 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
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]
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]
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)
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]
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]
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]
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.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
