Isn't it kind of inconsequential? It's beautifully mounted and of course interestingly photographed, and Agnes Moorehead is great...but the central character of the son is a shallow, selfish wimp and the mother's a spineless dishrag.
It's kind of hard to get invested in the plot! I wonder if the cut footage would have added any weight to it...or was the basic theme just more of the same?
It's fun seeing the original set that was recycled in Cat People, though.
.
Their is a great debate on whether or not the cut footage would have made the story better. While it certainly would have made for better continuity and a more complete story, it is hard to say how much better, if at all, the original was.
Joseph Cotten who was one of the view who ever viewed the original version thought that Welles original cut was far from perfect.
Joseph Cotten who was one of the view who ever viewed the original version thought that Welles original cut was far from perfect.
Cotten's initial "less-than-favorable" reaction to the longer cut was influenced by how the preview audiences reacted to the film. In a letter he wrote to Welles shortly after those previews, he suggested that Welles had not realized how dark the film ended up being. His most astute observation was that the film felt like it was a series of second acts that reached its conclusion in an arbitrary manner. I would argue that this structure is what made the film unique and more of an "art film" than RKO wanted.
Later in life, Cotten (perhaps in reaction to offending Welles and the destruction of the original cut) stated that he didn't think the re-shoots or re-editing helped the film any and that Welles' original version was, indeed, better.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The ending in the book is even dumber. It's been years, but I recall something about Georgie's spirit attempting to contact the family after his death.
shareActually, the novel has Eugene visiting a medium on a trip to New York who convinces him that Isabel is attempting to contact him. This is what drives him to reconnect with George in the hospital. I agree this isn't a very compelling idea (although it's consistent with the "romantic to a fault" characterization of Eugene) and Welles wisely avoided it when adapting the film.
shareYes, yes, of course. It was Isabel's spirit. I've been so busy yachting I'd forgotten.
shareLOL
While I'm here, the story IS pointless. I am tempted to say the film is a triumph of style over substance, but it falls short even on that score.
As for what the film might have been: that is an even more pointless discussion. Bit like having the chef tell you how good the food was yesterday.
Perhaps because Georgie was run over by a car off camera, the modern audience feels deprived of its violent car chase scene. But, for all the talk about the coming of automobiles and how they will change our lives, the movie is about the arc of the life of that little toad, Georgie Minifer. Some have complained that the character is not sympathetic. Well, yeah, but that's the theme.
shareWonder what would have happened next? George a factory worker reconciled with his ex-girlfriend and her wealthy father?
shareI've heard so many great things about this film over the years and I've only just got around to watching it. I have to agree with you. Whilst the artistry of the filming and presentation by Welles is pure genius I was not interested in the storyline or the characters. It was quite a dark storyline and it was perhaps for this reason the studio decided to go with a more uplifting ending. But the ending just seems out of place and doesn't fit. I enjoyed the technical aspects of the film but didn't like story at all.
Thanks for your comments everyone. Yes, The Magnificent Ambersons is a period piece about all the growth and change created by the industrial revolution. The theme seems to be: "go with the change, or get run over and left behind" ! Having read the novel and seen both film versions, I do like it's basic premise, but I could see how it would probably have limited appeal today. A quaint old fashioned tale of wayward youth and ultimate redemption, together with all the changes coming to modern society so quickly. To each their own...
RSGRE
What, you watch a movie for the presentation but are not interested in the story? How bizarre! I guess it takes all kinds but for you to say that I suspect you just didn't understand the story.
Personally, I don't care how well-presented a movie may be. That is, of course, important but none of it matters if the story isn't there or isn't any good. It's all about the story. That is after all the point of making a movie, isn't it; to tell a story.
Without the story, what you have is a documentary that shows how the movie is made. I enjoyed this story a lot. It's about a specific point in time but the story is relevant to any generation because change is something we, individually and as a society, will always have to experience. Those who are not willing to accept change, or who fail to adapt to it accordingly, will be left behind.
I particularly liked the way that point is symbolized in the movie. George gets run over by an 'horseless carriage' (or car) both actually and figuratively. He openly denounces the car every chance he gets and advocates sticking with the ways of the past. His entire existence was rooted in the past, a dying way of life, but the changing times knocked him down, ran him over, and destroyed that way of life he once knew and embraced. Ironically, this is also what saves him in the end along with a measure of what once was (both Eugene's love for his mom and his rekindled relationship with Lucy).
I also love the parallels and contrasts between the two relationships: George-Lucy and Eugene-Isabel. They show the different sides of people and how relationships grow and change. There's so much going on it's difficult to discuss all the various nuances here. If you're not interested in the story in this movie, I can't imagine what it would take to interest you.
I agree. I keep hearing about what a dark, disjointed piece this was. The book was even darker, and found it moved along just fine. I'm not happy with the uplifting ending, but overall, really enjoy this film. Agnes Moorehead was fabulous.
Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty.
[deleted]
The-Original-Pinky say > Agnes Moorehead was fabulous.I've seen Agnes Moorehead in a variety of films and on TV shows. I always think she's wonderful but since she was a supporting actress I couldn't name her movies. I hadn't remembered she was in this movie either; it's been a long time.
Yeh, I agree with a couple of other posters - just saw this "holy grail" for the first time, in a college film series, and it's actually quite terrible. Beautiful, yes. Elaborate, yes. Busy, yes. But over acted, and over-written. Holt and Moorehead were awful. And it just rambled on and on, tedious inter family squabbling. RKO was entirely correct to butcher this down to size - can you imagine the horror of having to watch another hour of this pretentious claptrap!?!
sharejust saw this "holy grail" for the first time, in a college film series, and it's actually quite terrible. Beautiful, yes. Elaborate, yes. Busy, yes. But over acted, and over-written. Holt and Moorehead were awful. And it just rambled on and on, tedious inter family squabbling. RKO was entirely correct to butcher this down to size - can you imagine the horror of having to watch another hour of this pretentious claptrap!?!
shareThis movie was a mess. I'm not sure if this is the version Welles wanted, but the plot was all over the place. It did, though, seem like it was cut from the longer version.
shareI didn't care about the story for the first 50 minutes but I kinda got invested in it after that.
share