criterionforum.org

Peacock wrote: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.

Before you say “Why in God’s name would someone use AI to do this,” Saatchi would ask you to consider that “Ambersons” is about a family dynasty that failed to adapt to the rise of new technology and the invention of the automobile at the dawn of the 20th century.

Before you say “Why in God’s name would someone use AI to do this,” Saatchi would ask you to consider that “Ambersons” is about a family dynasty that failed to adapt to the rise of new technology and the invention of the automobile at the dawn of the 20th century.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 6:03 pm I ran this thread through AI and good news, everyone is dying to see this!

Before you say “Why in God’s name would someone use AI to do this,” Saatchi would ask you to consider that “Ambersons” is about a family dynasty that failed to adapt to the rise of new technology and the invention of the automobile at the dawn of the 20th century.

MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS RECONSTRUCTED. The missing 40 minutes were not created by AI but by animated pencil sketch drawings. The overall effect is much different. More anti-capitalist, more somber--and it was somber before. Sadder. Brilliant.

MAGNICENT AMBERSONS REDUX. I've always withheld judgement on Welles' MA. It was taken away from him, recut, he was Brazil, it was a lost masterpiece, blah, blah, blah. I've now seen the 133min "reconstructed" version and changed my mind. Welles didn't step away from the re-edit because he was cut out, he didn't go to Brazil simply at the behest of Nelson Rockeffer--I believe he stepped away from the film because he knew it was fatally flawed and no amount of recuting could rescue it. And the fatal flaw was casting. Welles again made a decade spanning epic about a flawed macher, but instead of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles like a charismatic blunderbuss, it was an immature CFK, George Amberson, a snotty guttersnipe of a young man portrayed by the untalented actor Tim Holt. Watching the film at the length Welles intended I realized that Holt's George was hopelessly inadequate. Most of the 40 excised mintues came from Holt's performance. Welles couldn't have saved the film. No one could have. The studio notes, in essence, must have been this: lose one half hour, trim Tim Holt and try to make Joseph Cotton the lead. I suspect Welles welcomed the opportunity to distance himself from the film's inevitable failure and, as the decades wore on and his memory dimmed, embrace the fantasy that Magnificent Ambersons was a masterpiece which had been ripped from his hands and mutilated.

hearthesilence wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 10:07 pm FWIW, Joseph McBride, Jonathan Rosenbaum and others have chimed in on Schrader's post to argue against his criticism, which I don't buy either. FWIW, this doesn't get emphasized enough, but the 133 minute cut was never considered a finished cut, it was still a work-in-progress that would've been reduced further (as Carringer points out in his commentary, now on Criterion's disc). If I had to pick one cut to save, it would probably be the Pasadena preview cut - with maybe one exception (I'd have to check again to remember what it would be), I thought the changes they made to it were all good ones. For example, they cut the meeting at that boys club near the beginning, and that scene never really appealed to me. (They have both the shooting script and a still of a wide shot with all the characters in it, so it's not a stretch to imagine.)

I liked Holt fine - it's not a titanic performance that dominates the movie, but does it really need to be? You look at Schrader's films, he doesn't really do many ensembles. All the ones I've seen are strongly focused on one person and their struggles. I don't think The Magnificent Ambersons would play as well if it were shaped like that - George may be the most pivotal character of the film and the driving force behind the dramatic turns, but the movie always felt like it was much greater in scope than just these people and what happens to them individually. This isn't Kane where his life and actions impact history and the world at large - as prestigious as this family may be in this Midwestern town, they're ultimately above no one and equally at the mercy of time and change.

beamish14 wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 10:33 pm Welles never would have released a film that was over 2 hours in length. It probably would have been about 115-119 minutes at the most.