The Magnificent Ambersons

Let's face it; Orson Welles's movie of The Magnificent Ambersons is a magnificent mess through no fault of its highly regarded director. Cut and edited to pieces by studio hacks (Robert Wise!!!) with the excised material now lost, the movie exists as a mere torso rather than a whole experience. So much is missing, that the movie is hard to follow unless you've read the book. The movie is certainly not what Welles wanted and it is unrepairable; a great tragedy in film history.

The new version on A&E may not have Welles's unique directorial ability or atmospheric lighting in black and white, but it does tell Tarkington's story coherently and on the whole, quite successfully. Director Alfonso Arau has purposely avoided the look of the Welles film, opting for a rich, epic color palette. The art direction is beautiful and you really get a flavor of turn of the century midwest American life.

Many reviewers have complained of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers performance of George. Frankly it is a brave and quite accurate portrayal. Tim Holt in the Welles film was hopelessly too mature looking to play Tarkington's headstrong brat. Georgie is not a very sympathetic character in the book and Rhys-Meyers studiously avoids turning him into the bland leading man that Welles allowed Holt to portray. Those that take issue with Rhys-Meyers don't know the book. He is the right age and certainly the right look for this difficult character. He is a dynamic actor that isn't afraid to be true to a character's inate nature. He's not easy to take at times, but Georgie isn't either!

Many have also criticized Jennifer Tilly's Fanny as not being the equal of Agnes Moorehead. Again, Tilly is closer to the book. Fanny is a hapless character which Tilly invests with a wonderful degree of humanity coupled with her unique brand of eccentricity. Moorehead had not not an ounce of charm and frankly was miscast. Madeleine Stowe, James Cromwell, and Bruce Greenwood are all excellent as are the supporting players.

Is this the ultimate version of this classic. Of course not. It is, however, a well made, BBC style television movie that is very true to Tarkington's novel and tells the story clearly, unapologetically and with some amount of panache. I give it an enthusiastic recommendation.

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.

I'd always heard that "The Magnificent Ambersons" was Orson Welles' masterpiece, but had never seen it until I got the two versions out of the public library. Now I'm even MORE curious about both the novel and Welles' screenplay. Welles' may have been ahead of his time cinematically, but the current version lacks bite largely because the storyline is outdated.

Lacking a narrative voice-over, the remake presents events and motivations more clearly through visuals and dialogue. I thought the new casting was near-perfect in terms of character types, and the settings were visually stunning. In th A&E version the viewer comes to mourn the loss of old- time aristocratic splendor, which in the Welles' version has a vaguely Gothic feel. Both versions, however, fail to absorb the viewer emotionally completely. Georgie definitely deserves a comeuppance, but neither version carries the full impact or allows the characters to grow to tragic stature.

Not having read the book, nor having viewed the original Welles version, I watched The Magnificent Ambersons based on it being a period piece. I was also slightly intrigued that it was supposed to be a remake of what is considered a Welles classic. I watched the movie and found it stood well on its own. I was surprised to find it aired in 2002, as it is avant garde in form and has a fresh creativity, and even a daring in its approach that I would expect only of more recent films. The assembled cast is brilliant: Bruce Greenwood is the upbeat, returned prodigal, accompanied by his equally winsome daughter Gretchen Mol; James Cromwell is the patriarch, and Madeline Stowe is the many layered woman torn between her old flame and her ever present love for her son, Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Jennifer Tilly as the spinster aunt adds to the ensemble quite nicely. This was at times painful to watch, since Rhys Meyers's character, George, is so absolutely obnoxious in his arrogance, but this is can be overlooked as George's behavior and personality is what makes the piece tick. Some have criticized Rhys Meyers, yet I found it a very convincing performance. As the uncle put it, "Georgy, I've always been fond of you, but I haven't always liked you." I couldn't stand George, yet there was something that almost made me root from him. A long movie, 150 minutes; however, good acting,creative filming, and a fascinating plot make it worthwhile viewing.