, the thing that strikes me the most is the odd ending that Wells "tacked on". The simple ending that Tarkington gave us was perfect; why "mess with it"? It confirms my impression that Wells interpretation was a darker, somber view (and too much so, perhaps). He simply didn't believe in happy endings, and the audience "paid the price"!
Now whether the original version would hold up today, I guess we will never know. One only has to move ahead to 1944 and "Jane Eyre" to see the difference (with some of the same participants: Orson, Agnes Moorehead, & Bernard Herrmann), when a director (Robert Stevenson) & crew (20th Century-Fox) knew how to strike a balance between art & entertainment.
Want further evidence...? Move ahead to Well's later efforts "The Stranger" (1946), "The Lady from Shanghai"(1948), and especially "Touch of Evil" (1958) All were gimmicky, arty, dark and overly melodramatic (and commercial failures!). That was Well's style, he couldn't change. He admitted in his later years, that it was a mistake for him to go into movie-making, he should have remained with stage productions (and maybe TV, by implication). RIP Mr.Wells...!
Best regards,
Steve