{"id":27937,"date":"2014-05-30T00:50:49","date_gmt":"2014-05-30T05:50:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=27937"},"modified":"2016-09-02T17:28:40","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T22:28:40","slug":"the-magnificent-ambersons-a-usable-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2014\/05\/30\/the-magnificent-ambersons-a-usable-past\/","title":{"rendered":"THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS: A usable past"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hellzapopppin’<\/strong> (1941).<\/em><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

By now everybody is used to allusionism in our movies\u2014moments that cite, more or less explicitly, other films. But we tend to forget that movies have been referencing other movies for a long while. One classic form is parody, as when Keaton\u2019s The Three Ages<\/em> (1923) makes fun of Intolerance<\/em> (1916). Another example occurs in Me and My Gal<\/em> (1932). Spencer Tracy tells Joan Bennett that he just saw a movie called \u201cStrange Innertube,\u201d and then Raoul Walsh gives us a comic version of the inner monologues used in Strange Interlude<\/em> (1932).<\/p>\n

Some allusions are in-jokes that sail by most viewers. Almost everybody notices when Walter Burns (Cary Grant) in His Girl Friday<\/em> mentions that a character played by Ralph Bellamy looks like \u201cthat fella in the movies\u2014you know, Ralph Bellamy.\u201d Probably fewer people catch the later line, Walter’s threat to the authorities: “The last man who said that to me was Archie Leach just a week before he cut his throat.” Grant’s real name, of course, was Archibald Leach.<\/p>\n

Week-End at the Waldorf<\/em> (1945) is a sort of updating of Grand Hotel<\/em>, so when one character remarks that a plot twist \u201cis straight out of the picture Grand Hotel<\/em>,\u201d we probably catch the self-reference. But the other character piles on the allusions by replying: \u201cThat\u2019s right. I\u2019m the baron, you\u2019re the ballerina, and we\u2019re off to see the wizard.\u201d Did people notice MGM congratulating itself twice? And you wonder how many viewers catch the spoiler in Hellzapoppin\u2019<\/em> (1941), released only four months after Citizen Kane<\/em>. Chic Johnson spots a Rosebud sled hanging outside an igloo and remarks, \u201cI thought they burnt that.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the beginning of the 1940s, two novice directors seemed to be bringing fresh air to Hollywood cinema. Preston Sturges and Orson Welles were identified with innovative approaches to genre and storytelling. So we might expect them to inject something new into this practice of alluding to other movies. I think they did.<\/p>\n

Consider a particular strategy that Sturges and Welles toyed with. Today, we enjoy it when a director treats characters in non-sequel films as sharing a fictional world. Tarantino imagines shifting his characters or brand names (e.g., Red Apple cigarettes) from movie to movie.<\/p>\n

When I sell my movies, I retain the rights to characters so I can follow them. I can follow Pumpkin and Honey Bunny or anybody and it\u2019s not Pulp Fiction<\/em> II<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jackie Brown<\/em> (1997) features Michael Keaton as FBI agent Ray Nicolet, who also appears, played by Keaton, in Soderbergh\u2019s Out of Sight<\/em> (1998). The tactic fitted these directors’ adaptations of novels by Elmore Leonard, who tends to carry over characters from book to book.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a bit surprising to see this impulse in Sturges and Welles too. The governor and the political boss in The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em> (1944) are McGinty and the Boss in The Great McGinty<\/em> (1940), and they\u2019re played (uncredited) by the same actors. A newspaper glimpsed in The Magnificent Ambersons<\/em> (1942) contains a column, “Stage Views,” by drama critic Jed Leland, a major character in Citizen Kane<\/em> (1941).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Today fans are used to spotting things that most viewers might not get, but in the early 1940s, it was rarer. I\u2019ve proposed earlier<\/a> that sometimes Hollywood\u2019s creative community is addressing not the broad audience but its own members, perhaps letting dedicated outsiders \u201coverhear\u201d the conversation. One example would be the nearly-hidden jokes that can be wedged into the background or on the edges of the action. In an entry about a year ago<\/a>, I considered how sequences around the small-town movie theatre in The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em> carry barely-noticeable jabs at current films, mostly those by Sturges\u2019 home studio Paramount. And Luke Holmaas has pointed out to me that Hail the Conquering Hero<\/em> contains a billboard advertising Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em>\u2014a sort of joking product-placement. Today, I want to suggest that Welles moved onto the same terrain but followed even more circuitous paths.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The past, not recaptured<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Make pictures to make us forget, not remember.<\/p>\n

Comment card from first preview of The Magnificent Ambersons<\/em>, 1942.<\/p>\n

The Magnificent Ambersons<\/em> is, everybody knows, a film about the past. Its story action begins around 1885 and concludes just before World War I. Most of the plot concentrates on the decline of the Amberson family, due partly to financial mismanagement and the willful pride of Isabel Amberson\u2019s son, George Minafer. Parallel to that decline is the development of the town into a city and the rise of the automobile company founded by Eugene Morgan, a failed suitor for Isabel\u2019s hand. A major turning point comes when, after Wilbur Minafer\u2019s death, Isabel is left a widow. She’d like to marry Eugene, but she declines because George is opposed. At the same time, George tries to win Eugene\u2019s daughter Lucy. After the death of Isabel and her father Major Amberson, the family is destitute and George must find a way to support his aunt Fanny. Struck by a car, George is hospitalized, and only then does he reconcile with Eugene and Lucy.<\/p>\n

After weak previews, the film was drastically recut, and some new scenes were shot. The original version has not yet been found, so we\u2019re left with a ruined \u00a0masterpiece. Still, there\u2019s enough there to let us appreciate Welles\u2019s effort to make sense of a crucial period of American history. Old money was giving way to modern, technology-driven fortunes; Eugene\u2019s auto company is the Dell Computers of its day. The film also evokes changes in urban life, with shifting property values and rising pollution shown as consequences of progress. It’s the most downbeat of the “nostalgia” cycle of the 1940s, which includes Strawberry Blonde<\/em> (1941), Meet Me in St. Louis<\/em> (1944), and Centennial Summer<\/em> (1946).<\/p>\n

Many other films have sought to present the past, recreating the settings and costumes and props of an era. But Ambersons<\/em> is about pastness<\/em>. It conveys a melancholy recognition that things are always changing, that we struggle to make sense of events only after it\u2019s too late to affect them. It\u2019s a film centered on missed opportunities and what might have been. Eugene might have married Isabel when they were young, but his drunken serenade turns her against him. If George weren\u2019t such a prig, he might have reconciled himself to Isabel\u2019s remarriage; only at the end, kneeling in prayer, does he seem to realize how his stubbornness cheated many people of happiness. The original ending would have shown Eugene visiting Fanny in a boarding house, with her long and unspoken love for him counterpointing his suggestion that he\u2019s been true to Isabel.<\/p>\n

Ambersons<\/em> carries its sense of an unrecoverable past into the very texture of its telling.\u00a0At first, the aura of things gone by is given by Welles\u2019 voice-over narration. In affectionate comedy he introduces us to habits and routines of an era of streetcars and changing men\u2019s fashions. After Eugene\u2019s botched serenade, the townsfolk add their voices to the chorus with comments on the scandal. More backstory is given when George is shown growing from a spoiled boy to an arrogant young man. Our narrator recalls \u201cthe last of the great Amberson balls.\u201d Eugene arrives, a widower, bringing his daughter Lucy, and George begins to court her that night.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Now the narrator\u2019s past-tense explanation withdraws for some time. Instead, characters take up the burden of narrating the past. \u201cEighteen years have passed,\u201d says Isabel\u2019s brother Jack at the ball. \u201cOr have they?\u201d Before Eugene dances with Isabel, he remarks that the past is dead. Unfortunately, it won\u2019t stay buried. The old romance between Isabel and Eugene will be rekindled, and bad business decisions and George\u2019s spendthrift ways catch up with the family.<\/p>\n

Welles\u2019s plot construction relies on ellipsis. The scenes skip over major story events\u2014Wilbur\u2019s death, the decline of the family fortune, Gene\u2019s second courtship of Isabel, and Isabel\u2019s death. So much occurs offscreen that we are left to play catch-up. We must listen to characters report on what has just happened, or reflect on the more distant past. The film is built on recollection and reaction. We don\u2019t see Fanny at Isabel\u2019s deathbed; she simply flies out of the room to embrace her nephew: \u201cShe loved you, George.\u201d We don\u2019t see George and Isabel on their European trip; we learn of it from the doleful Uncle Jack, who thinks that Isabel is falling sick. This refracted narration allows Jack to voice his concern\u2014he\u2019s probably the one Amberson whose judgments we trust\u2014and Gene to display helpless, rigid sorrow at the news.<\/p>\n

One of Ambersons’<\/em> most famous scenes, the long take of George and Fanny in the kitchen, is characteristic. Under her questioning, he explains that Gene and Isabel were starting to reunite at his college graduation. A peppy nostalgia movie would have shown us that cheerful moment on the campus, but Welles channels the information through George\u2019s insensitive report and Fanny\u2019s uneasy questions\u2014and the scene climaxes with her breaking down in tears. As ever, melancholy wins out. As a result of George’s telling, Fanny will plant the suspicion that gossip about Isabel has been destroying the family’s good name.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Similarly, another film’s finale would show the reconciliation of the young lovers, George and Lucy, in the hospital. Instead Welles\u2019 original script presents that moment through Eugene\u2019s somber report of it to Fanny in her boarding house. (In the version we have, we get the report in the hospital corridor.)<\/p>\n

Sometimes, the gaps in time and action are abetted by the studio\u2019s reediting. In the present version, we learn about Aunt Fanny\u2019s failed investments later than \u00a0in the original version. But even then the information would have been presented after the fact. On the whole, the sense of the sadly unalterable past is built into Welles\u2019 screenplay. As each scene unfolds, we get news about what has happened in the gap since the last scene, or what has happened years before. At the railroad station, Uncle Jack, about to depart, recalls a woman he left here long ago. \u201cDon’t know where she lives now–or if she is living.\u201d Here the pastness he evokes is familiar to us from earlier in the film: \u201cShe probably imagines I’m still dancing in the ballroom of the Amberson mansion.\u201d At the limit, Major Amberson\u2019s garbled fireside reverie takes us back to the origins of life: “The earth came out of the sun, and we came out of the earth . . . so–whatever we are must have been in the earth.” Now the past is primeval.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Retro as remembrance<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Welles enhances the aura of pastness through specific film techniques. Critics have rightly been alert to creative choices that carry over from Citizen Kane:\u00a0<\/em>looming sets, drastic deep-focus cinematography, low angles, chiaroscuro, and long takes, often employing splendid camera movements. But the film displays some unique choices that are, historically, anachronistic.<\/p>\n

The most noticeable old-time technique concludes the idyll in the snow. Jack, Fanny, Lucy, and George are riding in Eugene\u2019s horseless carriage. This, one of the few scenes that doesn\u2019t replay the past in its conversation, is given special treatment as a moment out of time. The iris out that concludes the scene is something of a visual equivalent to the old song the riders sing, \u201cThe Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similar is the vignetting that softens the edges of the opening sequences, starting with the first shot showing the streetcar stopping for the lady of the house.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Welles\u2019 visual techniques aren\u2019t faithful to the period when the story action takes place. Assuming that the snow idyll occurs around 1904, the iris wouldn\u2019t have appeared in films of that time. And the earlier period of the streetcar shot and changing men’s \u00a0fashions probably predates the invention of cinema. But by 1942, these techniques were associated with silent film generally and give a cinematic tinge of \u201coldness\u201d to the action.<\/p>\n

I say \u201cby 1942\u201d because recent years had made intellectuals especially conscious of film history. Several books, notably the 1938 translation of Maurice Bard\u00e8che and Robert Brasillach\u2019s Histoire du cin\u00e9ma<\/em> (translated as The History of the Motion Picture<\/em>) and Lewis Jacobs\u2019 sweeping The Rise of the American Film<\/em> (1939) had concentrated on the stylistic innovations of Porter, Griffith, and other pioneers. With some theatres reviving silent classics like Caligari<\/em> and The Birth of a Nation<\/em>, cinephiles in urban centers had some opportunities to see silent movies. Most notably, the Museum of Modern Art Film Library was founded in 1935 and\u00a0under the curatorship of Iris Barry, began building a permanent archive and screening retrospectives.<\/p>\n

MoMA also assembled many films into traveling 16mm programs that could be rented by schools, museums, libraries, and other institutions. Silent films also circulated in 8mm and 16mm prints from private companies like Kodascope and Castle Films. Throughout the late 1930s and 1940s, silent comedies were the most popular; Chaplin reissued The Gold Rush<\/em> in a sound version in 1942. Welles\u2019s interest in silent slapstick is shown in the recently discovered pastiche, Too Much Johnson<\/em> (1938), which evidently owes a good deal to Entr’acte<\/em> (1924), a MoMA-canonized classic.<\/p>\n

Ambersons<\/em> offers other, less obvious allusions to old cinema. One cluster of them comes during George and Lucy\u2019s stroll along the sidewalk. George, somewhat petulantly, is insisting\u00a0 that his trip abroad with his mother may last a long time. \u201cIt\u2019s goodbye, Lucy.\u201d Angling for a declaration of devotion from her, he gets brittle, agreeable indifference. When he has stalked off, we learn that she is actually quite shaken by the prospect of separation. Watching the dramatic interplay in this long traveling shot, we are probably not likely to pay attention to the posters the couple pass outside the Bijou theatre.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The advertisements announce movies that could have played the Bijou in 1912. The ones in the rear of the lobby are impossible to make out, and there’s one outside I can\u2019t be sure of. (See the codicil.) Raking the frames on DVD and on a good 35mm print, I\u2019ve been able to discern The Bugler of Battery B<\/em> (1912), Her Husband\u2019s Wife<\/em> (aka, How She Became Her Husband\u2019s Wife<\/em>, 1912), Ten Days with a Fleet of U.S. Battleships<\/em> (1912; in the foyer), and The Mis-Sent Letter<\/em> (1912). There were several Jesse James films circulating in 1911-1912, but one two-reeler named for the bandit (at the bottom of the second frame here) seems a likely candidate.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

These casual background details betray extraordinary fussiness on the part of Welles and his colleagues.\u00a0Few viewers would pay attention to all the posters, and very few viewers would realize that they\u2019re all from the same year.\u00a0It’s one thing to include authentic automobiles from the era, as car fanciers would be sure to spot mistakes. But 1912 two-reelers? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the filmmakers put the posters in to satisfy themselves. (If you’re skeptical, I’d ask: If you’d thought of it, wouldn’t you do it?)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There’s more. The most prominent hoarding advertises a Western, The Ghost at Circle X Camp<\/em> (1912), from Gaston M\u00e9li\u00e8s. Surely the name also evokes Gaston\u2019s brother Georges, by then an established pioneer of film history and a figure doubtless known to Welles. Is this a sideswiping tribute from one magician-cineaste to another?<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also a deliberate anachronism. Tim Holt, who plays George, was the son of action star Jack Holt. A lobby card over the box office announces \u201cJack Holt in Explosion<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I can find no trace that such a film existed. Moreover, films of that era seldom identified the main actors in advertising, and in any case Holt was not a featured player in 1912. In order to create an in-joke\/homage, Welles seems to have prepared a poster for a fictitious film\u2014as Sturges did<\/a> with Chaos over Taos<\/em> and Maggie of the Marines<\/em> in The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most sneaky allusion comes at the very end. After the florid voice-over credits for technical contributions, Welles intones: \u201cHere\u2019s the cast.\u201d Medium-shots of the actors dissolve into one another as the voice-over identifies them. The images recall photographic portraits from the nineteenth century. They also seem to be a variant of those 1930s opening credits that catch the players in shots extracted from the movie to come. Still, there\u2019s something peculiar about these.<\/p>\n

Some of the actors look straightforwardly out at us, as we’d expect.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But others turn their heads slightly or shift their gaze, toward or away from us.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Sometimes the shift is tiny, as with the Joseph Cotten cameo. But the tactic is made into a joke when Tim Holt, staying in character, snaps his glance furtively to the camera.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Why these fillips? Here\u2019s my conjecture. Some 1910s films, from both America and Europe, introduced their casts with shots of the actors standing as if on a theatre stage. The actors then looked to left, then right, pretending to take in all sides of a live audience. Here\u2019s an example from Reginald Barker’s\u00a0The Wrath of the Gods<\/em> (1914), featuring actor Thomas Kurihara.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

None of the 1910s examples I know was framed as closely as Welles’s shots are. But I surmise that Welles offered a modernized variant of a minor silent-film convention. If this is right, it has to be an allusion more far-fetched than even the ones Sturges supplied.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Maybe I\u2019ve gone too far. Once filmmakers start playing these games, overreach is a constant temptation. In any case, I think there\u2019s enough evidence that Welles, like Sturges, was invoking early film history as a way of reinforcing the overall pastness-strategy of his film.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d go further and speculate that Welles\u2019s obsessively pinpointed allusions may have stirred a competitive spirit in Sturges. Now we can see the Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em> tracking shot past the movie house posters as a variant, two years later, of the angle Welles chose for his long take.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And perhaps the audacious inclusion of footage from The Freshman<\/em> (1925) at the start of\u00a0The Sin of Harold Diddlebock<\/em> (1947) was sparked by Welles\u2019 virtuosically faked newsreel in Citizen Kane<\/em>. As the two boy wonders from the East took advantage of the biggest train set a kid could play with, they may have egged each other on.<\/p>\n

\n

For more on the practice of allusionism and world-building see The Way Hollywood Tells It<\/em>. Thanks to Ben Brewster for information on Jack Holt\u2019s career. My quotation of the Ambersons<\/em> preview card comes from Simon Callow’s Orson Welles vol. 2: Hello Americans<\/em> <\/a>(Viking, 2006), 87.<\/p>\n

The Holt and M\u00e9li\u00e8s posters are mentioned in the cutting continuity in Robert L. Carringer\u2019s The Magnificent Ambersons: A Reconstruction<\/em> <\/a>(University of California Press, 1993), 214. Alas, the other posters aren\u2019t specified.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The poster that I haven’t identified, and that drives me nuts, sits underneath The Bugler of Battery B<\/em>. Here\u2019s a blowup from 35mm.<\/p>\n

The poster’s illustration, which we can glimpse more fully in a later phase of the shot, shows a man thrashing an American Indian while a woman stretches out her arms in the cabin in the background. At first I thought the first words are The Car<\/em>, but I can find no film from the period that begins with that phrase. (It would fit more closely with Ambersons<\/em> thematically than most of the other titles, but in fact \u201ccar\u201d wasn\u2019t then a common term for automobile.) Then I thought it was The Coin Box Girl<\/em>, but again no such film seems to have existed, and that title is hardly in keeping with the illustration. Any ideas?<\/p>\n

Yes, I know. Welles would have had a good big belly laugh at these efforts.<\/p>\n

P.S. 10 June:<\/strong>\u00a0I’ve been pursuing some readers’ leads about the still-mysterious poster. In the meantime, Joseph McBride has has corresponded with me with more ideas and information about\u00a0Ambersons<\/em>. Joe is the author of many books, including\u00a0What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Caree<\/a>r,\u00a0Writing in Pictures: Screenwriting Made (Mostly) Painless<\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit<\/em><\/a>, a meticulous study of those two murders.\u00a0He is one of the world’s top Welles scholars, so naturally I’m happy to pass along his thoughts.<\/p>\n

AMBERSONS is my favorite film, as you probably know, even in its partly ruined state. I think all your analysis is acute, and I like your focus on the self-conscious awareness of pastness that Welles conveys and dissects in the film. The film is redolent of Welles’s youth and even more so of the period before he was born (the period for which I find most of us are most nostalgic). Nostalgia was considered a neurosis in the pre-modern era, a sign of inability to adjust to reality rather than the warm-and-fuzzy state it’s thought of being today. There’s a deep melancholy throughout the film, even if Welles, good magician that he is, distracts us with misdirection via comedy in the beginning while simultaneously laying the seeds of destruction and foreshadowing George’s “comeuppance,” etc.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Last month I was at the Welles conference in Woodstock, Illinois, which has preserved much of its nineteenth-century flavor, including the Opera House where Welles put on TRILBY (but most of the Todd School for Boys he attended is gone). That town and its main square, with bandstand and Civil War monument, seems very Ambersonian as well. I have always seen AMBERSONS as Welles’s most deeply personal film, and his claim that Eugene Morgan is partly based on his father (and that Booth Tarkington knew his father) is noteworthy, as is George Amberson Minafer’s evil-twin resemblance to the young George Orson Welles.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would only add to your insights that there was much more about the loss of the Amberson fortune in the full version of the film (you allude to that a bit), even though, as you intriguingly note, Welles employs an elliptical style throughout. Welles’s use of ellipsis is Lubitschean (he considered Lubitsch a “giant”), although used for somewhat different reasons, Welles doing so mostly to condense the story in witty ways (and, as you observed to me, focus on characters\u2019 emotional reactions to offscreen events, in the manner of Henry James) and Lubitsch to evade censorship while providing subtle rather than blunt treatments of sex. And some of Lubitsch’s German films, as you know, start with specially posed head shots of him and his main actors, somewhat similar to what Welles does at the end (though he teasingly keeps himself out of frame, partly to stress the voice aspect and also to keep the identification of himself with George stronger). Tim Holt gazing accusingly at us in the end credits is startling — maybe it\u2019s not only to keep him in character but also to say, \u201cI\u2019m you.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Welles is terrible (archy, corny, and putting on a phony kid voice) as George in the radio version, which, however, is much like the film in some ways. During the night devoted to radio in the 1978-79 “Working with Welles” seminar I co-hosted for the AFI at the DGA Theater, Welles\u2019s longtime associate Richard Wilson and I ran the first ten minutes of the radio show as the soundtrack for the film imagery, and it worked amazingly well. Welles’s use of ellipsis in the film recalls his radio work, in which he and his writers would condense a large novel into one hour, etc. The vignettes at the opening of AMBERSONS are very much drawn from radio. He sold the project to RKO\u2019s George Schaefer by playing the radio show, though the fact that Schaefer fell asleep before the end might have given them pause.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Welles said he included the \u201cJack Holt in EXPLOSION\u201d gag did to please Jack when he visited the set. Jack was an action star for Capra before AMBERSONS and turns up in THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, in the scene in which John Ford pays homage to his high school teacher Lucien P. Libby by naming a boat after him. Another of those in-jokes that permeate even classic Hollywood, as you say. Mr. Libby influenced Ford\u2019s portraits of Lincoln and other folksy politicians as humorous storytellers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Welles’s early films show a keen awareness of film history and culture, more than he would let on later he knew at that young age. He described THE HEARTS OF AGE to me as a spoof of THE BLOOD OF A POET and LA CHIEN ANDALOU. TOO MUCH JOHNSON is full of film influences and allusions (I think I sent you my essay on the film<\/a> from Bright Lights<\/a>.\u00a0And KANE has its share of in-jokes, such as Gregg Toland interviewing Kane on board a ship and Kane responding with his first words in the film after “Rosebud” — “Don’t believe everything you hear on the radio.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thanks to Joe for corresponding.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break<\/strong> (1941).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hellzapopppin’ (1941). DB here: By now everybody is used to allusionism in our movies\u2014moments that cite, more or less explicitly, other films. But we tend to forget that movies have been referencing other movies for a long while. One classic form is parody, as when Keaton\u2019s The Three Ages (1923) makes fun of Intolerance (1916). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,188,77,196,57,54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-directors-sturges","category-directors-welles","category-film-technique-screenwriting","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-narrative-strategies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27937"}],"version-history":[{"count":40,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27937\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34660,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27937\/revisions\/34660"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}