La splendeur des Amberson

I feel like I have to comment on this movie because of the rather indefensible comments of several reviewers. "The Magnificent Ambersons" is one of the great American tragedies; and its translation to the screen still remains a tragedy. I thought this A&E version was a lovely attempt although as Madeleine Stowe reportedly said before the production aired, they still didn't do it justice. If my understanding is correct, they were working from Orson Welles' original script which he was not allowed to bring to the screen in 1942. The tragedy of this production is that it is never quite as great as that flawed 1942 version, and so the informed viewer is left wondering what it would have been like to see Agnes Moorehead and Joseph Cotten play the final tragic scenes instead of Jennifer Tilly and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. I didn't think either Tilly or Meyers were particularly perfect for the parts; but they were neither as bad as many reviewers make them out to be nor as great as I remember Moorehead and Cotten to have been. So watch both screen versions, combine the two in your head, and you'll have one of the greatest movies never made.

Of course, even watching the Wells' version was like watching a completely different story than the actual Tarkington novel. The novel is so full of subtlety and nuance (and narration) that I suppose it would be hard for any film to capture it. But this TV flick seems to have been bourne out of some sort of bizarre class called Freud 101. A protective son, yes, but incestuous overtones??? By the way, where is the Midwest? It may have been an affluent family, but early-20th century Indianapolis bore no resemblance to this. Misty moors? Grand hilltop vistas? It's the Midwest for crying out loud! There were wooded estates then as now, but the book is rather specific in describing very public homes that were not removed from the peering eyes of the masses. It was kind of a main point.

Now, if one were to simply avoid comparison with the book, I suppose it could have worked rather nicely as a Lifetime/Harlequin movie. The settings, scenes, and costumes were all rather pleasant in an escapist way.

This version of The Magnificent Ambersons certainly has a lot going for it with wonderful sets and cinematography. Color also gives I think a picture of Booth Tarkington's Indiana during the Theodore Roosevelt years. I agree with another reviewer that the celebrated version done by Orson Welles has a more Gothic look to it.

Whatever Orson Welles did had to have his personal imprimatur on it and this one does not have that individual stamp of anybody in terms of the performances of the players. The story does stick pretty well to the one Welles gave us 71 years ago.

Before The Magnificent Ambersons is anything else it's a Hoosier romance. Back when Indiana was in its frontier days the Ambersons were the local Cartwrights with a Ponderosa like estate. James Cromwell the current patriarch is like Ben Cartwright if you can imagine Lorne Greene aged and infirm.

But instead of useful sons, the family line has watered down to Jonathan Rhys-Davies an arrogant twit of a grandson who expects to live the life of leisure and deal with 'riff-raff' as little as possible. A job, a profession, heaven forbid.

Into the lives of the Ambersons comes Bruce Greenwood who has some history with Madeline Stowe, Rhys-Davies mother. So the young man develops an intense dislike for Greenwood who is a self made man who has invented his version of the horseless carriage and making good money at it.

As in the Welles version the story of the one way antagonism of Rhys-Davies to Greenwood is the story. This version does not have the stamp of an auteur like Orson Welles, but I think this one has its own merits.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Make no mistake, there is much to like in this remake of the classic Booth Tarkington story of the rise and fall of a powerful turn-of-the-last-century mid-western family and Orson Welles' classic film thereof. The scenery is some of the most beautiful seen in a made-for-TV film. The camera-work, in general, is outstanding. And there are some fine performances. Madeleine Stowe and Bruce Greenwood convey believability as the two lovers reunited after so many years, Gretchen Mol makes a fetching Lucy Morgan, William Hootkins (That's Lieutenant Eckhardt for you "Batman" fans.), rivets your attention every step of the way with his bluff, hearty Uncle George, and James Cromwell brings his usual understated warmth to clan patriarch Major Amberson. And the overall production his the usual A&E understated glitz.

So much for the good.

Now, it's an old maxim in the entertainment world that, if you don't have a lead who generates even a little sympathy, the audience you hope to reach won't respond as hoped. In other words, they ain't gonna like your movie. And there's the rub: Jonathan Rhys-Myers not only overplays George Amberson to an almost comic degree, but plays him as such a spoiled, unsympathetic little creep that you almost want to give him a bust in the mouth on general principles. Nowhere, not even in the scenes of his supposed reformation, does he ever generate sympathy of any kind. In Welles' excellent 1942 film, Tim Holt played George Amberson as a rich brat, but he was, at least, a vaguely sympathetic rich brat. Now, granted, Holt wasn't much of an actor, but, at least, his understated approach was far better than Rhys-Meyers' overplaying. All that was missing from the latter's interpretation was a top hat, cape, and handlebar mustache. This is what Snidely Whiplash must have been like as a kid!

In other words, you could do worse that the 2002 "Magnificent Ambersons," but you could do much better, too.

Like renting the far superior 1942 original, for example, which does a better job in half the time.

Perhaps "Magnificent Ambersons" should have been left undisturbed in its first screen adaptation. A&E certainly does not have the integrity or vision of, say, HBO, to undertake the kind of "restorative" project this billed itself to be. Their invariably insensitive and consistently maladroit placement of commercial breaks during their "fine arts" programming alone merits eternal damnation. In this instance, in spite of all the hype, there was no reason to expect anything of worth from them. (Let's not forget that Pride and Prejudice wasn't really theirs).

Reading through the reviews posted I feel compelled to defend Jonathan Rhys-Myers as an actor. He is a very fine one, and has given many compelling performances, e.g., Gormenghast, Velvet Goldmine, Ride with the Devil, The Governess, etc. Much can be expected from him. Perhaps he needed a stronger guiding hand in Ambersons. Let us not forget that a task of the director is to ensure performances play off well within context..... there are dailies where certain things should leap as obvious. This does not invalidate JR-M's obviously controversial interpretation, but it does definitely place blame on the director for allowing incongruity of such high order.

Jonathan is a talented man. This movie is but a blip.