Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Magnificent Ambersons (USA) 1942
61 views
Skip to first unread message
William
Aug 5, 2012, 2:09:33 PM8/5/12
to william ahearn
Hey,
So much has been written and speculated about this film -- it being made by Orson Welles, it's almost mandatory that some mystique must be applied -- that I'm going to ignore all of that and just deal with the film. Undoubtedly, others will tell the sad tale and I find it interesting that almost all stories about Orson Welles are sad.
Anyway, this is a saga drenched in Americana and wrapped in nostalgia and almost every frame is as composed as a painting and it may very well be Orson Welles' most consistently and technically satisfying film. The cinematography is by Stanley Cortez who also shot "Night of the Hunter" and "The Naked Kiss" making him a favorite for his creative adaptability. In this film, the studio doubling for the great outdoors seems to work since it is a tale being related (the narrator is Orson Welles) and not one being acted out with any sense of realism.
One could see the attraction for this film as the US entered the war as it glorifies the American psyche that creates with Yankee ingenuity as it, at the same time, resists those ideas and begins immediately to miss the innocent years that preceded the changes. That "bittersweet" view always passes for honesty when actually it is anything but honest.
About a half hour into this film, I lost all interest in the participants (and the performers are excellent examples of Hollywood acting) and just watched how Welles went from here to there and tossing establishing moods and setting up scenes. There are few directors that can create a scene as well as Welles and the problem that I have with many of his later films is that they become a collection of scenes with no sense of being a movie as in "Othello," "The Trial" "The Lady from Shanghai," "Touch of Evil" and numerous others.
What results in this film is that you have a middling and predictable story produced far better than it deserves and while you can appreciate the technical expertise of Welles and the acting ability of the cast, the overall effect really isn't satisfying -- and I don't mean the tacked on ending -- in any real way. There's something false about the intent of the film in that it needs to show how the past was still filled with jilted lovers and unrequited love. That, in a nutshell, is Hollywood and not many directors -- especially at the time -- could wiggle out from under that.
Cast and crew:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035015/
So much has been written and speculated about this film -- it being made by Orson Welles, it's almost mandatory that some mystique must be applied -- that I'm going to ignore all of that and just deal with the film. Undoubtedly, others will tell the sad tale and I find it interesting that almost all stories about Orson Welles are sad.
Anyway, this is a saga drenched in Americana and wrapped in nostalgia and almost every frame is as composed as a painting and it may very well be Orson Welles' most consistently and technically satisfying film. The cinematography is by Stanley Cortez who also shot "Night of the Hunter" and "The Naked Kiss" making him a favorite for his creative adaptability. In this film, the studio doubling for the great outdoors seems to work since it is a tale being related (the narrator is Orson Welles) and not one being acted out with any sense of realism.
One could see the attraction for this film as the US entered the war as it glorifies the American psyche that creates with Yankee ingenuity as it, at the same time, resists those ideas and begins immediately to miss the innocent years that preceded the changes. That "bittersweet" view always passes for honesty when actually it is anything but honest.
About a half hour into this film, I lost all interest in the participants (and the performers are excellent examples of Hollywood acting) and just watched how Welles went from here to there and tossing establishing moods and setting up scenes. There are few directors that can create a scene as well as Welles and the problem that I have with many of his later films is that they become a collection of scenes with no sense of being a movie as in "Othello," "The Trial" "The Lady from Shanghai," "Touch of Evil" and numerous others.
What results in this film is that you have a middling and predictable story produced far better than it deserves and while you can appreciate the technical expertise of Welles and the acting ability of the cast, the overall effect really isn't satisfying -- and I don't mean the tacked on ending -- in any real way. There's something false about the intent of the film in that it needs to show how the past was still filled with jilted lovers and unrequited love. That, in a nutshell, is Hollywood and not many directors -- especially at the time -- could wiggle out from under that.
Cast and crew:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035015/
tomcervo
Aug 6, 2012, 12:25:49 AM8/6/12
to
> So much has been written and speculated about this film . . .
Yet it's unavailable in any modern accessible format aside from the
barebones DVD tossed into the "Kane" anniversary set. The Criterion
Laserdisk includes a very fine transfer with Robert Carringer's
commentary, well as a mass of documentary material--Welles' screenplay
and correspondence, stills, the storyboard images and the magazine
illustrations from the novel's serialization--and interviews with
Welles, and the fragments of the silent film adaptation. For some
reason Criterion is sitting on the transfer to DVD/BluRay.
The nostalgia is not as deep as it seems to us. The story proper
begins with the last ball in 1904 and ends in 1912. Tarkington's 1918
novel looks back a mere decade. The novel was a bit over 20 years old
when Welles adopted it for radio; the film itself looks back to 30
years ago. It's as if someone today adopted a popular, prize-winning
novel from 1990 that was set in the late 70's.
Yet it's unavailable in any modern accessible format aside from the
barebones DVD tossed into the "Kane" anniversary set. The Criterion
Laserdisk includes a very fine transfer with Robert Carringer's
commentary, well as a mass of documentary material--Welles' screenplay
and correspondence, stills, the storyboard images and the magazine
illustrations from the novel's serialization--and interviews with
Welles, and the fragments of the silent film adaptation. For some
reason Criterion is sitting on the transfer to DVD/BluRay.
The nostalgia is not as deep as it seems to us. The story proper
begins with the last ball in 1904 and ends in 1912. Tarkington's 1918
novel looks back a mere decade. The novel was a bit over 20 years old
when Welles adopted it for radio; the film itself looks back to 30
years ago. It's as if someone today adopted a popular, prize-winning
novel from 1990 that was set in the late 70's.
William
Aug 6, 2012, 7:28:51 AM8/6/12
to
On Monday, August 6, 2012 12:25:49 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>
> Yet it's unavailable in any modern accessible format aside from the
> barebones DVD tossed into the "Kane" anniversary set.
I got it from the library on a WB DVD. Don't know if that's what you mean. As for nostalgia, I meant the sense of it rather than the number of years. It comes across pretty think to me.
>
> Yet it's unavailable in any modern accessible format aside from the
> barebones DVD tossed into the "Kane" anniversary set.
tomcervo
Aug 6, 2012, 8:53:59 AM8/6/12
to
Criterion commentary is extensive and at the time (1986) definitive.
It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
attempts at censorship.
William
Aug 6, 2012, 9:16:03 AM8/6/12
to
On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>
> It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
> Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
> other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
> something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
> difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
> attempts at censorship.
As you know only too well, I am not a fan of Orson Welles and the mystique surrounding him. Even so, I disagree about The Archers, or Ford creating "something like this." What makes this film work is the technique and the acting style and I just don't see that coming from Ford. The Archers would go too sentimental and lose the nostalgic effect that the film demands. Renoir would do it differently and he would find a way to make it work. Since the story -- that exists in the film at the moment -- isn't really a riveting one, the sense of place and how it's portrayed is the power of the film. Welles did an excellent job and that a piece of junk like "The Lady From Shanghai" is seen more often than this film astounds me.
>
> It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
> Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
> other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
> something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
> difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
> attempts at censorship.
tomcervo
Aug 6, 2012, 10:00:57 AM8/6/12
to
On Aug 6, 9:16 am, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>
> > It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
> > Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
> > other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
> > something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
> > difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
> > attempts at censorship.
>
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>
> > It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
> > Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
> > other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
> > something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
> > difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
> > attempts at censorship.
>
>Welles did an excellent job and that a piece of junk like "The Lady From Shanghai" is seen more often than this film astounds me.
Like I said, the lack of a dedicated DVD of this astounds ME. Even the
most "mystique"-addled Welles fan considers it a masterpiece. It's not
just the lack of a DVD, but the lack of hype involving such a release
makes it obscure.
Bill Anderson
Aug 6, 2012, 1:13:21 PM8/6/12
to
much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of the
people in Ambersons. The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King Lear
either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves around one
person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune out.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
William
Aug 6, 2012, 2:12:19 PM8/6/12
to
On Monday, August 6, 2012 1:13:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
> much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of the
> people in Ambersons. The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
> ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
> own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King Lear
> either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves around one
> person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune out.
>
Have you ever seen Max Ophuls' "The Earrings of Madame De . . ."? It's a lush and beautifully shot production of a story that I lose interest in after 15 minutes. Classic cinematography. Stunning at times and yet . . . what was it about?
>
> Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
> much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of the
> people in Ambersons. The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
> ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
> own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King Lear
> either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves around one
> person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune out.
>
Bill Anderson
Aug 6, 2012, 2:26:54 PM8/6/12
to
Message has been deleted
blutarsky
Aug 6, 2012, 5:38:56 PM8/6/12
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in
news:slrnk20b6l....@mbp55.local:
> In message <kqadne5Qre-uZoLN...@giganews.com>
>
> Oh, wait.
>
>
he didn't say it didn't. merely that he tends not to care for stories
about people like that. (sorry for jumping in.)
blutarsky
--
I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.
news:slrnk20b6l....@mbp55.local:
> In message <kqadne5Qre-uZoLN...@giganews.com>
> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 8/6/2012 10:00 AM, tomcervo wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 9:16 am, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
>>>>> Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The
>>>>> only other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of
>>>>> creating something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all
>>>>> of whom had difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with
>>>>> actual government attempts at censorship.
>>>>
>>>> Welles did an excellent job and that a piece of junk like "The Lady
>>>> From Shanghai" is seen more often than this film astounds me.
>>>
>>> Like I said, the lack of a dedicated DVD of this astounds ME. Even
>>> the most "mystique"-addled Welles fan considers it a masterpiece.
>>> It's not just the lack of a DVD, but the lack of hype involving such
>>> a release makes it obscure.
>>>
>
>>Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
>>much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of
>>the people in Ambersons.
>
> Wat gave you the impression you were supposed to *like* them?
>> On 8/6/2012 10:00 AM, tomcervo wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 9:16 am, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
>>>>> Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The
>>>>> only other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of
>>>>> creating something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all
>>>>> of whom had difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with
>>>>> actual government attempts at censorship.
>>>>
>>>> Welles did an excellent job and that a piece of junk like "The Lady
>>>> From Shanghai" is seen more often than this film astounds me.
>>>
>>> Like I said, the lack of a dedicated DVD of this astounds ME. Even
>>> the most "mystique"-addled Welles fan considers it a masterpiece.
>>> It's not just the lack of a DVD, but the lack of hype involving such
>>> a release makes it obscure.
>>>
>
>>Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
>>much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of
>>the people in Ambersons.
>
>
>> The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
>> ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including
>> his own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King
>> Lear either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves
>> around one person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune
>> out.
>
> Right, because that sort of thing never happens in real life.
>> The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
>> ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including
>> his own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King
>> Lear either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves
>> around one person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune
>> out.
>
>
> Oh, wait.
>
>
he didn't say it didn't. merely that he tends not to care for stories
about people like that. (sorry for jumping in.)
blutarsky
--
I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.
Bill Anderson
Aug 6, 2012, 5:49:42 PM8/6/12
to
On 8/6/2012 4:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <kqadne5Qre-uZoLN...@giganews.com>
> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <kqadne5Qre-uZoLN...@giganews.com>
> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 8/6/2012 10:00 AM, tomcervo wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 9:16 am, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
>>>>> Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
>>>>> other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
>>>>> something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
>>>>> difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
>>>>> attempts at censorship.
>>>>
>>>> Welles did an excellent job and that a piece of junk like "The Lady From Shanghai" is seen more often than this film astounds me.
>>>
>>> Like I said, the lack of a dedicated DVD of this astounds ME. Even the
>>> most "mystique"-addled Welles fan considers it a masterpiece. It's not
>>> just the lack of a DVD, but the lack of hype involving such a release
>>> makes it obscure.
>>>
>
>> Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
>> much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of
>> the people in Ambersons.
>
>>> On Aug 6, 9:16 am, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:53:59 AM UTC-4, tomcervo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It may be Hollywood, but Hollywood-- in the form of David O.
>>>>> Selznick-- urged RKO to deposit an original print with MoMA. The only
>>>>> other contemporary filmmakers I can think of capable of creating
>>>>> something like this are Ford, Renoir and The Archers, all of whom had
>>>>> difficulties--Ford with Zanuck; Renoir and P&P with actual government
>>>>> attempts at censorship.
>>>>
>>>> Welles did an excellent job and that a piece of junk like "The Lady From Shanghai" is seen more often than this film astounds me.
>>>
>>> Like I said, the lack of a dedicated DVD of this astounds ME. Even the
>>> most "mystique"-addled Welles fan considers it a masterpiece. It's not
>>> just the lack of a DVD, but the lack of hype involving such a release
>>> makes it obscure.
>>>
>
>> Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
>> much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of
>> the people in Ambersons.
>
> Wat gave you the impression you were supposed to *like* them?
>
>
>> The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
>> ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
>> own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King Lear
>> either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves around one
>> person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune out.
>
>> ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
>> own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid. I don't like King Lear
>> either, for much the same reason. When the story revolves around one
>> person's irrational, destructive idiocy I tend to tune out.
>
> Right, because that sort of thing never happens in real life.
>
> Oh, wait.
>
>
Wait indeed, as it's a movie -- not real life -- and as such its
>
> Oh, wait.
>
>
deliberately constructed plot may or may not entertain me. This one
doesn't entertain me for the reason I stated. It entertains you?
Excellent. You think it should entertain me? Not gonna happen. There
are plenty of other movies out there.
Message has been deleted
Bill Anderson
Aug 6, 2012, 6:44:54 PM8/6/12
to
On 8/6/2012 5:58 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <4sqdnZ5xRZBlpr3N...@giganews.com>
> work of art) on the likability of the characters.
Many of my friends loved "Seinfeld," watch reruns religiously, and are
amused when I tell them I can't watch it because I just don't like those
people.
"But you're not supposed to LIKE them!"
At least I get that part.
> In message <4sqdnZ5xRZBlpr3N...@giganews.com>
> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Wait indeed, as it's a movie -- not real life -- and as such its
>> deliberately constructed plot may or may not entertain me. This one
>> doesn't entertain me for the reason I stated. It entertains you?
>> Excellent. You think it should entertain me? Not gonna happen. There
>> are plenty of other movies out there.
>
> It seems very odd to me to base one's appreciation of a movie (or any
>
>> Wait indeed, as it's a movie -- not real life -- and as such its
>> deliberately constructed plot may or may not entertain me. This one
>> doesn't entertain me for the reason I stated. It entertains you?
>> Excellent. You think it should entertain me? Not gonna happen. There
>> are plenty of other movies out there.
>
> work of art) on the likability of the characters.
Many of my friends loved "Seinfeld," watch reruns religiously, and are
amused when I tell them I can't watch it because I just don't like those
people.
"But you're not supposed to LIKE them!"
At least I get that part.
moviePig
Aug 6, 2012, 7:14:37 PM8/6/12
to
On Aug 6, 6:44 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 5:58 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
> > In message <4sqdnZ5xRZBlpr3NnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@giganews.com>
> On 8/6/2012 5:58 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
> > Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wait indeed, as it's a movie -- not real life -- and as such its
> >> deliberately constructed plot may or may not entertain me. This one
> >> doesn't entertain me for the reason I stated. It entertains you?
> >> Excellent. You think it should entertain me? Not gonna happen. There
> >> are plenty of other movies out there.
>
> > It seems very odd to me to base one's appreciation of a movie (or any
> > work of art) on the likability of the characters.
>
> Many of my friends loved "Seinfeld," watch reruns religiously, and are
> amused when I tell them I can't watch it because I just don't like those
> people.
>
> "But you're not supposed to LIKE them!"
>
> At least I get that part.
People who don't like 'Seinfeld' *appear* on 'Seinfeld'...
>
> >> Wait indeed, as it's a movie -- not real life -- and as such its
> >> deliberately constructed plot may or may not entertain me. This one
> >> doesn't entertain me for the reason I stated. It entertains you?
> >> Excellent. You think it should entertain me? Not gonna happen. There
> >> are plenty of other movies out there.
>
> > It seems very odd to me to base one's appreciation of a movie (or any
> > work of art) on the likability of the characters.
>
> Many of my friends loved "Seinfeld," watch reruns religiously, and are
> amused when I tell them I can't watch it because I just don't like those
> people.
>
> "But you're not supposed to LIKE them!"
>
> At least I get that part.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
tomcervo
Aug 6, 2012, 7:39:58 PM8/6/12
to
Bill Anderson
Aug 6, 2012, 8:37:08 PM8/6/12
to
word. I mean there are plenty of movies filled with characters I don't
exactly like -- The Godfather films come to mind and the Sopranos on TV,
and more recently A BOTHERSOME MAN and ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA --
but those stories and their characters are fascinating. I guess my
complaint about Ambersons and Lear and Seinfeld, and probably others I
can't think of right now should be more that the characters turn me off
-- they annoy me so much that I can't feel engaged, I don't care what
happens to them.
Bill Anderson
Aug 6, 2012, 8:38:53 PM8/6/12
to
Message has been deleted
Howard Brazee
Aug 6, 2012, 9:57:11 PM8/6/12
to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:37:08 -0400, Bill Anderson
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One more and I'll let this go. I think "like" is probably not the right
>word. I mean there are plenty of movies filled with characters I don't
>exactly like -- The Godfather films come to mind and the Sopranos on TV,
>and more recently A BOTHERSOME MAN and ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA --
>but those stories and their characters are fascinating. I guess my
>complaint about Ambersons and Lear and Seinfeld, and probably others I
>can't think of right now should be more that the characters turn me off
>-- they annoy me so much that I can't feel engaged, I don't care what
>happens to them.
But you've got to *care* about them. Dorothy J. Heydt's "Eight
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One more and I'll let this go. I think "like" is probably not the right
>word. I mean there are plenty of movies filled with characters I don't
>exactly like -- The Godfather films come to mind and the Sopranos on TV,
>and more recently A BOTHERSOME MAN and ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA --
>but those stories and their characters are fascinating. I guess my
>complaint about Ambersons and Lear and Seinfeld, and probably others I
>can't think of right now should be more that the characters turn me off
>-- they annoy me so much that I can't feel engaged, I don't care what
>happens to them.
Deadly Words" come into play otherwise.
With me, I skip movies where the guys we're supposed to like are
idiots.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
David O.
Aug 7, 2012, 2:45:12 AM8/7/12
to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:13:21 -0400, Bill Anderson
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
>much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of the
>people in Ambersons. The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
>ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
>own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid.
I have a theory that it's a powerful, melodramatic illustration of
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Technically it's pretty much the equal of Kane, but I've never cared
>much for Ambersons. More specifically, I don't care for the some of the
>people in Ambersons. The young man who takes his mother to Europe and
>ruins her chances for happiness along with several others' including his
>own is just unbelievably, unforgivably stupid.
themes from Thorstein Veblen's THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS.
A few of my feminist friends from grad school also saw it as a
critique of the patriarchy: George delimits his mother's value by
preventing her (in essence) from pro-creating, just as his father and
uncle delimited his aunt Fanny's value.
AMBERSONS is the supreme filmic treatment of turn-of-the-century
industrialization in America, and succeeds in glamorizing automobiles
and machinery as much as it glamorizes an earlier age. I'd love to see
the 1925 movie adapation of the novel (PAMPERED YOUTH).
tomcervo
Aug 7, 2012, 9:48:42 AM8/7/12
to
On Aug 7, 2:45 am, David O. <DavidCOber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:13:21 -0400, Bill Anderson
>
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:13:21 -0400, Bill Anderson
>
for the unintentional comedy--the ending is even worse than the one
RKO substituted. Morgan rescues Isabel from a house fire, and George
is reconciled to their marriage.
tomcervo
Aug 7, 2012, 9:50:02 AM8/7/12
to
On Aug 7, 2:45 am, David O. <DavidCOber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:13:21 -0400, Bill Anderson
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EyVFfZMRlw&feature=relmfu
gggg gggg
Mar 6, 2021, 12:50:25 AM3/6/21
to
gggg gggg
Mar 6, 2021, 12:52:18 AM3/6/21
to
gggg gggg
Mar 6, 2021, 1:06:21 AM3/6/21
to
Pampered Youth (1925)
gggg gggg
Mar 6, 2021, 12:38:39 PM3/6/21
to
> So much has been written and speculated about this film -- it being made by Orson Welles, it's almost mandatory that some mystique must be applied -- that I'm going to ignore all of that and just deal with the film. Undoubtedly, others will tell the sad tale and I find it interesting that almost all stories about Orson Welles are sad.
>
> Anyway, this is a saga drenched in Americana and wrapped in nostalgia and almost every frame is as composed as a painting and it may very well be Orson Welles' most consistently and technically satisfying film. The cinematography is by Stanley Cortez who also shot "Night of the Hunter" and "The Naked Kiss" making him a favorite for his creative adaptability. In this film, the studio doubling for the great outdoors seems to work since it is a tale being related (the narrator is Orson Welles) and not one being acted out with any sense of realism.
>
> One could see the attraction for this film as the US entered the war as it glorifies the American psyche that creates with Yankee ingenuity as it, at the same time, resists those ideas and begins immediately to miss the innocent years that preceded the changes. That "bittersweet" view always passes for honesty when actually it is anything but honest.
>
> About a half hour into this film, I lost all interest in the participants (and the performers are excellent examples of Hollywood acting) and just watched how Welles went from here to there and tossing establishing moods and setting up scenes. There are few directors that can create a scene as well as Welles and the problem that I have with many of his later films is that they become a collection of scenes with no sense of being a movie as in "Othello," "The Trial" "The Lady from Shanghai," "Touch of Evil" and numerous others.
>
> What results in this film is that you have a middling and predictable story produced far better than it deserves and while you can appreciate the technical expertise of Welles and the acting ability of the cast, the overall effect really isn't satisfying -- and I don't mean the tacked on ending -- in any real way. There's something false about the intent of the film in that it needs to show how the past was still filled with jilted lovers and unrequited love. That, in a nutshell, is Hollywood and not many directors -- especially at the time -- could wiggle out from under that.
>
>
> Cast and crew:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035015/
Review of 2002 tv remake:
https://variety.com/2002/tv/reviews/the-magnificent-ambersons-2-1200551988/
>
> Anyway, this is a saga drenched in Americana and wrapped in nostalgia and almost every frame is as composed as a painting and it may very well be Orson Welles' most consistently and technically satisfying film. The cinematography is by Stanley Cortez who also shot "Night of the Hunter" and "The Naked Kiss" making him a favorite for his creative adaptability. In this film, the studio doubling for the great outdoors seems to work since it is a tale being related (the narrator is Orson Welles) and not one being acted out with any sense of realism.
>
> One could see the attraction for this film as the US entered the war as it glorifies the American psyche that creates with Yankee ingenuity as it, at the same time, resists those ideas and begins immediately to miss the innocent years that preceded the changes. That "bittersweet" view always passes for honesty when actually it is anything but honest.
>
> About a half hour into this film, I lost all interest in the participants (and the performers are excellent examples of Hollywood acting) and just watched how Welles went from here to there and tossing establishing moods and setting up scenes. There are few directors that can create a scene as well as Welles and the problem that I have with many of his later films is that they become a collection of scenes with no sense of being a movie as in "Othello," "The Trial" "The Lady from Shanghai," "Touch of Evil" and numerous others.
>
> What results in this film is that you have a middling and predictable story produced far better than it deserves and while you can appreciate the technical expertise of Welles and the acting ability of the cast, the overall effect really isn't satisfying -- and I don't mean the tacked on ending -- in any real way. There's something false about the intent of the film in that it needs to show how the past was still filled with jilted lovers and unrequited love. That, in a nutshell, is Hollywood and not many directors -- especially at the time -- could wiggle out from under that.
>
>
> Cast and crew:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035015/
Review of 2002 tv remake:
https://variety.com/2002/tv/reviews/the-magnificent-ambersons-2-1200551988/
gggg gggg
Mar 31, 2021, 4:33:34 PM3/31/21
to
0 new messages