The Magnificent Ambersons
Whatever is wrong about the film (oh God, that hospital ending, what in the world) can probably be attributed to the evil editors who cut the film. But similar to Stroheim pictures, in this case you have to take a guess at what the film could have been. I read somewhere that the ball scene was supposed to be a single long take going through the floor and showing many people conversing with each other on every floor. I imagine that it would have been quite marvelous. But no, of course we did not get to see that.
Maybe I watched Citizen Kane when I was too young, but I strongly doubt it. I consider it very likely that the Ambersons are the better film, the Buddenbrooks of film, so to say. The slow decline of the family cannot wholly be attributed to George’s malicious character, more than anything else, the times just called for families whose offspring did not amount to anything useful to go down. Even if they were capable of something and worked hard, the glory of past times are over for many of these families, and I have a personal weakness for such stories. Even “Downton Abbey” could be construed as such, where all daughters ultimately got a worse match than they should have by pre-WWI standards (Matthew was originally of “lower social standing”, Edith has no dude yet, and Sybil ended up marrying some commoner). But there are much better examples than “Buddenbrooks” and “Downton Abbey”, and while most of them take place around WWI or between the wars, it is surprisingly contemporary. After decades of prosperity, our generation has a good chance of losing the privilege our parents had – that hard work would turn into a good job, good earnings and a better life. Like George, we might also soon walk around a city which has changed into something we don’t understand anymore. But in our case, it might be less tangible than the belated industrial revolution in the US.
Is it strange that I really disliked Lucy? She was also the only character who I actually disliked, I even had sympathies for old Fanny whose crazy psychotic scene was quite great. But Lucy just appeared so surprisingly dumb? Sure, she did a good job by ultimately rejecting George, but we all know that Anne Baxter can do better (Eve!) and bring much more into her role.
Apart from the “great family gets ruined” concept, the film was mostly very good drama. Angsty, love-filled, juicy drama. On top of that, the film was also ridiculously good-looking and quite funny at times. Unlike Citizen Kane, I was certainly never bored by this film, not even for a single moment. Gorp was perfectly right telling us that we should watch this film. You should too!
i don’t know but I always thought anne baxter serves the role perfectly well. she is like a cold and sleek wall on which george cannot find any footing one way or other, and welles captures her absolute disinterest -or yeah, her “dumbness” – in the most gut-wrenching a way against the steady decline of george and the world he represents. i feel for that purpose she is the perfect actress, with that necessary deer-in-the-headlights quality which is masking something much more ruthless?
oh, and i believe this is the absolute pinnacle of welles’ cinema, all the editorial mutilation notwithstanding!
and can we talk about that incredible, beautiful beginning of the film? it’s like THE great nostalgic/haunted-memory scene in american movies (which i love as much as the sledding scene in Citizen Kane). my preference for both films varies on a daily basis, i realized.
Strangely enough, I never really perceived Anne Baxter as cold through the movie – I mean come on, what else can you do with an idiot like Georgie? :D George is, of course, the movie’s best character, and I find him to be much more realistic than Kane. Perhaps that is even one of the reasons why I prefer the Ambersons way over Kane. (And that is even though I loved the final scene of Citizen Kane, and there was nothing comparable to it in the Ambersons.)
I just wished they had kept the ball scene – it already showed so much potential :D