Der Glanz des Hauses Amberson

This is a wonderful film, one of great pathos and sensitivity. Orson Welles was drawn to Tarkington's novel because Tarkington had been a friend of Welles' father and Welles identified strongly with the story, seeing something of his own family's history there.

Whether it is better than Kane is a fun question for film clubs to debate (I did once but I don't now), but it is interesting to note that while Orson Welles was particularly bitter that RKO re-shot his ending to make it more appealing to audiences, if you read the novel you will see that it is the novel's ending that RKO tacked on. Welles' ending was of his own invention and would have given the film a completely different tone.

So it is ironic that Welles always seemed to claim that RKO had destroyed the integrity of the novel's story when they only preserved it, if rather poorly in execution.

In this part of his career, Welles was interested in a few things. Thankfully we don't need the completed project to at least see what they were. And the understanding of them is probably more important than experiencing a coherent survey, as this was.

He's interested in surrounding a narrative, in giving it to us from all sides. He does this in narrative styles. In "Kane" he had narrators inside and outside the story, newsreels, newspapers, mysterious unfoldings, anticipated long events, and anticipated short ones.

He does it in the eye as well, having the camera surround and probe. And he plays these two off of each other, creating one sort of rhythm in the eye, another in the shifts of narrative, yet more in the physical movements on screen and finally in the emotional tides. Each of these is innovative, but together they become metacharacters in a sort of cinematic jazz. Oddly, the metaphor doesn't include the score itself for Welles, the one thing that has become a common skill today.

Now if we had the whole project, we'd get all the variations and pace in his jazz composition. As it is now, all we get are phrases, some broken a bit.

Just settle on one that you suppose hasn't been tampered with, say the sleigh/car encounter in the snow and revel in that for a few viewings, one after the other. It is absolutely amazing what interplay these elements have. And in this case we really do have some music: the players singing.

I suggest you play it again and again until you get it. Believe me, it will change your life when you can see this mind dance.

I would rather have the pieces because they have such a perfect logic and dance, you can imagine the rest. It baffles me that some people think Welles just innovated in camera angles and lighting. No, he created a whole higher level of drama.

Van Gogh painted a starry sky. It is, in effect two paintings in one. We have the beauty of the sky. And we have the beauty of the dabs and strokes of paint on the canvas, a sort of metapainting. The two dance around each other in a way that is magical. Welles did the same here and in "Kane." Afterward, he busted other walls.

Oh, and within the story, he uses automobiles as a metaphor to muse on the effect of this new metadrama compared to his home in the simpler theater. He wonders if we will be better off once what he does catches on.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

With an excellent cast, interesting characters and setting, and a thought-provoking story, dramatic cinema does not get much better than "The Magnificent Ambersons". No one will ever know what it would have been like if Orson Welles' original version had been allowed to stand as it was, but what is left is still extremely good despite the missing portions.

The story of the leading residents in a turn-of-the-century town combines some interesting themes. The snobbishness of the Ambersons, and its effects on their lives and others' lives, is illustrated alongside the ways that increasing industrialization is changing everyone's lives. The period setting is also quite interesting in its own right, and very nicely done. The characters are all convincing and well-defined, and are matched nicely with fine performers who bring them to life convincingly. Welles regulars Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead are especially good.

The only real disappointment in the movie is that, due to all the cuts made against Welles' wishes, there are times when it is obvious that a scene or information is missing, since characters at times refer to events that are not quite familiar to the audience. It is fortunate that the acting and writing are good enough to help us fill in the blanks to some degree, but it is really too bad that we can never see the whole picture.

As it stands, this is a fine film filled with good scenes and memorable characters, and a movie that will be much appreciated by fans of classic cinema.

If you think Citizen Kane is wonderful, then, if you haven't already seen it, find a copy of "Ambersons" as soon as you can. To me, "Ambersons" surpasses "Kane" in complexity and perhaps richness of characters. The story of the long-term results of love deferred, unrequited love, and long-suffering love, are even more interesting with Welles' direction using overlaid dialogue and odd camera angles. My favorite part is when old Major Amberson speaks to the camera and it becomes apparent he's lost his mind. Chilling. The Ambersons captures a time more than a century ago in America when passions were suppressed and civility masked a boiling interior. This film was edited severely, I've read. This is another mystery, because the remaining footage is superb. We can only wonder what the original "Ambersons" might have been.

In many way this is a more brillant film than Kane. Kane was technically advanced, but somewhat distant. This is a much more intimate story. The romance between Eugene and Isabele is one of the most wonderful tales of unrequinted love ever put on film. I especially love the opening sequence which introduces us to the life -styles and habits of the Ambersons. I like the way Wells dwells on their array of evening wear, summer wear etc... He creates a great sense of calmness in a timeless era.

Agnes Moorehead is incredible in the role of Fanny. She has to scream for attension every time, like her character in the film. Tim Holt is great as a young Orson Wells (who was still young at the time). This spoilt brat was I'm sure very similar to Wells, or so he'd have us believe.

Obivously we all know what happened to the final cut. It was, and probably still is the greatest crime in cinema history. Its like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. At the end of this version when Eugene and Fanny are walking off into the sunset, and Eugene looks down at Fanny and says that he was "true to his own dear love" (meaning Fanny), its so absurd. Its the worst tacked-on ending I've ever seen. Eugene was never in love with Fanny, it was always Isabele, but Fanny loved Eugene. Hollywood made a joke of it. The Amberson family had finally got their comeuppance only for hollywood to decide it was too grim, and put on an ending that looked like ot came from another movie.

Initally it was such a piece of genius from Wells to film a story about the downfall of a family rather than their or rise to power, to tell the story in reverse.

Its so sad that we can never see the real version. I really feel that we are missing out on what could have been the greatest film ever made.