The making of Citizen Kane is a fairy tale. Orson Welles, having reached the top of his game in the theater and on the radio, was given unlimited control and a huge budget to make Citizen Kane at 25-years-old. He never experienced anything like that again in his career, starting with his second feature, The Magnificent Ambersons.
Things started well enough, but the biggest problem was that he conceded control over the final cut, which he did not do for Citizen Kane. So when he had to leave the country to make a film as a part of the Good Neighbor Policy, RKO Radio Pictures took control from him. His original 135 minute cut of the movie turned into an 88 minute movie with a different ending.
Here's the kicker: it was probably a better movie than Welles' original movie. There is of course no way to tell for sure. After the film was received poorly, editor Robert Wise cut 7 minutes from the movie and it was shown again to a poor response. RKO took over editing at this point, asked Robert Wise and the assistant director to do reshoots, including a new ending, and it ended up as the 88 minute version available now.
Wise, who himself was a pretty good director in his own right (which happened after this movie), says the original cut was not better than the newly edited version. It seems to me that the biggest beef people have with the edited version is a happy ending. Welles did not have a happy ending. The book the movie is based on, however, did have a happy ending.
As it stands, you can't really tell that this movie was supposed to be over two hours long, which is astonishing to me. If I had no idea of the backstory, I would have thought this was Welles' vision. There truly is no disconnect here. Okay maybe the ending is a little weird, since it's heavily foreshadowed it won't be a happy one.
Okay, so since this review may be for people who've never seen it, I'll explain the plot. A wealthy family sees its fortunes decline during the time of the advent of the automobile. You see a boy and girl loved each other, but the boy made a fool of himself one time, and then she decided to never see him again and she married someone she didn't love. Certainly not a plot that you could really make nowadays that's for sure.
So roughly 20 years later, George Amberson, the only child of the loveless marriage, is spoiled and generally unpleasant. At a huge party, the boy who loved the girl had since married, had a kid, and had his wife die. George instantly takes to his daugher, Lucy, but hates her father, Eugene. Eventually, George's father dies, and Eugene and his mother look like they might get together, with both being available, but George is a spoiled brat and lets it be known he does not approve. Which is a thing that mattered then.
So that's what happens. And it's foreshadowed, hell outright stated, that George will "get his comeuppance" which largely seems to happen until the surprise happy ending. Here's the thing: I think that A) the happy ending isn't really that happy and B) is plausible.
So spoilers, but this is an 88-year-old movie, so I feel like the window has passed for you to be mad about spoilers. So the mother dies as a result of George's petulance, and this causes him to change. He didn't see the point of working, now he wants to work for a good cause. He then seriously injures himself in an automobile accident.
Eugene, who truly loved his mother, decides to take after the boy, because well that's what a man who loves someone would do. Also Lucy and George are implied to have reconciled and eventually gotten together. But the evidence for this is: she visits him in the hospital. We don't even see their reunion scene.
If this were a more modern movie, there would be doubt about the fate of Lucy and George's relationship, no question. And I don't mean if it were filmed differently, I mean if it were filmed exactly the same way. She visits him in the hospital. That's the entire basis for imagining a relationship when there previously was none. Only in the context of happy endings always happening in 1942 is there no doubt. And the music. But you could have sweeping, romantic music in 2020 and there would still be doubt about their future.
Anyway, my only point is that since George does change and has a comeuppance of sorts, the happy-ish ending doesn't feel cheap. So whether or not this is the vision Welles had, doesn't matter to me. The movie still works.
Aside from that, the one huge Welles influence is the amazing party scene where George and Lucy first chat, and the camera follows them as they walk throughout the party. In the background, while they're chatting, the party still happens. And actually, I was under the mistaken impression their conversation was one long shot, and I think that's a testament to how effectively he inserts us into that scene.
I'm actually glad I visited this after I had already seen most of Welles' filmography. Because it wouldn't be immediately apparent how much of an aberration this movie is in his resume. It's really nothing like anything else he's ever done. And I wouldn't have quite appreciated that if I had watched this after Citizen Kane, in order of when they were made. This is no Citizen Kane, but it's one of his best movies.
3.5/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment