Another reviewer used the fuller quote "...Loose Quicksilver in a Nest of Cracks..." as the heading of his review, and I agree with most of what the other 10-star reviews say, so I'll be brief and not repetitious. First of all, I'd like to point out that the quote mentions "quicksilver," which of course is Mercury. The Mercury Players are the stars of this film and "Citizen Kane" --- coincidence?
There are at least 2 books that deal with the relative merits of film adaptations of novels -- which is better, the novel or the film? Both of these books that I read seem to think that the film of "Magnificent Ambersons" is better than Tarkington's novel. I read the novel -- it is not written in a wordy old-fashioned style typical of novels of its day (1918) -- it's a "good read" by today's standards -- even a "great read" -- I'd say that the novel and the film are co-equals in terms of artistic excellence. Factory soot and general air pollution is a prominent theme in the novel, as in 2 other novels by Booth Tarkington (he collected the 3 novels together in one volume under the collective title "Growth"). Tarkington was also concerned about what we today call urban sprawl.
In both the film and novel, the name of Georgie's horse is mentioned several times -- "Pendennis" -- the title character of a 1850 novel by William Makepeace Thackery (who also wrote "Vanity Fair") -- "Pendennis" is a novel about snobbery (and surely Georgie is also a snob). For what it's worth, in my opinion, Tim Holt's portrayal of Georgie is just fine. And isn't it ironic that Tim Holt, son of cowboy actor Jack Holt, returned to the family business of B-Westerns (along with his sister Jennifer) after he turned in good performances in 2 of the greatest films ever made (his other major role was in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- he also had a minor role in "Stagecoach")?
Read the novel if you want a full explanation of how the Amberson family lost its fortune. Also, the film mentions that Aunt Fanny lost her money by investing in a "headlight company" -- the novel makes clear that this company is NOT connected with Eugene's automobile company.
Finally, as another reviewer pointed out, the non-Wellesian tacked-on studio ending for the film, though abrupt, is fairly faithful to the novel. I, too, wish I could see the 53 or 55 or 58 minutes of Welles's footage discarded by the studio, but I am not prepared to heap abuse or ridicule on the studio ending.
When A&E cable network commissioned a remake of Welles's film, it's too bad the expanded 150-minute running time was not better used to clarify the plot. The same thing happened when TV produced a miniseries remake of "The Long Hot Summer," loosely based on Faulkner's Snopes Trilogy (especially, the first novel, "The Hamlet") -- instead of restoring some of what's in the novels, the TV writers were asked to confine themselves to expanding the original screenplay. Another lost opportunity.
15 out of 18 found this helpful