Der Glanz des Hauses Amberson

I think I'd give just about anything to see a restored version of this film, like "Touch of Evil."

Its reputation is quite justified, however, and the top critics of today have generally agreed that it's one of Welles' best efforts as director. Some have even said that, scene for scene, it's a better film than "Citizen Kane."

The opening montage, set to Welles' narration, is as good as anything of its kind that's been done before or after -- brilliantly, and I hate to use that word because it's so often overused, it achieves two things: 1) it sets up the dramatic side of the story, with Eugene's fawning for and losing the affections of Isabel, and 2) putting us in a specific, historical time and place. The story of George Minafer's downfall parallels the changing times of America during that time, as well as American aristocracy.

Then there's Agnes Moorehead, who does the most amazing work as Fanny Minafer, George's aunt. She's a pressure cooker to begin with, but when the Ambersons hit rock-bottom she lets go, in a torrential, hysterical performance that's still getting praise today.

"The Magnificent Ambersons" also carries an equally dramatic story of Hollywood's assault on artistic expression; almost everyone knows that RKO seized the film and cut it to pieces while Welles was out doing his documentary "It's All True." Today there's other ways for great directors (Kubrick, Altman) to dodge the system, but film stock and equipment in those days could only be procured from big studios, and for the remainder of Welles' career his genius would only be seen fleetingly (his adaptations of Shakespeare, Kafka's "The Trial"). It's a story as tragic as George Minafer's.

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.

This is a very good film, but certainly NOT as great as some of the hype would indicate. One IMDb reviewer went so far as to say it was "better than Kane (CITIZEN KANE)"! In fact, over the years a sort of "mystical" adoration of this film has arisen that is completely ridiculous and way out of proportion. In fact, Orson Welles HIMSELF said that the film we all know as THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was terribly edited and he disowned his film--so WHY all the hype?! Let's first review the history of the film. The ORIGINAL Orson Welles version of the film no longer exists--or at least no one has found it. When the original and significantly longer version of the film was previewed, the audiences found it depressing and too long--and possibly this was due to WWII just starting and people wanted a happy an uplifting film. So, when Welles wasn't looking, RKO reedited the film severely and gave it an upbeat ending!! So, if the film is only a bastardized version of the original, it just doesn't make sense to declare it a masterpiece as so many have done. In fact, when I watched it for the third time, I noticed many places where the film seemed to skip about and MANY times there was narration instead of action--as if they'd delete major scenes and then just describe what you missed in a few sentences! This is NOT great film making! So what do we have left? Well, the acting is exceptional throughout and there is often the trademark excellent Orson Welles black and white shadowy cinematography. The total package is pleasant enough, but way too sketchy and disjoint. Good, but certainly NOT great. If only someone would find the original film hiding somewhere in a vault!

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.

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.