Citizen Kane v. Magnificent Ambersons

Which Orson Welles film do you prefer? I am partial to Magnificent Ambersons. I know CK always tops the AFI 100 list, but I think the scope of Ambersons is just as classic.

 

Honestly, Maginficent Amberson is fascinating even in its butchered form.
The staging of the actors is stunning.
Here is an example:

He's defiant and they are all lecturing him. Just a powerful way to say so much with one frame of film.
In the end, I'd call it a tie.
1982 Sight and Sound poll had both in the top 10 of best all time films
Sight & Sound - Wikipedia »

 

If Ambersons hadn't been mercilessly chopped by the studio, it would be my favorite. Think of the stunning footage that was destroyed.

As Ambersons exists, though, I find it unsatisfying. Like Lady From Shanghai (also interesting and riveting), I can't help watching the film without wondering how sublime it would have been as Welles intended.

 

I prefer Ambersons. A family ruined by changes in the world around them is a theme I can appreciate. I really like the book too.

 

Ambersons.
No poll ?

 

Citizen Kane, for me. We studied it in film class. Good times.

 

Kane because it survives as realized by Welles. Ambersons is flawed because it isn't the film Welles envisioned.


Cat

 

Because Welles left the production before it was finished, leaving it in the hands of others. His own worst enemy

 

Ambersons in the state we know it doesn't come close to Kane for me. Kane is amazing, and one of my all time favorite films to watch. Ambersons is interesting but never pulls me in. I actually enjoy Lady of Shanghai more than Ambersons

 

I can't be fair to Ambersons because I'm always aware that I'm not watching what O.W. wanted me to see; so, Kane it is.

 

Why is it always one great thing "vs." another great thing?

 

Citizen Kane without a doubt. A landmark in American and world cinema.

 

Same here. I've always found Ambersons to be boring; Citizen Kane moves very quickly, despite its length, and has several dozen characters and a very complex storyline. I think it's a much better movie overall.

 

Between the two I go for the third -Touch of Evil.

 

Kane, due to Ambersons being butchered. Touch of Evil and Chimes at Midnight have both greatly benefitted from restorations.
Othello is another stunner!

 

A friend of mine was disappointed with AMBERSONS because it didn't have one strong central character like KANE did. But that was because in Welles' original edit, the house was the main character.

 

It also didn't help that he didn't have a writer like Herman Mankiewicz to co-write the script.

 

Been a long time since I've seen "Ambersons" but the quality faded at the end, because of reasons mentioned earlier. I found it interesting that Tim Holt had a big role in this and "Treasure of the Sierra Madré" but has long since faded from popular recognition.

As others have noted, the line about how Kane never finished anything he started (except an opera review) applies a lot to Welles.

 

Tim Holt was a fine actor, but never managed to develop into a convincing dramatic lead. Bogart was the star of Treasure... and the Amberson house became a defacto star of TMA. Welles co-writing, directing and starring in CK made him both an instant star and celebrated auteur. That reputation as a visionary would both help and hinder his career in film for the rest of his life.

I've decided to spend Friday afternoon watching two films with outstanding performances from Orson Welles and Andy Griffith, the former directed by Welles, the latter by Elias Kazan. I'm confident that there'll be many others joining me in spirit (...and spirits).


Cat

 

Holt's talent should have landed him better roles and a more prestigious career and lasting reputation. His only other "big" film was 'My Darling Clementine' [1947; directed by John Ford - Holt also has a small role in 'Stagecoach', another Ford film]. His studio, RKO, almost exclusively keep him in B Westerns, and shortly after 'Ambersons' he enlisted in the USAAF and saw active service in the Pacific. (He was wounded on the last day of the war flying over Toyko.) In the late '40s he moved to Oklahoma and basically retired from the movies. Apparently, he was quite happy with that decision.

 

If 'Andersons' had been edited as Welles intended, I have no doubt it would have been a better film and enjoyed a greater reputation than 'Kane'.

 

+1

Why in the hell he didn't get in a plane and fly back to Hollywood to resolve the issues surrounding the film baffles me to this day. Trying to communicate edits to the film with Wise via telegram while he was still in Brazil absolutely boggles the mind.

And why, oh why, couldn't someone have had the foresight to grab a copy of the Ponoma preview print before it was recut . . .

 

Superficially, he felt he was an important diplomatic mission, on direct orders from FDR. In reality he was having too much fun playing 'hooky' and partying.

 

Too bad that Welles idea to reshoot the relevant portions of the Magnificent Ambersons decades later using the same actors never materialized. Would have been a fascinating project.

I like Citizen Kane much better than the Magnificent Ambersons. As Roger Ebert noted, you see something new each time you watch it. That could be the case the Magnificent Ambersons, but I unfortunately never had much desire to see it a second time. I probably should.