Orson Welles

[Drucker]

In its present form, Magnificent Ambersons remains a mutilated masterpiece. It's hard to really come to grips with a fair assessment of it. There are remarkable moments which absolutely rival Welles' best, not to mention the greatest that cinema has to offer. It's only matched with frustrating edits/cuts/and re-shots that are obviously part of the film's lore by now. But would the original cut truly have surpassed Kane? Carringer says no. McBride, this being his favorite film, probably would say yes. Personally, and sadly, I have to fall into the former camp.

I believe Carringer points out the following two fatal flaws, which I find noteworthy because they were the exact same complaints both my wife and friend had after seeing the film with me: 1) Tim Holt cannot hold his own in this role, and is one-dimensional and annoying and 2) the film's darkness, once Minafer passes away, is unrelenting, never letting up. My friend pointed out that Kane is great because of how complex the man is, and the film perfectly makes that point. Not so, however, with Ambersons, which is just: America in decline/industrialization and cars are evil/etc. There aren't nearly as many complex views as are present in Kane (or other Welles films, for that matter!)

I saw the film a bit more charitably than my wife, friend, and Carringer, for sure. While I used to agree that Holt wasn't that great, I found his role quite fitting yesterday. Compared to the greatness of the cast around him, Holt's acting works. He has to be a one-dimensional, spoiled brat. The comeuppance doesn't work without it. He needs to destroy his family's legacy. He can only do this as a pigheaded brat. It makes sense. Holt isn't supposed to be a complex, multi-layered, tragic male figure present in so many other Welles films. He's merely a vehicle to center a family's decline around. With this in mind, at the outset of the film, the family's fate is already set, whereas the likes of Quinlan and Josef K aren't as clear. This is a very different Welles film than others.

I cannot refute the claim that once the film gets dark, it gets far too dark. And being familiar with lost scenes and cut footage does this view no favors. That said, the brilliance of some of the post-Minafer death scenes is unrivaled. The strawberry shortcake/kitchen scene is marvelous and perfectly acted (and Welles falsely claimed, "totally improvised?") It's a remarkable tone which is clearly supposed to be echoed in some cut scenes, such as the veranda scenes and the boarding house scenes. A family with nothing left to say to each other, stuck with each other in a confined space, where the emptiness of and lack of dialogue perfectly reflects the disintegrating relationships. In addition, the dinner table scene could be the best scene in the movie, with a beautiful speech by Cotten, and then some humor as Uncle Jack lays into George for upsetting the woman he's courting's father.

It's also worth noting just how great Cotten and Moorehead's performances are, who undoubtedly carry the film. Eugene Morgan is a beautiful man, and his confrontation at the stairwell the night of Isabel's death is a stunning turn of his character. He perfectly has transformed into a man not willing to take guff from George anymore. I believe this scene is a re-shot scene(?) but it's still perfectly acted. Moorehead is perfect. Every bit of the film she's in. Whether going at it with George, or totally breaking down, it could honestly be my favorite acted performance ever. I don't often cry or laugh or have feeling-out-loud emotions while watching films, but the boiler room scene at the end honestly gives me chills. As she loses it, and George carries her through the kitchen, I truly felt chills. It's perfect.

The film, again, IS not perfect. Following the brilliant kitchen scene, we have a weird scene at the Morgan car factory. It certainly seems abbreviated, but we already know that Morgan is doing well. Perhaps I shouldn't wax too much about scenes that don't work, as they are almost certainly re-shoots or abbreviated.

So while the film remains frustrating, I do love it. It's not as great as Kane, not no way, not no how. But it has many moments of brilliance. The best comparison I can make between Kane and Ambersons is Pet Sounds and Smile. Pet Sounds and Citizen Kane are arguably the highest forms of their respective crafts, and were meant to be followed up by something even better, but were released in compromised forms. Certain things live up to the hype, based on what we see (Ambersons has the ballroom sequence, the kitchen sequence; Smile has "Surf's Up" and "Cabin Essence"). But it's too hard to say with certainty that the missing footage is perfect. In Ambersons, what we know about it still plays into the idea that the film may just be too tragic, and not as brilliant as Kane. If you use Smile's box set as an indicator for what Smile may have been, I find there are perhaps just a few too many zany instrumental passages that go on just a bit too long, and the album doesn't flow as a perfect, cohesive idea.

Joseph McBride introduced and the film and afterwards, we were treated to a delightful viewing of four of the scenes from our very own Roger Ryan's version of the film. We were shown the two veranda sequences, the boarding room sequence, and the extended snow sequence. Being able to see, at all, the boarding room sequence really helped me confirm what I suspected about the film, and if it plays out anywhere near the way Ryan has portrayed it, it would've been brilliant. Tense, empty, and the final culmination of the family's downfall. It's the icing on the cake of the tragedy that is the Ambersons. Of course, it begs the question: would an hour of dark scenes like it have just been too much to handle? Hopefully one day we can find out.

I have one question for Roger Ryan or anyone else who can help: Why, oh why, does Lucy cry after saying goodbye to George when he leaves for Europe, before she goes to the pharmacy? I've never been able to make sense of this scene, at all. She seems totally aloof as long as she knows him, bids him goodbye, and then all of a sudden she feels sorrow and passes out? And the way it's shot, it comes off like a studio re-shot, with a very abrupt edit, and going from sharp, in-focus, to the almost never used by Welles, soft-focus close-up of an actress. Is it a studio re-shoot? Can anyone shed light on this moment in the film, which after five viewings, still makes no sense to me?

[hearthesilence]

The close-up of Lucy crying was indeed inserted by the studio - Welles had nothing to do with that shot.

The studio also reshot the end of that scene. Lucy did indeed enter the pharmacy in Welles' version, making the same request, but the studio felt it needed to be substantially blunter.

Had it been left alone, it would've been perfect - very poignant and more modern (and less conventional) in the way it was handled. Lucy's behavior isn't strange (or rather, it isn't genuinely aloof), it's putting on an act, but that's not something she would make visually obvious. (How could she? If someone is trying to appear happy when they aren't, they don't take the first moment they can to give the game away.) In Welles' original, this isn't hammered home by a close-up, it reveals itself at the very end of the scene.

On my way out, so I will have to elaborate more later on, but I personally would not have any problem with the film's intended darkness. If anything, I definitely feel like the recut/reshot film pulls it punches too much. It always feel this way about 2/3 or 3/4 in when the changes really start to pile-up, it's like the film suddenly becomes reluctant go down the path that's been strongly set.

That factory scene in particular had an incredible shot that would've shored up the film's over-aching themes - it's a wide shot that hints at the changes this industry will bring to the town. As detailed in the shooting script and notes, one gets the impression that it's like watching a cancer setting in on the foreground of the frame, with the cars coming out Eugene's factory puttering into the town behind it and around it.

[Roger Ryan]

As "heartthesilence" notes, that close-up of Lucy with tears in her eyes is definitely a studio-imposed insert. Welles shot two versions of the single take showing Lucy ordering the aromatic spirits in the drugstore, then collapsing: in the first, the druggist simply gapes as his eyes drop down to the collapsed Lucy; the second is the take in the release version where the druggist exclaims, "For gosh sake, miss!" Wise felt the first version was too subtle. What is lost in a brief comic scene which followed showing the druggist at a poolhall that night telling his cronies about the pretty girl who came into his store, took one look at him and collapsed ("I guess it's true what some of you town wags say about my face"). Since Welles intended the poolhall scene to explain the action in the drugstore, he may have felt it unnecessary for the druggist to say anything, but shot an alternate just in case. As evidenced by the cutting of the follow-up scene, the studio wasn't just eliminating the dark material, but some of the comedy as well (the comic role of Uncle John was almost completely eliminated as was the comic moment between the two policemen at the scene of George's accident).

During post-production, Welles was running hot-and-cold on whether to include the factory scene in the film. Even after Welles was no longer involved in editing, the scene kept appearing and disappearing from the previews. For me, it's worth it for the look on Fanny's face at the end when Eugene compliments Isabel.

In an interview with Bogdanovich, Welles stated that the kitchen scene was largely improvised between Holt, Moorehead and Collins, but then clarified this statement by saying that, while the actors adhered to the script, the rhythm of their delivery was more spontaneous. This, to me, is what makes the scene so interesting: the pacing is unexpected and feels more modern than how other contemporary films would play similar scenes. For what ever reason, all of the dialog in the scene was post-dubbed (something that happened a lot on this film).

The scene where Eugene is turned away from the home by Fanny, George and Jack is, indeed, a studio re-shoot, but it's one that I have little problem with. The intent was to make the rejection more of a family decision (to prevent Fanny from seeming too callous as the original scene has only her turning Eugene away). I think Cotten is excellent in the scene and his resignation at the end is quite heartbreaking.

[Drucker]

Thanks guys. All of what you've said is now coming back to me through having read Carringer's books as well as McBride's. I'm still a bit perplexed as to why Lucy would fall ill at all though! She has George's number from their first meeting. What does his leaving matter to her, in the grand scheme of things?

Agreed Roger, the scene still works, even though it's a re-shoot. Cotten is so great because he clearly is indignant and angry, but not over the top, and it still totally fits in with his character who shows utmost patience throughout the film.

Heartthesilence, that's what is so hard to explain to people like my wife. Not only is the story more coherent (which couldn't change the mind of my wife and friend), but there were many, many visual touches that just surely gave it an extra special feel. Perhaps akin to the bird's scream before Welles destroys his bedroom in the climax of Kane. Is it necessary for the story? No. But it's a visual flourish that adds to the film's greatness. Makes it unique, gives it character.

None of my statements, fwiw, were meant to imply Ambersons wouldn't be way, way better with the original 131-minute, or even 117-minute cut! Nonetheless, not quite Kane is all!

Hearthesilence, you seeing any of these films? I think I'm heading to Othello and It's All True next Sunday solo.

[hearthesilence]

Money's tight these days, so I haven't caught any yet. Not a huge deal, I've already seen most of the ones they're screening in 35mm via film prints as well - the UCLA restoration of the Scottish Macbeth at Lincoln Center (Shakespeare program), The Third Man and Ambersons at Film Forum (the latter for a Bernard Herrmann retrospective), etc. all in the last few years.

Is Othello supposed to be Welles' version of the 'restored' one?

[Drucker]

I believe based on the 1992 restoration, since it's the DCP/recent resto. (91 mins)

[Drucker]

F For Fake and The Immortal Story made for an interesting double feature last night. It's as if after Chimes at Midnight, Welles' protagonists have much less of a misgiving of their own majesty. We aren't dealing with great men bound to fall. These are men who have already fallen, already revealed themselves to be totally empty and possibly fraudulent.

I didn't know what to expect with the Immortal Story and will definitely have to figure out a way to see it again. I had watched the first 15 minutes on TCM a few months ago, but was put off by its pacing. I would be lying if I knew what to say about the film. I'm glad I saw it, but it didn't really move me. With the exception of the love-making scene. I found the performances a bit awkward and a bit stiff. In fact, I didn't even realize that Clay dies until I got home and read the chapter about it in McBride's first Welles book. I did piece together the plot about a man so full of himself, he wanted to make something that didn't exist a reality. This raises the interesting question of how much of the sexual encounter was Clay's doing. My first instinct was to think that the dialogue about being 17 years old was Clay's doing. That this encounter and creation had to totally be his doing.

The opening of the film was a bit confusing, and in general it didn't do much for me. But I'm glad to have seen it in theaters and hope to revisit it.

F For Fake is a masterpiece, however, that defies description. Though this film is just as hard to perhaps analyze, it is just a blast to sit through. It's so clear why Welles, for example, would be invited on talk shows constantly. He's just a pleasure to listen to and be around. Is the film a masterpiece that totally changed cinema, or could have with a wider audience? I don't know. But I think it's clearly a masterpiece of editing and fun.

[hearthesilence]

I haven't seen those two back-to-back, but I remember some of the editing in The Immortal Story felt like a sign of what was to come in F For Fake. (Wait until the sailor gets to the merchant's house, that's when the editing really starts to change.) Not as radical as For for Fake, but something about the rhythm and pace was there.

FWIW, Criterion has a good transfer of The Immortal Story on their Hulu channel, and it is the longer English-language version. In general, the film is available on DVD overseas, but often in shoddy quality, so it's nice to see that Criterion was able to make or find a solid video transfer.

BUT, I think the French-language version is supposedly preferable. (Not surprising as it was made for French television.) The English-language version is clearly dubbed, or at least layered with wall-to-wall ADR. To be fair, that's not unusual with Welles' films, and again it's longer - whether the English version is a better film with that additional footage, I wouldn't know as I've never even seen the French-language version.

[Drucker]

Didn't even realize there was a French version, and obviously I'm so used to dubbing in Welles' films it didn't bug me. The format shown was a digibeta last night, and it ran for about an hour.

[hearthesilence]

Check out this letter to Joseph Cotten. Too bad he wasn't cast, but it's kind of sad that Welles could only ask his close friend to do it for more or less nothing (with no guarantee of any more money down the road). He was already being hailed as the greatest director in film history, and this was still his situation on a small, cheap television film.

[Drucker]

At least he got Fernando Ray! Can't wait to see him in Chimes at Midnight, something I never realized he appeared in!

[Drucker]

The It's All True documentary/reconstruction was unbelievable. I didn't expect the Four Men On A Raft sequence to be so complete. Didn't expect the technicolor of what survived to be so rich during certain scenes. Quite frankly, I don't know what I expected of an unfinished/uncompleted film, but the documentary is an excellent testament to us Welles fans and what we believe his potential was. I almost want to re-evaluate my stance from earlier on whether Ambersons would have ended up being that good. It's just absurd to think that at this point, in the high point of his artistry, that he wouldn't have delivered an earth-changing film with It's All True. The best of Welles' early hallmark is on perfect display. Low angles, long shots, honestly a beautifully constructed sequence (that also hits the mark for me, politically). And a documentary that did justice to what I'm sure many here believe: he gave this film his all, and RKO helped to sabotage him after Ambersons.

If there's one complaint with the reconstruction, it was the music kind of sounding a bit like a Putumayo Records compilation of soft-90s Brazilian music, rather than 40s / 50s archival Samba music. And the sound effects were obviously modern and therefore a bit distracting...

...which leads me to Othello. I'd read about how distracting the modern soundtrack was, and yet it still didn't prepare me. The music itself was great. But of course, next to the tinny-voices of the original soundtrack, the music was incredibly distracting and just wrong...

Which is a shame, because Othello is a damn fine masterpiece. The first exposure to the film I had was whatever DVD is currently available on Netflix. This film was a revelation on the big screen. In many ways, Othello is paced like Macbeth. After the funeral procession, what follows are fairly rapid plot developments and set-up. The pacing, early in both of these films, is surprisingly fast for a Welles film. In fact, at the outset, I warned my mother it would be fast. I suppose it's just how the film registered with me the first time I saw it. But as Iago plants seeds upon seed, the film slows down. He casts his web, and we slowly see everyone caught up on it, including himself. I still have to re-watch The Trial and Arkadin this week, but it's amazing how disorienting of a film Othello is, even more so than Macbeth. The mood portrayed in many of the chase scenes, and especially in the last shot of Othello spinning around the room, after he's murdered Desdemona, and realized the mistake he's made.

Revisiting these films has been really enlightening, because I realize that the first times I watched them, it's so easy to get caught up in the mania of the early scenes, you don't realize how patient and brooding the films get later on. It's a pattern I never noticed before, but it's pretty apparent in Kane, Macbeth, and Othello, and seems like it would have been in the original cut of Ambersons, as well.

The main shortcoming for Othello, unfortunately, has to be Welles' portrayal. Which is perhaps not surprising. As entertaining of an actor as Welles is, he's not one with an incredible range, per se. He plays larger than life, tragic, well-defined figures, well. Except for Kane, his characters don't seem to generally undergo huge transformations. Othello needs to, and he doesn't. He doesn't come across as the grand enough hero early on, we don't see enough of his relationship with Desdemona, and the pacing of his mania, at the end, just isn't psychotic enough. We know Welles is capable of this, because Macbeth does this well. On the other hand, the character of Iago is handled magnificently. A perfectly devious role portrayed excellently.

Weather permitting, Chimes at Midnight is tomorrow. Which I'm libel to miss if this storm hits the way they say it wil. Which means, in all likelihood, the only Welles directed film I won't have seen on the big screen after this week is that one.
(It plays Sunday, also, but I already have plans to see an IB print of Godfather 2, and can't be at both.)

[Drucker]

PS. I have never read Othello, so upon further reflection, maybe "psycho" isn't the right way to describe what I was hoping for in Welles' portrayal of Othello. But perhaps more than what we got.

[teddyleevin]

Due to my schedule, the only thing I'm able to catch is Monday's presentation of Too Much Johnson, which is certainly an unprecedented affair. Hopefully, it will also be a successful one.

[Roger Ryan]

PS. I have never read Othello, so upon further reflection, maybe "psycho" isn't the right way to describe what I was hoping for in Welles' portrayal of Othello. But perhaps more than what we got.

Perhaps someone better versed in Shakespeare could comment more, but my understanding of Othello is that he is a proud man undone by his vanity. The perception of his relationship with his trophy wife is more important than the actual relationship itself...which is pretty much how Kane views his marriage to Susan in KANE. Othello becomes delusional and, eventually, murderous because he can't accept himself appearing weak or indecisive. Does Welles bring enough of this idea across in his performance? Welles himself thought he played a much better "Othello" on stage shortly after the release of the film. Given the fragmentary nature of the shooting over two-and-a-half years, I'm surprised any of the performances appear consistent, least of all the director's.

[Drucker]

Due to my schedule, the only thing I'm able to catch is Monday's presentation of Too Much Johnson, which is certainly an unprecedented affair. Hopefully, it will also be a successful one.

It's already sold out! Hope you have a ticket.

[Drucker]

PS. I have never read Othello, so upon further reflection, maybe "psycho" isn't the right way to describe what I was hoping for in Welles' portrayal of Othello. But perhaps more than what we got.

Perhaps someone better versed in Shakespeare could comment more, but my understanding of Othello is that he is a proud man undone by his vanity. The perception of his relationship with his trophy wife is more important than the actual relationship itself...which is pretty much how Kane views his marriage to Susan in KANE. Othello becomes delusional and, eventually, murderous because he can't accept himself appearing weak or indecisive. Does Welles bring enough of this idea across in his performance? Welles himself thought he played a much better "Othello" on stage shortly after the release of the film. Given the fragmentary nature of the shooting over two-and-a-half years, I'm surprised any of the performances appear consistent, least of all the director's.

Yes I read the passage on the film in McBride's book before bed last night, and it seems he shared a lot of my feelings, including the centrality and great performance of Iago. McBride says Othello was supposed to be a more toned down, subtle character. I can't help but feel that if he played Othello like he did Macbeth, it could've been better.

[matrixschmatrix]

I actually quite like the strange softness of Welles' Othello, though it's a little at odds with the normal portrayal of the character- it makes Iago a more central figure, as one feels less than in reading the text that Othello's fall is the inevitable working of his own jealousy and dedication to the image of himself he's built, and more that he is fatally trusting and incapable of guile. It pushes the play more in the direction of Richard III, and while I don't think it would be a good default version, it's an interesting variant, something that works well enough that I'm glad to have it preserved as a possible way to consider the play.

I've never thought, in the default version, that Othello's besetting sin was pride per se, so much as the self-conscious need to prove oneself brought about by an outsider status- no matter what his accomplishments, Othello can never believe that he is truely loveable for what and whom he is, and his fascination with Desdemona's ability to love him is the flipside of his fundamental belief that it cannot be deep, or true. Welles brings the part a diffidence that fits someone who can never really be sure that he is accepted, and the rage of someone whose insecurities are brought to the surface, without necessarily the massive, unconscious power that Welles brought to so many other roles, and which is usually one of the primary traits of anyone playing Othello.

[hearthesilence]

Just to be clear, of all the butchered narrative films in Welles' body of work, only two are considered lost causes for restoration because no other footage is known to survive and no amount of re-editing can bring them closer to Welles' intended vision: The Lady from Shanghai and The Magnificent Ambersons, correct?

[Dylan]

Apparently there was quite a bit of material cut from The Stranger, including a prologue, dream sequences, and more South American scenes. It seems Welles originally wanted elements of surrealism in the film, and none of that survives in the released version. There is a good discussion of the cut scenes on the Wellesnet message board here. There seems to be a dispute over whether or not these scenes were actually shot and cut, or if they were deleted from the script prior to filming. In any case, it's still fascinating to consider The Stranger as yet another "butchered" Welles film.

[Roger Ryan]

THE STRANGER is, indeed, a lost cause for restoration given the missing footage, but the film doesn't suffer as much as AMBERSONS and SHANGHAI. Those two, along with JOURNEY INTO FEAR, are the ones that are furthest from Welles' original intentions. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that Welles' original cut of TOUCH OF EVIL was significantly different from the 1998 reconstruction...or that a Welles-finished version of MR. ARKADIN would be much better than the "Comprehensive Version" issued on the Criterion box set.

[hearthesilence]

I didn't know that about The Stranger. It's not bad, it doesn't feel like it's been hacked away - everything still coheres pretty well and it flows pretty smoothly - but it feels like such a thin work compared to Welles' other films, I would definitely welcome any additional material, just to see if there's a whole other dimension to this film that could've been had.

[nolanoe]

I didn't know that about The Stranger. It's not bad, it doesn't feel like it's been hacked away - everything still coheres pretty well and it flows pretty smoothly - but it feels like such a thin work compared to Welles' other films, I would definitely welcome any additional material, just to see if there's a whole other dimension to this film that could've been had.

I have not lost hope yet! It's a thin thread, but it almost feels to me as if the chances of a discovery grow with time. If it'd be randomly be found in - I don't know - 2005, it would feel surreal. With the advent of Blu-Ray, and the "Welles-year" approaching, maybe somebody somewhere looks in their attic/basement/pond and...

[hearthesilence]

Hah, well, one could hope. Any discovery for any of his films would be bittersweet with all involved parties long dead.

Anyway, The Lady from Shanghai and above all The Magnificent Ambersons top my personal list of holy grail hopes. I think Greed may be the only non-Welles film that comes close. Would love to see the original cut of John Ford's My Darling Clementine too, but the preview version dug up by UCLA doesn't feel like a shabby compromise.

[nolanoe]

I still have not seen GREED - but I am a bit... let's say unsure whether or not many of those silents are actually better in the long version.

Now, of course, I am all for uncovering them. A complete silent is ALWAYS better to have than a shortened one. But as I have recently watched quite some in their "long/original" nature, I found myself quite shocked just how much of them felt, well, expendable. It really felt to me as if many of the directors back then did a proper, umh, "assembly cut", and tried to get those released. In some instances, it feels a bit as if people in 60 years would stumble across all the cut scenes of "From Hell" and release that as a "definitive edition" - which, to be fair, might actually elevate that particular one, but I doubt it makes for a better movie overall. But then again: I have NOT seen Greed, so I should probably shut my mouth.

With Welles, now, these two films seem uneven (even though still brilliant). Which makes it all the more painful. While I could myself see completely fine with a by 30 minutes shortened version of Wiene's "Raskolnikov", those missing 30-45 minutes of Ambersons and The Lady... are aggravating.