What really annoys me about this film is the script. It starts out as an ensemble piece with too many characters. Later, the George character (Tim Holt) emerges as the protagonist. Early on, we learn there are two main families; yet, there are three sets of family surnames: Morgan, Minafer, and Amberson. The script's too many characters go by first names: George, Jack, Gene, Wilbur, and Henry, among others, and are poorly introduced; their relationships are hard to determine, at first. So I had to watch the film's first Act twice to determine who was a Morgan, who was a Minafer, and who was an Amberson. All of which made the film confusing and detracted from the plot.
Further, the film is heavy on dialogue. Characters laugh, cry, lament, dream, and argue. But mostly they talk and talk ... and talk. Given that the era is early 20th century, the costumes and sets look highly Victorian. And so the film comes across as a Victorian-era soap opera.
As shown, plot segments lack effective transitions, making the overall plot choppy. There's a conspicuous lack of story continuity and flow. And the film's ending is way too abrupt, as well as disappointing.
A big part of my script complaints may stem from the fact that some fifty minutes of the original film was excised by the studio while director Welles wasn't looking. We'll never know how much better that original might have been from this final version.
The B&W lighting is fine, if perhaps a tad dark. Prod design and costumes seem appropriate for the story's historical era. Background music is predictably manipulative; light and airy during scenes of fun; dreary and brooding during serious scenes. I did not like the casting of Joseph Cotten, a bit too smug and pompous.
The idea that changes in technology can change families and their future financial prospects was a relevant theme for a film in the 1940s. "The Magnificent Ambersons" gets that theme across well. And it's possible that if I could watch the film that Welles intended to make I might have liked it better. Even so, I'm not a fan of Victorian-era stories. And the script would still have been laden with too many characters and too much talk; the existing film certainly is.
Further, the film is heavy on dialogue. Characters laugh, cry, lament, dream, and argue. But mostly they talk and talk ... and talk. Given that the era is early 20th century, the costumes and sets look highly Victorian. And so the film comes across as a Victorian-era soap opera.
As shown, plot segments lack effective transitions, making the overall plot choppy. There's a conspicuous lack of story continuity and flow. And the film's ending is way too abrupt, as well as disappointing.
A big part of my script complaints may stem from the fact that some fifty minutes of the original film was excised by the studio while director Welles wasn't looking. We'll never know how much better that original might have been from this final version.
The B&W lighting is fine, if perhaps a tad dark. Prod design and costumes seem appropriate for the story's historical era. Background music is predictably manipulative; light and airy during scenes of fun; dreary and brooding during serious scenes. I did not like the casting of Joseph Cotten, a bit too smug and pompous.
The idea that changes in technology can change families and their future financial prospects was a relevant theme for a film in the 1940s. "The Magnificent Ambersons" gets that theme across well. And it's possible that if I could watch the film that Welles intended to make I might have liked it better. Even so, I'm not a fan of Victorian-era stories. And the script would still have been laden with too many characters and too much talk; the existing film certainly is.