The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

User Rating:

8.0/10   

Director:

Orson Welles

Writers:

Booth Tarkington (based on the novel by)
Orson Welles (script writer)

Release Date:

10 July 1942 (USA)

Genre:

Drama

Tagline:

From the Man who Made "The Best Picture of 1941"

Plot:

The spoiled young heir to the decaying Amberson fortune comes between his widowed mother and the man she has always loved.

Plot Keywords:

Spoiled Child | Marriage Proposal | Progress | Pulitzer Prize Source | Small Town

Awards:

Nominated for 4 Oscars. Another 2 wins

Cast

Joseph Cotten	...	Eugene
Dolores Costello	...	Isabel
Anne Baxter	...	Lucy
Tim Holt	...	George
Agnes Moorehead	...	Fanny
Ray Collins	...	Jack
Erskine Sanford	...	Roger Bronson
Richard Bennett	...	Major Amberson
Orson Welles	...	Narrator (voice)

Runtime:

88 min | 148 min (original cut) | 131 min (preview)

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Sound System)

Certification:

USA:TV-PG | South Korea:15 | USA:Approved (PCA #7800) | Argentina:13 | Chile:14 | Finland:S | Germany:12 | UK:U

Filming Locations:

Big Bear Lake, California, USA

Company:

Mercury Productions

Trivia:

Welles later described the 88 minute version as if "it had been edited by a lawnmower".

Goofs:

Crew or equipment visible: Towards end of long tracking shot with George and Lucy in horse-drawn carriage, portion of rear end of camera car and some sort of filmmaking equipment briefly enters left side of frame.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Narrator: The magnificence of the Ambersons began in 1873. Their splendor lasted throughout all the years that saw their midland town spread and darken into a city. In that town, in those days, all the women who wore silk or velvet knew all the other women who wore silk or velvet...

Movie Connections:

Referenced in Lianna (1983)

Soundtrack:

The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo

Irony in the ending

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.