Talk:The Magnificent Ambersons (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Magnificent ambersons movieposter.jpg[edit]

Image:Magnificent ambersons movieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've slugged the image's fair use rationale with the link for this article, and removed the "disputed" tag. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the whitewashing?[edit]

These people scribbled a moustache on the Mona Lisa, in permanent marker. They should have gone to jail. This is a very notable thing about the film. But it does not get fair mention here.Likebox (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in. With sources.66.41.253.22 (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2009 Orson Welles believed that the original, unreedited, version of The Magnificent Ambersons was his best work, and said so in his biographies. He could not bear to watch the reedited versions, he would break into tears, it was too painful. The original, as Welles described, had a continuous reel long ballroom scene, all in one take, which Welles believed was his greatest contribution to cinema. Long takes were a novelty, and produced bad test-audience reactions, so they were destroyed, despite the patience and artistry that went into each one. During reediting, the twenty odd minute ballroom reel was spliced into second-size segments. There were many other abominable alterations, but Wells particularly mourned this one.

The way that the studio butchered this film is legendary, and it was done with an inexcusable glee, purposefully destroying the original footage, dismissing the suggestion that a copy should be preserved. My impression, from later interviews with the participants, that they did it on purpose--- to teach Welles a lesson: "Don't get it into your head that you're some sort of artist, you're a commercial hack whose purpose is to finance the studio." Wise commented that he didn't realize that the film was a cultural monument until twenty years later, and had the gall to add "We could not have done too bad a job, since the film is still considered a minor masterpeice". Of course, Welles believed that the original was his greatest film, and there is no reason to doubt his judgement.

(UTC)

Mona Lisa? Don't snap your garter, Aunt Fanny. This is a movie about a douchebag who pathologically ruins everyone's chances for happiness for no discernible reason and is only redeemed after he's lost everything. That "redemption" happens off-screen, like every other moment of importance, and in the closing seconds of the film. Tim Holt is so stiff he could have been played by a paralytic pushed around on a handcart. --Tysto (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is much inaccuracy in what has been said before. First, Orson Welles abandoned the film and left the United States before the first rough cut had even been produced. He attempted the editing of the film (in the US) from South America. He never directly participated in any of the editing of the film nor any of its previews. Its very questionable if he ever even saw the "unreedited" version which he claims as his best work. Even claiming that first cut as "his" work is open to question given his lack of involvement in the editing. Like many stories told by Welles, his story of this film is mostly self-serving and wildly inaccurate. He had chance after chance to step back in and personally save the work. But he never did.

When you claim to be an "artist", there are certain expectations. The first being that your "work" actually means something to you. That its fate means more to you than a series of parties. That you as the artist will edit your own work rather than hand it over to others. And if your work is in danger, you do everything possible to save it. Welles did not care about Ambersons. He did not care about George Schaefer who defended him at the studio and eventually lost his job because he stood up for Welles. The important thing to understand is that Welles was not *just* an artist. He was a man whose art funded an indulgent lifestyle and for the course of his entire career, his lifestyle was in conflict with his pretentions to art. 75.17.127.55 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No DVD availability????[edit]

The article mentions its not available on DVD in the US. This is very, very odd considering how acclaimed the film is. Does anyone know more about this? It seems like there's probably more to the story. --98.232.178.38 (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was more to it. But not for the article. There was no DVD for many years due to a "family" situation. But that was long ago resolved and its not worth going into. 75.17.127.55 (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What version is this article about?[edit]

In the version I saw, the party is after the serenade and the story of George's youth, while the plot says «In a flashback, the history between George's mother, Isabel, and Eugene is revealed». --93.32.150.232 (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Magnificent Ambersons (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dubious transition phrases in 'plot' section[edit]

I don't think the film gives us any evidence to believe that George's auto accident is "the next day". Or that George talks to Fanny "the night after the funeral". Isabel doesn't die while holding George's hand. He's in his room when Fanny comes in and says "she loved you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfavoriteboxer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Magnificent_Ambersons_(film)&oldid=1209578841"