criterionforum.org

Should I confess that I actually like the Fleet’s In more than Ambersons too?

Roger Ryan wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:04 pm I believe the story is that David O. Selznick recommended RKO provide a copy of the initial edit* (and the 131 min. version was really more advanced than what we usually consider a "workprint" given it contained finished optical effects and a full score) to MoMA, but it's really just anecdotal. Standard studio policy at the time was to dispose of anything that wasn't the final, studio-approved version. Schaefer didn't have any special appreciation of the initial edit; he just wanted to start recouping the money invested as soon as possible, hoping to release it for Easter, 1942. Had the previews gone swimmingly, that's probably what would have happened, although it's unlikely the film would have done any better at the box office than it did.

It's more than the Selznick story, though. Schaefer really did issue something like a directive to save the longer version, which was ignored. From Wellesnet:

GEORGE SCHAEFER TO REGINALD ARMOUR:
June 16, 1942

I think it important, in the scheme of things that you save the extra negative and positive cuts that we made on The Magnificent Amberson. Some day someone may want to know what was done with the original picture Welles shot.

…It might be a good idea to put all cuts together and show him all the useless material he shot and the improvement that was made by the elimination.

Tom Amolad wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:51 am

Roger Ryan wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:04 pm I believe the story is that David O. Selznick recommended RKO provide a copy of the initial edit* (and the 131 min. version was really more advanced than what we usually consider a "workprint" given it contained finished optical effects and a full score) to MoMA, but it's really just anecdotal. Standard studio policy at the time was to dispose of anything that wasn't the final, studio-approved version. Schaefer didn't have any special appreciation of the initial edit; he just wanted to start recouping the money invested as soon as possible, hoping to release it for Easter, 1942. Had the previews gone swimmingly, that's probably what would have happened, although it's unlikely the film would have done any better at the box office than it did.

It's more than the Selznick story, though. Schaefer really did issue something like a directive to save the longer version, which was ignored. From Wellesnet:

GEORGE SCHAEFER TO REGINALD ARMOUR:
June 16, 1942

I think it important, in the scheme of things that you save the extra negative and positive cuts that we made on The Magnificent Amberson. Some day someone may want to know what was done with the original picture Welles shot.

…It might be a good idea to put all cuts together and show him all the useless material he shot and the improvement that was made by the elimination.

I agree that the first excerpted line implies that Schaefer thought it would be historically important to retain the original edits, but his dismissing of that footage as "useless material" doesn't exactly sound like he was committed to preserving Welles' version for artistic posterity - more that the footage could be used to demonstrate how the studio saved a hopelessly flawed and indulgent work from being a complete disaster.

I read that second part as appealing to the egos of the higher ups who were ultimately making the decisions. If it wasn't included, it might look entirely too sympathetic to the Welles cut? It feels a little Dale Carnegie

Yeah, it’s clearly at odds with itself is some important ways.

I’d be interested ti read the full memo and see what the ellipsis leaves out.

I don’t want to defend Schaefer, who undoubtedly could have done more to ensure that the cut material was preserved. (Not to mention that he could have not insisted on the cuts in the first place.) But it wasn’t common that a studio head would even contemplate preserving cuts like this. So this memo fills out the story in some interesting ways — and makes it a the more frustrating.

IIRC, sometime between Kane and Ambersons, Welles had his contract re-done so that he lost final cut, but wasn't there was also a lingering concern about potential trouble down the road and that preserving the "original" 131 minute cut was also brought up as an insurance policy? That is, if someone raised a stink about it, that would cover them?

hearthesilence wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 11:59 pm IIRC, sometime between Kane and Ambersons, Welles had his contract re-done so that he lost final cut, but wasn't there was also a lingering concern about potential trouble down the road and that preserving the "original" 131 minute cut was also brought up as an insurance policy? That is, if someone raised a stink about it, that would cover them?

The only legal concern that I recall regarding Ambersons and Welles' contract involved the point when the studio could take control of the re-editing. Questions were raised by RKO leadership following the initial previews and it was determined that the revised contract gave Welles control of the film through the first preview only; after that, the studio was free to re-edit the film as it saw fit. There was a legal matter regarding the It's All True footage which likely preserved that material (although, as an unfinished film and one with a lot of material that could be used as stock footage, what was shot for It's All True maintained more value than "outtakes" from Ambersons). Perhaps someone else will recall something more specific?

The one thing I recall was that the revised contract said that after the preview, Welles would be required to undertake edits as directed by the studio. The RKO lawyer opined to Schaefer that because Welles was out of the country and therefore unavailable (which I guess could be open to dispute), the studio had the right to simply do the edits themselves. Not that it made a huge difference — had he been there, they could have chosen the cuts and ordered him to make them, though in practice it might have worked out somewhat differently with him there.

Could someone remind me why exactly the contract had been renegotiated? I think I read it once but can’t immediately find the explanation.

Tom Amolad wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 1:37 pm ... Could someone remind me why exactly the contract had been renegotiated? I think I read it once but can’t immediately find the explanation.

It's a fairly confusing situation and I'll try for a short explanation: Welles's original contract with RKO (signed in August 1939 for three films, it's the one that granted him final cut) stipulated that his first film would need to start shooting by the beginning of January 1940. Given that Welles' choice for his first film (an adaptation of Heart of Darkness) fell through due to the inability to work out a budget that RKO would agree to, and the time it took to settle on a new project, Welles was already delinquent in his contractual obligations when he finally began shooting Citizen Kane close to a year after signing that first contract. In good faith, RKO kept amending the original contract to maintain Welles' privileges as Kane was looking like the big prestige picture that RKO wanted out of Welles. However, after the Hearst controversy delayed the release of Kane and it became apparent that the film would not be a huge box office success, RKO became hesitant to approve a follow-up project under that original contact. Supposedly, that original contract for another two films was tentatively still in play, but RKO insisted that Welles sign a new contract covering the production of Ambersons and Journey Into Fear. Welles did so without involving his long-time attorney L. Arnold Weissberger who was aghast that his client would sign without Weissberger attempting to negotiate better terms. Weissberger fully believed he would have been able to retain Welles' final cut status in the new contract had he been involved.

Thanks. That stinks.

So it’s a AI recreation? Neat, I guess, but I’m not really interested in seeing that.

Matt wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:28 pm So it’s a AI recreation? Neat, I guess, but I’m not really interested in seeing that.

Not exactly, no. It’s more like a very detailed animatic that uses voice actors

I’m surprised you got that from the article Matt? Brian has posted a few times here about his process and it’s definitely not AI related.

beamish14 wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:43 pm

Matt wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:28 pm So it’s a AI recreation? Neat, I guess, but I’m not really interested in seeing that.

Not exactly, no. It’s more like a very detailed animatic that uses voice actors

Here's a sample. For me it's more a novelty

Will he be using AI to maybe use the actual voices of the deceased actors?

The article didn’t specifically say “AI,” but I took the phrase “using the latest technology” to mean AI. Unless the guy is animating every frame by hand, it’s going to be computer-assisted, which will use algorithms and automation, which is essentially AI.

Sorry to say, after viewing that clip, I’m less interested. Cool for Welles superfans, but the movie as it is is the movie for me.

I didn't take "using the latest technology" to mean AI at all given the article says he's spent 4 years recreating 30,000 frames. That sounds quite a labour intensive endeavour.
Although an AI model trained on the film, Welles's script and notes and this reconstruction might yield something much closer to the original in time.

It’s a little silly to argue definitions of AI in this thread, but I’ll let Brian’s words from a Wellesnet interview speak for themselves:

“The biggest obstacle has involved Orson Welles’s narration. In many places his words compete with music inserted against his wishes. The most notorious example was the removal of Bernard Herrmann’s end credits theme. In its place, the studio used Roy Webb’s upbeat reprise of the Waldteufel theme that opens the film.

AI technology made it possible in almost every instance to separate the music. Audiences can hear Welles’s narration as intended. In a few instances, it was not possible to remove the music. This made new narration recordings necessary.”

I apologise and take back my assertion then that Brian’s process wasn’t AI-related, but it’s still not an AI-animated reconstruction.

I for one am grateful to Mr Rose for his tireless work on the reconstruction. I just wish he had gone for sound-alike voice actors for the dubbing to make the animated sequences a little less jarring.

On that last point, judging by the ability of some youtubers to change a music artist's voice with another one, sometimes very convincingly, unless I'm missing something (which I very likely am) it seems it should be a logical and relatively easy (?) step to, using AI, pass through those voice actors using samples of the deceased actors?

Was the next to last scene (Eugene behind the desk with Lucy standing above him) a Welles scene or someone else? It was after the George gets hit by a car and before Eugene and Fanny walk out of George's hospital room

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:11 pm Was the next to last scene (Eugene behind the desk with Lucy standing above him) a Welles scene or someone else? It was after the George gets hit by a car and before Eugene and Fanny walk out of George's hospital room

Not Welles’ footage as the corresponding scene in the original long edit featured Eugene reading the newspaper account of George’s accident in his office at his automobile factory (not in his home office) and Lucy was not in the original scene. Frankly, I think this penultimate scene in the released version plays far worse than the hospital corridor scene between Eugene and Fanny. It’s abrupt, poorly written, and has ridiculous blocking by assistant director Freddie Fleck requiring both Cotten and Baxter to walk past the camera with beaming faces. I don’t know what anyone was thinking handling the scene in this way.

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:11 pm Was the next to last scene (Eugene behind the desk with Lucy standing above him) a Welles scene or someone else? It was after the George gets hit by a car and before Eugene and Fanny walk out of George's hospital room

EDIT: Roger Ryan beat me to it and I agree, it plays even worse than the final reshot scene.

Another awful reshoot. In Welles’s version, it was supposed to be Eugene at his desk, almost shrouded in darkness and wearing a hat (like he was about to leave anyway), looking at the headline. It looks like the light is all coming from the window behind him, and I think there may be a sign outside that clearly identifies this as his office at the automobile factory. A still frame actually survives and was published in at least one book, probably Carringer’s.