The story of the destruction of Orson Welles' second "Mercury" film THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is pretty well described in these remarks on this thread. Although it is extremely doubtful (as doubtful as ever finding traces of the missing holy grail) I too wish that a longer version that was similar to Welles' vision did turn up. But if it did, I wonder if we would end up siding with the powers that be at RKO or with Welles.
About three or four years back a television version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was made on cable television, which contained far more of the novel than the deconstructed Welles' film currently does. The critics were not too happy with it. They found it too long, and they seemed to stress the need for cutting it to a shorter length. My guess is that Welles would have had to cut the film too, though not as much as only 88 or so minutes. KANE had been 119 minutes long (only one scene - in a brothel - was cut). That was a pretty long film for 1941. My guess is that a 120 odd minute AMBERSONS would have been too long too.
But of course, Welles would have been in a position to judge what cuts would not destroy the film, and what cuts would. He did not like the cuts that reduced the Ambersons ball sequence (a seemingly meaningless passage about olives). Was that really such an important passage? More important is how the role of Wilbur Minafer was reduced, as were passages concerning poor investment recommendations to Wilbur, Fanny, and Jack were cut (one would have thought they were important).
Was it done as part of a plan to make the movie salvageable, or to destroy Welles' bank-ability in Hollywood? One suspects the latter. KANE made a small profit, but was no blockbuster. The powers that be in Hollywood saw Welles as a threat to their system of control, as his style of contract made him both director and producer. It was not just the attack on Hearst in the first film, but a general assault on the studio system that brought the Hollywood honchos down on Welles' head.
It is interesting to note the degree of defensiveness that has crept up in the years since Welles' death in 1985 regarding the fate of his various projects in Hollywood. Robert Wise, who edited AMBERSONS, came out with a statement that he did not think the present film was so terrible, as it is considered a classic. Wise was assigned to finish the film with new scenes he and others directed, and to cut the Welles' material. It was in Wise's interest to deflect any negative views about the butchering of the film for the sake of his own reputation (and it is interesting that in the years after he made that comment, Wise was given an Oscar for his life's contributions to movies - he gave some good ones, but he helped to destroy one great one).
I think that if AMBERSONS had been a comedy Welles would not have had the same problem. Instead, it was a bitter tragedy, for Welles did not end the film version he shot with George being united to Lucy with Eugene's blessing. Lucy rejected the impoverished, crippled George at the end of Welles' version, and Eugene visited Fanny in a boarding house where she was reduced to being a cook. Hardly optimistic fare in World War II America, and all the studios wanted optimism then. Another reason to change the film to the idiotic conclusion we have today. Interestingly the recent television remake follows the novel - Lucy unites with the unrepentant, still arrogant George, while Eugene has to accept this. Even that would not have been acceptable to the studios in 1942.
About three or four years back a television version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was made on cable television, which contained far more of the novel than the deconstructed Welles' film currently does. The critics were not too happy with it. They found it too long, and they seemed to stress the need for cutting it to a shorter length. My guess is that Welles would have had to cut the film too, though not as much as only 88 or so minutes. KANE had been 119 minutes long (only one scene - in a brothel - was cut). That was a pretty long film for 1941. My guess is that a 120 odd minute AMBERSONS would have been too long too.
But of course, Welles would have been in a position to judge what cuts would not destroy the film, and what cuts would. He did not like the cuts that reduced the Ambersons ball sequence (a seemingly meaningless passage about olives). Was that really such an important passage? More important is how the role of Wilbur Minafer was reduced, as were passages concerning poor investment recommendations to Wilbur, Fanny, and Jack were cut (one would have thought they were important).
Was it done as part of a plan to make the movie salvageable, or to destroy Welles' bank-ability in Hollywood? One suspects the latter. KANE made a small profit, but was no blockbuster. The powers that be in Hollywood saw Welles as a threat to their system of control, as his style of contract made him both director and producer. It was not just the attack on Hearst in the first film, but a general assault on the studio system that brought the Hollywood honchos down on Welles' head.
It is interesting to note the degree of defensiveness that has crept up in the years since Welles' death in 1985 regarding the fate of his various projects in Hollywood. Robert Wise, who edited AMBERSONS, came out with a statement that he did not think the present film was so terrible, as it is considered a classic. Wise was assigned to finish the film with new scenes he and others directed, and to cut the Welles' material. It was in Wise's interest to deflect any negative views about the butchering of the film for the sake of his own reputation (and it is interesting that in the years after he made that comment, Wise was given an Oscar for his life's contributions to movies - he gave some good ones, but he helped to destroy one great one).
I think that if AMBERSONS had been a comedy Welles would not have had the same problem. Instead, it was a bitter tragedy, for Welles did not end the film version he shot with George being united to Lucy with Eugene's blessing. Lucy rejected the impoverished, crippled George at the end of Welles' version, and Eugene visited Fanny in a boarding house where she was reduced to being a cook. Hardly optimistic fare in World War II America, and all the studios wanted optimism then. Another reason to change the film to the idiotic conclusion we have today. Interestingly the recent television remake follows the novel - Lucy unites with the unrepentant, still arrogant George, while Eugene has to accept this. Even that would not have been acceptable to the studios in 1942.